11 votes

What most people don't understand about income tax

If Congress creates a "Church Attendance Tax" is it unconstitutional?

ONLY if "church" means church in the ordinary sense, and "attendance" means attendance in the ordinary sense. If congress creates "Special Definitions", as they OFTEN do, and as they did in Title 26, the Income Tax Code, THEN the special definitions are of major importance.

For example, if "Church" was defined as:

    "For the purpose of this section, 'church' includes any Federally established Church or Religious service."


then you would see how the code made sense, and was in FACT NOT unconstitutional, as it only applied to Federal Churches.

Well, as you can imagine, the same thing happened with "Income"
The Supreme court defined "Income" as "Profit or gain from corporate activity".
Well, people were making a lot of money on dividends and other (indirect) means from shares of corporate stock. When congress tried to tax it, many people fought that this dividend did not "derived from corporate activity", and it was simply a profit from investing, and therefore not "INCOME" as defined.

This is what led to the 16th Amendment. (Remember what "INCOME" means as you read the text of the 16th)

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is why your tax forms asks you to list your "wages, tips, and other remuneration" instead of simply asking for your "Income"

THAT IS PART 1,

the second part of Income Tax:
If the Income Tax were a tax on your labor, it would be a "Direct Tax", since it is a tax on the activity of Privileged Corporations, thus avoidable, it is an indirect tax.

However, when they do tax your labor (as they always do) it is a "Direct Tax". What does the Constitution say about Direct Taxes?
It says that Direct taxes, AND REPRESENTATION shall be apportioned among the states (of the Union).
YOu should note that the District of Columbia does NOT HAVE REPRESENTATION!!!! This is because they are NOT A state...

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?????

Because, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, that means that the section of the Constitution that CLEARLY STATES:

    "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states"

DOES NOT APPLY!

SO, if they DONT HAVE REPRESENTATION, then they ARE ALLOWED to direct tax!

Which is why, Title 26 defines "State" as the District of Columbia,
and "United States" as the District of Columbia and other Federal zones (where that section of the Constitution also does not apply)

and why you are :

    Treated as residing in the District of Columbia

if you live in one of the 50 states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_000077...
(remember "United States" and "States" is defined as the District of COlumbia at (9)and (10) of this same section)

PART 3.

the third way to pay income tax, is by voluntarily gifting a tax to the U.S.

Of course the W-2, W-4, 1099, 1040, etc are all "Gift Tax" or "Estate Tax" forms.

See: http://www.famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Employers/AllWithholdingIsAGift!.pdf

http://sedm1.org/Forms/MemLaw/DefraudLabor.pdf

The point is, if you continue to think "Income tax" is unconstitutional, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that "Income" means anything you trade your labor for, you will get nowhere.
If you continue to think that Congress has the authority to lay a Direct tax on you, you will get nowhere.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What most people don't understand about income tax

Have you ever tried (like Aaron Russo) and really ask most people on the street about income tax?

They don't know anything. Even it's creation into the system. It will only be when they truly understand what was done in 1913 that they'll "get it"

Back to square one. =/

Not to mention the fact that the Fed....

was created the same year! 'We are confident that these incidents are not an accident, as per our investigation!'~~PFR

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Direct without Apportionment or indirect Excise?

The Congressional record indicates that the 16th amendment is NOT a direct tax. They rejected language which would have eliminated the requirement for apportionment. It did not confer any new taxing power upon the government as held by the Supreme Court. The only way that the 16th amendment can be viewed in light of the court and legislative intent is that it is a clarification on the power of Congress to levy an excise on privileged activity.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/16Amend/LegIntent16thA...

republic

Its a DIRECT tax not subject

Its a DIRECT tax not subject to apportionment. That's it. Read my other posts.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Ok... What did the 21st

Ok...

What did the 21st Amendment do?

    Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

It repealed part of the Constitution in order to change the Constitution, in this particular case it changed the 18th Amendment, but as you correctly pointed out amendments are part of the Constitution, and Constitutional.

Did the 16th Amendment repeal anything?

No, so that means that the Amendment either added something to the Constitution, or clarified something that already existed...in this case it added nothing to the taxing power and instead clarified the taxing power, pursuant to the case you 'partially' cited:

    It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, § 2, cl. 3, § 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601. The Amendment relieved from that requirement, and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17. "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330, 247 U. S. 335; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509, 255 U. S. 219.

Since some Income taxes "had been held to be Direct taxes" (In Error according to the court), the 16th Amendment was drafted to Remove Income taxes from the Class of Direct and place them into the class of InDirect where they always belonged:

    ''[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.''Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).

The 16th Amendment Basically said:
"Look here courts. Privileged activity, such as Corporations, and Government Work have always been taxable as an Indirect tax, so stop calling them Direct Taxes, because they are not. So long as they derive from a privileged source, and are not a tax on common right, leave us be!"

And that is what happened, dividends, bonds, stocks, and all other privileged activity has been legally taxed by Congress since.

NOW, with that said, the IRS will claim that the Income tax IS a direct tax (on occasion) this is because their jurisdiction is limited to the District of Columbia and the Territories where an unaportioned direct tax may be levied....perhaps this is your confusion. If you work for the IRS, or if you ask the IRS if the Income tax is a direct tax they will say yes. This is done on purpose. They have the privilege of presuming that you are referring to their Jurisdiction when you ask them questions, because they have no jurisdiction of Direct Taxation in the states of the Union.

But you must also remember that if you are a statutory "citizen OF the United States" or a "Resident OF the United States" and if you have Contracted with the IRS by filing forms with them, then you will be "treated as residing in the District of Columbia".

Congress has 3 possible ways, that I know of, to have a legal "Direct Tax" on your revenue from labor.

1) to have a private person volunteer a return as a "Gift tax", refer to the IRS D.L.N number http://www.famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Evidence/Employers/AllWithholdingIsAGift!.pdf
technically this would be an indirect tax because it would be avoidable, but if they trick you into it, then it would be similar to a direct tax.

2) to have all Americans place themselves in the District of Columbia, or other federal territory where Direct Taxes need not be apportioned.
see USC Title 26, 7701(39) *(United States means the District of Columbia and federal territories pursuant to USC Title 26, 7701(9)(10))

(39) Persons residing outside United States*
If any citizen or resident of the United States* does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States* judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

3) Or to classify ALL AMERICANS (with SS numbers) as "Federal Personnel" who are exempted from protection of the Constitution.
(13) the term “Federal personnel” means officers and employees of the Government of the United States, members of the uniformed services (including members of the Reserve Components), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States (including survivor benefits).

Good luck with your mission..

Good luck with your mission.. Try it in court.. LOL

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

grow up, Troglodyte.

your comment was rude. it added nothing to a well wrote and important post.

you remind me of this guy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlRXQEA0yj0&feature=player_em...

And Troglodyte is not rude?

And Troglodyte is not rude? You mean after I spent the last week trying to correct this guy's erroneous opinion, my comment is rude? LOL very funny...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

what is the "erroneous"

what is the "erroneous" part?

You show me one supreme court cite that claims that income tax is a direct tax, after the 16th Amendment.

It isnt even a tax on Income, it is a tax on an activity, and only measured by Income. Im afraid you should re-research if you care to know the truth.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment16/...

I don't really have a

I don't really have a "mission" I just like to point out facts and not opinions. I appreciate your views, but they didn't seem to be supported by one single fact or case, that I saw. When the supreme court says that income taxes are excise taxes, and that income tax is not a direct tax, then it is hard for me to consider the idea that they are a direct tax. Furthermore, by reading the tax code, I know that they are a tax on privileged avoidable activity, and not a tax on common right.

The case you cited said exactly what several on here have claimed. The 16th Amendment made sure that a tax on "Income" (as that term is defined) would NEVER be considered a direct tax requiring apportionment, but instead, it would ALWAYS be "in the category of indirect taxes" where it always belonged.

Tax Appeals are up

I understand this. Shrinking revenues due to diminisihing returns on property values will lead to more borrowing and issuing of bonds from counties or defaults will ensue. I do not think budget cuts are in the offerings.

I think counties are headed for federal bailouts in exchange for their respective jusrisdictions imo.

Will the federal government have to get into the act of collecting commercial and residential property taxes?

donvino

The 16th Amendment

Does nothing more than close a loophole in what is otherwise a constitutional excise (privilege) tax, the SCOTUS has ruled on this repeatedly. The problem is the criminal IRS misapplying this tax to those that aren't liable by law! Remember Article I sec. 9 "No Capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census...
Yes, you must know the meaning of the terms used in the IRC as they do not apply to a majority of Americans who trade their labor for FRNs, barter, etc... because they aren't engaged in federally privileged activity. The above article is correct in that D.C. is not a state like the 50 states, being independent sovereign republics, but a federal state. For more on this subject and why the Income Tax may not apply to you see http://losthorizons.com for the liberating truth!

Quick clarification, when you

Quick clarification, when you say "IRS misapplying this tax to those that aren't liable by law!" it is a little misleading.

The only reason the IRS is applying these laws to anyone, is because they have used a voluntary Federal Identification number in connection with their work, thereby turning their employment into a "trade or business", and allowing for the IRS to presume that they are:
1) in the "United States"
2) A federal person aka "federal personnel"
3) engaged in a "trade or business"
4) accepting a benefit of the federal government
5) wish to "treated as residing in the district of Columbia"
6) a statutory citizen of the United States
7) receiving "taxable income"
and so on...

After all, why would anyone submit a a Social Security Number to their employer if they did not wish to partake in Social Security? Why would someone submit forms to the government to entertain the right to work? Why would a sovereign American have a Social Security number if they are not a federal person, or lawfully admitted alien? Why would someone file a return that was not required to unless they had income?
and on and on

Agreed

We, the citizenry, became FEDERALIZED in 1938. In 1933, HJR 192 set the preparatory stage. The secrecy lies in the Federal language in Title 26-- which could only be written by lawyers!

An Amendment does NOT NECESSARILY make it Constitutional

The 16th Amendment was meant to CHANGE what the Constitution already said about taxation.

It did not ALLOW for a personal income tax by the federal government.

OTHERWISE we would ALREADY HAVE HAD AN INCOME TAX PER the Constitution.

BUT they could NOT DO IT without CHANGING the law of the land; the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment IS NOT IN KEEPING with the SPIRIT of our CONSTITUTION!

THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT of fighting the immoral federal income tax which was imposed under the biggest Socialist-Communist-rotted-immoral president EVER (Woodrow Wilson).

Along with his other nice Anti-American acts like..

The Federal Reserve Act and...

Limiting the size of the House of Representatives to 435 (the only branch of government DESIGNED TO GROW with the population because they DIRECTLY represent WE the PEOPLE and...

Dragging us into World War I which we had no business fighting.

To become free citizens again WE MUST REPEAL THE 16th AMENDMENT.

OTHERWISE, we'll continue to be wage slaves until we die.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

"An Amendment does NOT

"An Amendment does NOT NECESSARILY make it Constitutional" What are you talking about? An amendment is just that. To AMEND the Constitution. That IS Constitutional once adapted.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

WRONG Middleton...

I REPEAT...

"An Amendment does NOT NECESSARILY make it Constitutional"

What I mean is that if an Amendment goes against the spirit (or actual meaning) of what the founders meant, but is voted in anyway (by a congress that may not have much love for the original constitution) then it is not "Constitutional" in nature.

If you believe that the progressive (Do you know what that means?) federal income tax is in keeping with the spirit of our Constitution, then you don't really believe in liberty in my opinion.

Thomas Jefferson would go through the roof if he saw what the rotted IRS (which did not exist at the time of our founding) does to Americans.

We are NOT free people anymore because the government takes a large portion of the fruits of our labors WHICH IS OUR PERSONAL PROPERTY, and re-distributes it to lazy people (and lazy countries) as a form of forced charity to garner votes for their own benefits.

HIGHLY UN-CONSTITUTIONAL.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Geez. The point of being

Geez. The point of being made part of the Constitution MAKES it Constitutional. You are arguing morality vs. Constitutionality.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Hummmm...

...

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win!"
GANDHI

"The belief is worthless if the fear of social and physical punishment overrides the belief."

i thought everybody here

i thought everybody here already knew this stuff

Apparently you don't

Apparently you don't understand the tax either. It IS a DIRECT TAX. That was the purpose for 16th Amendment, to remove the apportionment part previously in the Constitution.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937)

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. 1, & 8. "IF THE TAX IS A DIRECT ONE, IT SHALL BE APPORTIONED ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OR ENUMERATION." If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an "import", or a "duty". A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."

Income Tax

Brian. Your mis-understanding is a common one. The Supreme Court ruled that the income tax is an indirect, excise tax. Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR (1915)It is still good law, never overturned.
So, if indirect- you can avoid it. I know how. wshields@comcast.net

“...taxes are not raised to carry on wars, but that wars are raised to carry on taxes”
Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

"Brian. Your

"Brian. Your mis-understanding is a common one." It is the other way around. You misunderstand it. The point of the 16th Amendment was to remove the apportionment for direct taxes and allow congress to tax income whether direct or indirect.

"This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913."

I.e they had ruled taxes on income to be direct taxes, and therefore unconstitutional, thus the reason for the 16th amendment to "fix that" issue. Summary: The 16the amendment removed the requirement whether the tax was direct or indirect.

If you don't believe me, go to court and argue otherwise and see what happens.

Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

unreal! It exempted "Income"

unreal! It exempted "Income" tax from the apportionment requirement, because taxes on rents, dividends, and interest are not DIRECT! THESE things are privileged avoidable corporate activities!!

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-20...

    Two years later the Court decided Eisner v. Macomber, 18 and
    the controversy which that decision precipitated still endures. Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment
    in the earlier cases, i.e., that the purpose of the Amendment
    was to correct the ‘‘error’’ committed in the Pollock case and to restore income taxation to ‘‘the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,’’ Justice Pitney, who delivered the Court’s opinion in the Eisner case, indicated that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was merely to ‘‘remove the necessity which
    otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of
    taxes laid on income.’’ He thereupon undertook to demonstrate how
    what was not income, but an increment of capital when received,
    could later be transmitted into income upon sale or conversion and
    could be taxed as such without the necessity of apportionment. In
    short, the term ‘‘income’’ acquired to some indefinite extent a restrictive significance.
    ...
    But conceding
    that a stock dividend represented a gain, the Justice concluded
    that the only gain taxable as ‘‘income’’ under the Amendment was
    ‘‘a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from
    the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed,
    and coming in, being ‘derived,’ that is, received or drawn
    by the recipient [the taxpayer] for his separate use, benefit, and
    disposal;
    . . . .’’ Only the latter in his opinion, answered the description
    of income ‘‘derived’’ from property, whereas ‘‘a gain accruing
    to a capital, not a growth or an increment of value in the investment’’
    did not.

Not sure what you know about wikipedia, but it should not be used as a reliable source!

http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/11/24/court-holds-...

    In State v. Flores, an unpublished decision by the Texas Court of Appeals for the 14th District dated October 23, 2008, the court refused the appellant’s request to take judicial notice of a Wikipedia entry describing the “John Reid interrogation technique.” The court reasoned in footnote 3 that Wikipedia entries are inherently unreliable because they can be written and edited anonymously by anyone. The court relied on a recent article from the Wall Street Journal entitled Wikipedians Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt, noting that the egalitarian nature of Wikipedia is both “its greatest strength and its greatest weakness.”

Income tax is NOT a direct

Income tax is NOT a direct tax, it is an excise tax on an activity. The 16th Amendment did NOT change the taxing power of congress, it only clarified that a tax on "Income" (as that term is defined to mean a tax on corporate or government privileged activity) could be levied regardless of the source.

    "The 16th Amendment must be construed in the connection with the taxing clause of the original Constitution" ... "this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects." Eisner v. Macomber, 40 S.Ct. 192 (1920), 252 US 189 (1919)

see also:

    "It moreover rests upon the wholly fallacious [240 U.S. 103, 114] assumption that, looked at from the point of view of substance, a tax on the product of a mine is necessarily in its essence and nature in every case a direct tax on property because of its ownership, unless adequate allowance be made for the exhaustion of the ore body to result from working the mine. We say wholly fallacious assumption because, independently of the effect of the operation of the 16th Amendment, it was settled in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 , 58 L. ed. 285, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 136, that such tax is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but a true excise levied on the results of the business of carrying on mining operations." STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

You, not being learned in Title 26, the IRC, Court Cases, etc, believe that the income tax is a tax on you or your labor, but it is not. It is a tax on your position as a privileged person pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552, and your use of your Government Identification number that makes you a "public office". Those engaged in a "trade or business" are liable for an income tax, and the tax is on the privileged activity of being Federal Personnel.

Working for the Government was a taxable act in 1862, long before the 16th Amendment.

see the definition of "Trade or Business"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00007701----...
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

all Federal Personnel are considered a "public office".

Lastly, the 16 Amendment did not repeal the apportionment clause, which means it is still in effect. The Constitution cannot contradict itself, or as the Supreme Court said "destroy" itself.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&...

    “We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear…”

    "But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned...This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. "
    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916)

If the Income tax WAS on your labor, it would then be a Direct Tax subject to apportionment...but there is something more to it that you (and many others) are missing. There is a reason that the Social Security Number, or Tax I.D. are used with connections of work.

http://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX07.006.pdf

    Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937) "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth
    Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or
    compensation for any type of labor
    ."
    Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on
    occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/142862
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/136332

You can believe whatever you

You can believe whatever you want to believe. I already went o ver with this with you and you still hide your head in the sand. Even the Brushaber case states that.

Again, explain the point of the 16th Amendment?

But before you answer, read Wiki.

"The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913."

You can argue until you are blue in the face, but that was the purpose of the 16th amedment. to EXEMPT income taxes, as direct taxes, from the apportionment clause.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

you need to research more, the IRS plan is working on you!

http://www.irs.gov/irm/part1/irm_01-005-002.html#d0e20

1.5.2.2 (06-01-2010)
Purpose

    1.Our system of taxation is dependent on taxpayers' belief that:

    1.The tax laws they follow apply to everyone.
    2.The IRS will respect and protect their rights under the law.

The point(purpose) of the 16th Amendment was two fold.

One, it was to make the average American think that a direct tax on their compensation for labor could legally be taxed by congress (which has worked very well) Remember the 14th Amendment was also two fold, it made the average American think that he was "subject to the jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES" and therefore a lowercase "c" citizen of the United States, aka a "federal citizen"...this also worked well.

The Second purpose of the 16th Amendment was to clarify that "Income", (as that term is and has been specifically defined by the supreme court as a tax on privileged earnings, and specifically NOT a tax on ones labor) could always be taxed by Congress without apportionment, because it is not a Direct tax. People had been taking advantage of 'loopholes' in the tax code that had always taxed "Income". They were claiming 'dividends' held from a trust were not taxable, or that Stock shares held after change of company ownership were not taxable, or that proceeds from the sale of a corporate closing auction were not taxable, and so on.

So, the cunning lawyers that they are wrote an Amendment to allow for a tax on "Income" from whatever source derived...but as you should know by now "Income" is not synonymous with money. It has a fixed meaning.

##### WARNING ###### ANALOGY and Experiment Time, pretend this is an Amendment:
"Every person must pay a 90% tax on their Flumants regardless of where they come from"

Now, lets say the Supreme Court (repeatedly) defines "Flumants" as:

    "Flumants are understood to mean Gold and Silver coins, provided that they are from a shipwreck." U.S. v. fakecase 620 W. 121-122,

    "In order for a Gold coin to be a flumant, it must come from a shipwreck" US v. Phoneytrial 135 US wheat, 890-894

    "Of course it is well known that flumants always come from the sea, it would be impossible to construe that a shipwreck is derived from anywhere else."
    In re Thirdfakecase 237 US 9 (1921)

Now you see that Gold and Silver coins ALWAYS have to be from a shipwreck in order to be a "Flumant". So if over the course of time people begin calling all gold and silver coins "flumants" out of a lack of understanding, then you can see how the confusion would set in.

Well, lets assume some guy runs across all of the past case law clearly showing that "Flumants" must be from a shipwreck...even though the Amendment and the law says all "flumants regardless of where they came from"...this can only mean that a 90% tax is applied to all "flumants", meaning gold and silver coins from a shipwreck, regardless of where they came from...so if it came from a shipwreck in Jamaica, taxable...if it came from a shipwreck in Nigeria, taxable, if it is a gold coin from the mint, not taxable, gold coin from a buried treasure, not taxable.

Follow?

This is what "Income" is, a specifically defined word meaning "profit or gain from a privileged activity, NOT a compensation for labor."
The rub is, that every time you use your social security number, in order to have social security benefits taken out and held for you, you have exited the rightful labor field, and entered into the privileged activity field...now, everything you earn in connection with that number is "Income", profit or gain from a privileged activity.

I really hope this helps.

    Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902: "Constitutionally the only thing that can
    be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as
    distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT
    CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..."

    Conner v U.S., 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston, never overruled: "..whatever may
    constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the
    time of Eisner V Mcomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it
    is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income,
    CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!!

    Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 (1926): "Income" has been taken to mean the same
    thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the
    various revenue acts subsequently passed ...."

    Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): "The conclusion reached in the Pollock
    Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the
    class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in
    its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."

    Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on
    occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax
    as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a
    'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

    Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), US Supreme court, never overruled: ". ..the definition of
    'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,
    provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."

    Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. vs Matthews, 345 Pa. 230 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or
    services rendered is not profit"

    Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643: "Income is realized gain."

Also, wikipedia is Not a reliable source of info:

http://www.stefankulk.nl/index.php/436/u-s-court-of-internat...

    description of this process. (See Pl.’s Resp. 4–6.) Wikipedia is a “user-contributed online
    encyclopedia” compiled of articles placed on “[w]eb sites that allow users to directly edit any
    [w]eb page on their own from their home computer.” Thomas L. Friedman, The World is Flat: A
    Brief History of the Twenty-First Century 94 (Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2005). Wikipedia’s
    construction is based on the theory that “allowing anyone who surfs along to add or delete
    content on that page” will result in “a credible, balanced encyclopedia by way of an ad hoc opensource,
    open-editing movement.” Id. Although the court is aware that some studies have led
    prominent scholars to promote Wikipedia’s veracity, see Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of
    Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom 71–72 (Yale University
    Press 2006), and acknowledges that several circuit courts have relied on it in opinions, see, e.g.,
    Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay, Inc., 600 F.3d 93, 96 n.1 (2nd Cir. 2010); United States v. Lane, 591
    F.3d 921, 924 n.1 (7th Cir. 2010); Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149, 156 n.9 (4th Cir. 2009),
    countless district courts have held that “Wikipedia is not a reliable source at this level of
    discourse,”
    Kole v. Astrue, No. CV 08-0411-LMB, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31245, at *18 n.3 (D.
    Idaho Mar. 31, 2010); see also Nuton v. Astrue, No. SKG-08-1292, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
    30755, at *4 n.1 (D. Md. Mar. 30, 2010); Techradium, Inc. v. Blackboard Connect Inc., No. 2-
    08-CV-00214-TJW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36083, at *13 n.5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2009);
    Capcom Co. v. MKR Group, Inc.,

AND

    We agree with those courts that have found Wikipedia to be an unreliable source of
    information.
    See, e.g., Badasa v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909, 910-11 (8th Cir. 2008)

When you answer the ONE

When you answer the ONE question I have asked several times, I will engage with you. But I know you won't.

What was the purpose of the 16th amendment?

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

The purpose of the 16th amendment was to clarify that

a tax on "income" as defined by Congress at the time in law, and as understood by the People when it was ratified, was and always was, an indirect excise thus it was NOT REQUIRED to be apportioned.

It did NOT create a third, heretofore unknown class of taxation, that of a direct unapportioned tax.

The amendment was a CLARIFICATION that the tax was INDIRECT.

If you would have read all those court citations above you'd have seen that by now.