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.

WRONG! Read my other posts.

WRONG! Read my other posts. Amendments are not adapted to "clarify" anything. They are adapted to REMOVE prior clauses, or ADD new clauses.

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

Brain, it is you sir who are wrong, and the Supreme

Court disagrees with you.

Perhaps you need to go read the cases from the 20's on the subject when they issued these rulings.

They are the one's who stated what I posted, not me. I just repeated it here for your benefit.

But if you want to insist they are morons and don't know what they hell they are talking about and that you alone better understand 235 years of constitutional jurisprudence, you just go right ahead on doing that. Enjoy paying the tax you likely don't owe, or else enjoy prison. Suit yourself.

Answer me these 2

Answer me these 2 questions:

1. Why did Congress need to enact the 16th Amendment?
2. What type of tax MUST be apportioned.

You are going to lose this argument, but I'll be happy to engage. Should be fun..

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

1. To overrule the Pollock

1. To overrule the Pollock case. The courts were [incorrectly] ruling that a tax on property, such as dividends, stock shares, etc. were a 'direct tax' subject to apportionment. The 16th Amendment was to "correct the error" in the pollock decision":
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/034.pdf

    Two years later the Court decided Eisner v. Macomber, 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,’’

Because some courts were seeing the tax as a tax on 'property' instead of on the 'source' where the 'property derived. Justice Pitney had a slightly different view:

    "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."

Imagine the Federal Government gives you a gold medal. While it is yours, it may not be taxable, but as soon as you sell it, or 'convert it', then the 'profit' made would become 'taxable income', because the original 'source' of that Income was the Federal Government. The earlier courts were stating that the profits made were from YOUR property, thus they were ignoring the "SOURCE".

Answer 2. All direct taxes laid in the States of the Union must be apportioned. Direct taxes CAN however be laid in the District of Columbia or other federal zones without apportionment.
http://www.eveandersson.com/photos/usa/dc/license-plate-taxa...

This is because the clause that requires that direct taxes be apportioned includes only the states:

Art I Sec 2, clause 3
"

    Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

This is why D.C doesn't have Representation.

########SIDE NOTE########

IF you are a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States" your representatives must also be apportioned, but there is no mention of a Direct tax on you requiring apportionment.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

    14th Amendment, Section 2.

    "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Some may say that the Direct Tax clause in the original Constitution Art I, sec 2, and 9 applies to all citizens, but it should be noted that the original Constitution applies to "Citizens" with a capital "C". This is because the 14th Amendment CREATED a new class of citizen that could not have been thought of in the original Constitution. This is why the 14th Amendment had new provisions for THOSE citizens regarding representation, due process, and life and liberty.

    U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."

    "A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
    82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.

    "...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship".
    [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940) ]

    "There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such".
    [Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900) ]

    "We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of it's own..."
    [United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]

    Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship." Jones v. Temmer (1994), 829 F. Supp. 1226, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14 section 1

    "Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state." Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.433, citing U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), 92 U.S. 542, 549, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875), Slaughter-House Cases (1872), 83 U.S. 36; 1872 U.S. LEXIS 1139; 21 L. Ed. 394; 16 Wall. 36

ok Brian, thank you... I

ok Brian, thank you...

I think you have your mind made up, so why are you asking questions that you don't want the answer to? Quit wasting our time.

I dont think you're reading the answers.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/034.pdf

from the US Govt.

    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.

I cant make it any shorter than that without just giving opinion.

Until you can wrap your head around the fact that "Income" does NOT MEAN MONEY but rather means Profit from Corporate activity, you will never understand.

If you take the time to read the entire Pollock case you will see that Charles Pollock was a stockholder of a New York Corporation, and his "Income" was being taxed, presumably unconstitutionally...but the "Income" in question was Pollocks dividends, as were affected by a Federal tax on the Rents of Corporate owned Income properties, and on interest of Corporate bonds. Both of these types of Income were ALREADY TAXABLE by Congress, but because Pollock made the claim that his property (the dividends) were directly affected by this tax, the court ruled that it was a Direct Tax on Pollock. This is why the courts have stated:

    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,’’

"In Eisner V Macomber the Court held that a stock dividend was capital when received by a stockholder of the issuing corporation and did not become taxable without apportionment, that is, as ‘‘income,’’
until sold or converted, and then only to the extent that a gain was realized upon the proportion of the original investment which such stock represented."

see here, only "Income" is taxable...This is why Congress set out to clarify for the "error" decision in Pollock, that all INCOME (as defined) was taxable, regardless of the source derived...if it was a dividend, it was taxable...if it was a stock sale, taxable, if it was an asset conversion, taxable, if it was the compensation for an officer of a corporation, taxable. All of these activities are privileged activities.

You don't even realize it,

You don't even realize it, but you are quoting court cases that say what I have been saying. That the 16th Amendment was adapted so to remove the APPORTIONMENT REQUIREMENT for income taxes, being a that it is a DIRECT TAX. Read the Brushaner case again with THAT in mind and you may start to rethink your erroneous position.

Your own quote: "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.’

Read it again. I know you have been following the patriots who have misconstrued the purpose of the Amendment, but that doesn't mean you are right.

The definition of income is NOT relevant to the purpose of the 16th Amendment. Go argue the meaning of income with the courts. Good luck.

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

removing the Constitutional

removing the Constitutional requirement of apportionment of Direct taxes wouldn't be stated in terms of "merely"...

"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.’

It removed the necessity of the apportionment, not by repealing the original Constitution, but by 'merely' clarifying that "Income" tax is an indirect tax on an activity, and NOT a direct tax.

Attorney Tom Cryer explains it well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psPkblKxdzQ

Learn your history. The

Learn your history. The Pollock case ruled that a DIRECT income tax was UNconstitutional BECAUSE it was NOT apportioned. Congress dealt with THAT issue by adapting the 16th Amendment so to REMOVE THAT requirement from INCOME TAXES!. That was the SOLE purpose. You can keep arguing against that, but it will not change that fact and legal standard. Income taxes are NOT indirect taxes.

People that claim that are completely misinformed.

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

The people who claim that income taxes are indirect

is a group of five justices of the US Supreme Court. Are you telling us when they issued that decision they were "misinformed?"

Go read those cases again if necessary. It does NOT create

a third class of taxes.

It does not relieve a DIRECT tax of the apportionment requirement. It clarifies that the tax is INDIRECT and thus does not require apportionment.

I dare you to find a case where someone did not file forms with the government, was paid for his private labor in one of the 50 States, and was prosecuted for willful failure to file or for not paying the tax. You won't. Because the tax does NOT apply to this situation. It is an indirect tax. The Supreme court in the cases above has stated this over and over.

Modern cases all deal with someone who has previously filed paperwork claiming to be a taxpayer, and then for those years in question, in court, tries to claim the law does not apply to them. (when a "taxpayer" is someone upon whom an internal revenue tax has been levied)

WRONG! Read my other posts,

WRONG! Read my other posts, but more importantly read what the Supreme Court said:

See Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926):

"Taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. The Amendment relieved from that requirement."

If you continue to think that income taxes are INDirect taxes, you keep your head in the sand. i.e. Income taxes ARE Direct, but with the 16th Amendment they are NOT required too be apportioned.

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

read that case!

That specific case states that "Congress already had the power to tax all incomes", why could Congress tax all "Incomes", because "Income" means a privileged gain, and there is no RIGHT to a privilege. Congress can NOT tax RIGHTS!! The Pollock case made the 'error' that Congress didnt have the right to tax all source Income, so the Amendment clarified that they could!

http://supreme.justia.com/us/271/170/case.html
BOWERS V. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U. S. 170 (1926)

The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, "from

Page 271 U. S. 174

whatever source derived," without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration. 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.

You are so thick and so

You are so thick and so invested into your own interest of being right, mainly because you have put yourself out there as an "expert" that you refuse to see it any other way.

You have to understand, I too, saw it the way you saw it for years until I actually "Got it" and realized why the courts kept ruling against people with your position. You are pointing out immaterial quotes and arguing bananas vs. oranges.

I have now explained it to you several times AND I have provided CLEAR TEXT form the Supreme Court that the INCOME tax IS a direct tax, but it was relived from apportionment with the 16th amendment. The fact that you continue to argue who is and who is not suppose to pay income taxes is completely irrelevant.

Continue believing what you want. I really don't care.

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

Your rebuttal is Wikipedia,

Your rebuttal is Wikipedia, really? You really didn't understand anything Julius wrote...

I see. You only use Wiki when

I see. You only use Wiki when it suits your purpose, other than that, you dismiss the information?

Besides WIKI on 16th amendment has all the citations, which you obviously ignored.

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

Lol

Pretty funny arguing Wiki against case law. Really, thanks for that.

FREE PETE HENDRICKSON!!!!

No, what's REALLY funny is

No, what's REALLY funny is the fact that WIki CITED case law to support the information.

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

irs

dave champion has completed his book, myths of the income tax. it is now available for preorder. for more information go to davechampionshow.us

ducky

Bumpity...

bump...

Good information for active minds and people.

Thanks

Assert Your Authority

juliusbragg, Thankyou! Heres some additional information!

Have you read Tom Cryer’s memorandum?

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/images/stories/PDF/cryer_MEMO...

If you don't know who he is, He’s the attorney from Louisiana who took on the IRS and won his court case in 2008. He carefully and meticulously brings you through the course of time and law, showing how there is NO law requiring anyone to file a tax return on his or her LABOR. Most people don’t realize that their labor is their private and personal property, which cannot be taxed by the Government.

His memorandum is a very thorough legal brief, showing why NO one is required to file income tax on their LABOR. His memorandum includes many US Supreme Court Decisions that back up his legal points. You will be absolutely amazed at all the US Case Law amassed into this one read, which is very thorough, and relatively easy to follow.

Everything you need to know about the IRS and its illegal tactics are found is his memorandum.

I would also suggest that everyone read his “institutions to the jury” as well. There must be at least 100 court cases sited in that document alone defending his case. It is an absolutely amazing document in law.

http://www.truthattack.org/jml/index.php?option=com_content&...

The Winds of Change!

Here is what I don't understand.

I hear of people who have won cases against the IRS in court. This of course establishes a precedent which could be used in other cases. Why is this not being done?

Also what about jury nullification?

Precedent, IRS cases, etc.

Precedent derives from appeal cases, not original prosecution cases. Appeals are made on errors by the court in particular cases. So, if you are prosecuted and aquitted, it is not likely that an appeal would be filed.
The courts are practicing outcome based jurisprudence where tax law is concerned. They generally refuse to allow defendents to argue law from the witness stand. Tom Cryer was an exception because as a lawyer, he was an "expert" witness so to speak. That may not be 100% accurate, but I belive true in effect.
every case is new, and fact patterns are all different. Because a person was acquitted of murder, does not mean YOU will be also.

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

Why?

As far as I know, the cases, if actually won, were one of the following:

1`. Not based on the arguments of the sort put forth in this topic

2. Not won on the main point, but on a technicality unrelated to the tenets on this topic.

3. Won by jury nullification.

Jury nullification would be a precedent that could be

used in other trials. However, I keep readings of these guys who beat the IRS, then they want to sell you some stuff.

If the legal argument as stated in the OP are valid then someone somewhere should have used them successfully by now.

If no case law exists that proves these are valid legal arguments, then they remain unproven.

the judge is going to do what

the judge is going to do what he wants. Even if the arguments are correct.

dont forget that if a

dont forget that if a defendant has a solid defense, the case is dismissed to avoid exactly what you are looking for!

ie.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/rtp2/updates/update2006-06-09.htm

If people have had such a solid case that the IRS dismisses

then:
1. that becomes a precedent in itself
2. the defendants could publish the contents of their case and make bunches of money.

Legal theory is a never ending discussion, legal precedence is what is needed.

dismissed with prejudice has

dismissed with prejudice has specific meaning!
not everyone is out to make money.

Without an example all you have is an unproven legal theory

I believe if people had gotten their case dismissed, then they would have either wanted to tell the world and share their secrets with others, or a publisher would make them an offer they couldn't refuse.

There are a lot of people who would like to believe what you are proposing, but without a precedent then there is little to go on.