Re: [tips_and_tricks] Re: Trojan Horse buried in Health Care Bill...New IRS Paperwork for You to fill out
- John Hill and I are in agreement on this, appearances to the contrary.
The drafters of the 16th Amendment were crafty in the way they made the amendment intentionally vague. To this day, even the IRS cites the 16th Amendment as providing the basis for the income tax, though it does not. As John points out, the Pollock court ruled or commented that "...a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes ..." Therefore an income tax on an individual is a direct tax and may not be imposed by the federal government without apportionment.
So what could the Supreme Court do about this? It made a series of determinations to the effect that:The 16th Amendment gave Congress no power of taxation that it did not previously have. BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 US 1 (1916), PECK v LOWE, 247 US 165 (1918)An income tax is an EXCISE when it is applied to a privilege, but when it is applied to a person and his property of any kind, including earnings, it is a DIRECT tax and thus unconstitutional unless apportioned.
Nor did it extend taxation to any new subjects of taxation. BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926)
That, in the corporation tax act of 1909 (passed before the 16th Amendment but in contemplation of it) the tax was not on income but on the privilege of being a corporation (only a federal corporation, but that has been corrupted). U S v. WHITRIDGE, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913)
The the INCOME of the corporation was used as a measure to determine the amount of tax owed. STRATTON’S INDEPENDENCE, LTD. v HOWBERT, 231 US 399 (1913)
That the term INCOME in all subsequent income tax acts has the same meaning as that determined with regard to the 1909 corporation tax. MERCHANTS’ LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921)
That Congress by legislation may not change the meaning of the term Income. EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189, 206 (1920)
That "Direct Taxes bear upon persons, upon possession and the enjoyment of rights; Indirect Taxes are levied upon the happening of an event." Knowlton v. Moore, 178 US 41, 47 (1900).
That “The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions..." Butcher's Union Co. v. Cresent City Co., 111 US 746 (1884)
That “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 US 105, at 113; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).
That “Nothing can be clearer than that what the constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any state through a majority made up from the other states.” Pollock vs. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429, 582 (1895)
That under the 16th Amendment the Congress cannot define and tax as income anything that that was not previously taxable as income. TAFT v. BOWERS, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929)
That "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Brothers' Stores 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943)
And the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that "...the Legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes occupations that are of common right, but it does have the power to declare as privileges and tax as such for state revenue purposes those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right..." Sims v. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557, 271 S.W. 720, 733 (1925)
An indirect tax is one which can be avoided. The only way to avoid income tax as administered by the IRS is to have no earnings (or to have earnings below a stated threshold level). About 46% of workers in the U.S. fall in this category. But that was not the intention of the Supreme Court in ruling that people have a right to their own labor.
The country was able to operate very successfully for 129 years without using an income tax (actually much longer, up until 1939 in practical terms). The income tax and its maladministration is a mechanism for requiring the people to pay the huge taxes which come about in the form of debt to the Federal Reserve and in the form of inflation caused by the Federal Reserve through fiat currency.The problem with the income tax as currently administered by the IRS and backed by the DOJ and the courts is NOT with the LAW, which makes it clear that an income tax on a private individual is a direct tax which must be apportioned, with with maladministration, collusion and enforcement through fear.
The question then becomes what the people can do about it? The answer lies basically in the Declaration of Independence, which is equally applicable to the present government of the United States as it was to the government of Britain under George III. Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and others feared and forecast that the government would become oppressive. They were "no guts, no glory" guys. If the American people of today do not muster the guts to just refuse en masse to file income tax returns and refuse to pay income taxes they do not owe, then they will continue to suffer from more and more repressive taxation. It cannot be done by a few brave individuals because the government has the power to crush them one by one. It must be done by multiple millions of people who pledge their "lives, their f-rtunes and their s-cred honor" to attack the problem and win.
================================On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Hill <otoman@...> wrote:
It appears to me that the court is clear that a tax on real property, and income derived there from, falls into the category of "direct taxation." If you continue with further research into this case, you should find that the Pollock case is very firm on "considering the source" of the income. The reason for this is simply because the Constitution demands the source to be considered. The Sixteenth Amendment surely does say that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, without considering apportionment. In other words, Congress has the power to do such under an "INDIRECT TAX." Keep in mind that the sixteenth amend. does not say WHO or WHAT the recipient of the tax is! Pollock clarified that if the recipient of the tax is a common citizen, then the common citizen cannot be taxed on his income from rental property, under an income tax (indirect tax). That is why the Pollock court struck down only the section of the INCOME tax they were considering. That section being a tax on income from property, upon the common man, which WAS NOT APPORTIONED according to the precepts of the Constitution. The rest of the income tax law of 1895 that was upheld applied only to those that derived special privilege form the state. In other words, the court clarified that the owning of property by the common man is a right granted by the very nature of things and that that income cannot be taxed under an "INCOME TAX." Again in other words, the owning of property by the common man, and income derived there from cannot be taxed as a "privilege" under an "INCOME TAX". IT IS A RIGHT, NOT A PRIVILEGE! AM-N