Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: MOTION TO DISMISS INCOME TAX INDICTMENT-- Rebuttal of US v Vroman, 975 F2d 669

Expand Messages
  • BOB GREGORY
    This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse. The Pollock decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid (though only
    Message 1 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
    • 0 Attachment

      This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse.  The Pollock decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid (though only that part of the act which taxed rents from property was found unconstitutional because the source, property, can only be taxed by the federal government with apportionment).  [Note that interest and dividends are forms of income from property just as is rent from real property.]  The 16th Amendment was created to remove the link between the source and the income therefrom.  The effect of Pollock and the changes wrought by the 16th Amendment were pretty well discussed by the SCOTUS in early twentieth century cases, beginning with Brushaber.  Yet sources still have an important place in determining taxability, or else the Congress would not keep leaving language in the 1986 tax code such as is found in 26 USC 861.  Graves v. New York deals with the specific matter of taxability of income from government bonds.

      rebel382003 wrote:
       

      The following two paragraphs have been lifted from South Carolina v Baker. They evidence Pollock was overruled in 1939. The 16th. Amendment is redundant. As Mr. Bass said, Pollock did not address the merits of a tax upon remuneration for labor.

      ************ ********* ********* ********* ********

      "The rationale underlying Pollock and the general immunity for government contract income has been thoroughly repudiated by modern intergovernmental immunity case law. In Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), the Court announced: `The theory . . . that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.' Id., at 480." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 520]

      " We thus confirm that subsequent case law has overruled the holding in Pollock that state bond interest is immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. We see no constitutional reason for treating persons who receive interest on government bonds differently than persons who receive income from other types of contracts with the government, and no tenable rationale for distinguishing the costs imposed on States by a tax on state bond interest from the costs imposed." FROM South Carolina v Baker, [485 U.S. 505, 525]

      ************ ********* ********* **

      --- In tips_and_tricks@ yahoogroups. com, Cliff Bass <cliff_bass@ ...> wrote:
      >
      > Graves v New York was concerned with the state taxing of an attorney's remuneration.� That attorney was an officer of a federal corporation.� And the state tax was not placed upon the corporation but upon the remuneration, property, of that officer.�
      >


    • rebel382003
      The IRS uses 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as all other taxes. They therefore cannot identify a known legal duty for an income tax in an
      Message 2 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        The IRS uses 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as all other taxes. They therefore cannot identify a "known legal duty" for an income tax in an indictment. Other tax prosecutions additionally identify a liability (known legal duty) statute. Income tax prosecutions do not.

        There is NO crime alleged in an income tax indictment.

        ***************************



        --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "jake_28079" <jake_28079@...> wrote:
        >
        > < The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.>
        >
        > Not that I've seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th is claimed as the source in some IRS publications & form-letters I've seen. In administrative procedures with the IRS you could demand they show how the 16th specifically authorizes the current income tax, but as "rebel382003" says, arguing over the 16th Amendment in court is "an exercise in futility", putting a burden of proof on you that you cannot meet.
        >
        > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        >
        > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rebel382003" <rebel382003@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
        > >
        >
      • rebel382003
        The IRS relies upon statutes 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as for all other taxes. Those statutes therefore cannot identify a known legal
        Message 3 of 28 , Oct 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          The IRS relies upon statutes 7201 thru 7214 for income tax prosecutions as well as for all other taxes. Those statutes therefore cannot identify a "known legal duty" for an income tax. A known legal duty must be alleged for a valid indictment. Ref. Cheek v US.

          Other tax prosecutions (gambling taxes, fuel taxes, admissions taxes, etc.) additionally allege a liability (known legal duty) statute. Income tax prosecutions do not.

          There is NO CRIME ALLEGED in an income tax indictment. They are not valid indictments.

          *****************************************



          --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "jake_28079" <jake_28079@...> wrote:
          >
          > < The 16th. Amendment is never alleged in any indictments as a source of authority for a tax.>
          >
          > Not that I've seen, rather statutes are cited, however, the 16th is claimed as the source in some IRS publications & form-letters I've seen. In administrative procedures with the IRS you could demand they show how the 16th specifically authorizes the current income tax, but as "rebel382003" says, arguing over the 16th Amendment in court is "an exercise in futility", putting a burden of proof on you that you cannot meet.
          >
          > ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
          >
          > --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "rebel382003" <rebel382003@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Arguing the status of the 16th. Amendment is an exercise in futility. If attempted in a court, it allows the judge to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant to prove there is no possible way the income tax might be valid. There is no way that that can be accomplished.
          > >
          >
        • Don S.
          Bob, Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true gain or profit. Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.
          Message 4 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Bob,

            Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true
            gain or profit.

            Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.

            There may be some "profit/ gain" in rental fees, but not the entire
            rent.

            It is like wages for labor, it is an equal trade of money for
            an equal trade of labor.

            There is not gain or profit in wages for labor.








            At 09:16 AM 10/3/09 -0500, you wrote:
            >This approach seems to put the cart in front of the horse. The Pollock
            >decision was rendered in 1895 and made the income tax act of 1894 invalid
            >(though only that part of the act which taxed rents from property was
            >found unconstitutional because the source, property, can only be taxed by
            >the federal government with apportionment).
          • rebel382003
            The Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered the
            Message 5 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              The Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered the cases as a tax levied upon capital investments ( a `source') which the court distinguished from a tax levied on remuneration from labor (another source).

              This is the application of `source' as found in the 16th. Amendment.

              Indictments in pursuit of income tax violations do not identify a `source' as being relevant. In fact, indictments do not even allege a crime. The SC has unequivocally declared indictments without a crime as having no standing before the court.

              As analyzed in the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/17162 post that initiated this thread, there is NO crime identified in any indictment/information filed in pursuit of an income tax prosecution. The indictments are bogus and have been for 40 years. An adequate Motion should get them thrown out of court. Yet there has not been one comment that has objected to the conclusion.

              *******************************
            • B
              I think you are missing a very critical link related to TERMS vs WORDS . The term WAGES as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one must
              Message 6 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                I think you are missing a very critical link related to "TERMS" vs "WORDS". The term "WAGES" as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one must understand just what "TERMS" and "WORDS" Congress, or for that matter, any legislative body uses when drafting laws. If fact, if you don't understand what the definitions that the law writer provides for the "TERMS" they use you will always keep spinning around and around with discussion points like the one I am responding to.

                Try to learn the rules of statutory construction and the difference between "TERMS" and "words' and you will have half the battle won. Perhaps a quick read of this link will help you understand why most people never understand why they it appears that the laws say one thing when they in fact say just the opposite: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/tx024.htm

                Happy reading...

                --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "Don S." <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > Bob,
                >
                > Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true
                > gain or profit.
                >
                > Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.