8 votes

You're Wrong! The 16th Amendment "IS" Constitutional, but it simply "does not" apply to...

The 16th Amendment is Constitutional and it “DOES NOT” apply to your Wage, Salary, Labor, or Tips, and never has!

Amendment 16 says: "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 Amendment thus places this tax under the “Indirect Tax” classification of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment is Constitutional because it does not tax your labor, salary, wages or tips. Those are the “sources” from which any income derived (made), would be taxable under that Amendment.

There is a clear distinction in the use of the words “FROM” and “ON” in that Amendment and the high Courts have made that distinction. The definition of Income doesn’t really matter. What the Congress “can” tax is what matters. The 16th Amendment states that the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, “FROM” whatever source derived, not “ON” whatever source derived. If the income tax was on your labor, then making labor would be income, but it’s not. Since the 16th Amendment and Title 26 (IRS Code) only tax income “FROM” your labor, you must first have labor and then derive income from that labor, like investing it in a CD, or savings account. The interest on that labor (the source), not the labor, would be income. Sounds completed but it’s not.

Here’s a perfect example. Just like a capital gains tax, the tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for the same amount is zero. Why? No gain. The capital gains tax is not “ON” the property itself, it’s “FROM” the gain on the property. You see? The capital gains tax on a property purchased for $100,000 and sold for $150,000, has a capital gains tax of $50,000. No gain, no tax. So in this example the capital gains tax is just like the income tax, the tax is derived “FROM” the gain on the property, not “ON” the property itself. So the property in the above example is the same as the property being your labor. Your labor is not taxed, any gain from your labor is subject to the taxing power of the 16th Amendment.

It doesn’t matter what meaning is given to income. What matters is that, according to the 16th Amendment itself, the income tax is laid on all incomes “FROM” the source, not “ON” the source. I have listed 5 high appellate court cases, including the United States Supreme Court, which bears me out.

Now, go try and sell this argument to the government and see how far you get. Unfortunately, “might makes right” in this case. They have the might, so we lose a right. Or, do you feel like standing up for your rights yet?

Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955):
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930):
"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support... it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969):
"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, 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 I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME NOT COMPENSATION."

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916):
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946):
"... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."

Comment viewing options

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

Funny that this used to be a Conspiracy Theory

just a few years ago, but it appears less so today, but I may be mistaken. It was this conspiracy to defraud Americans which woke me up in the first place, not Jack Hunter, but it was a combination of Arron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism", Robert Schulz of "We The People Foundation" among other truth speakers who provided enough information for me to see through this fraud and pursue truth, no matter how ugly or inconvenient it might be for others to accept or believe.

Great post by Law In Simple Terms.

"society could go in a thousand directions as to how it would exist and how it would be, but the public mustn't know that. The generations must believe that the one that they're born into is naturally evolved."-Lenin/Alan Watt/cuttingthroughthematrix.com

The only problem with your argument is that words change...

Words are constantly perverted. Gay used to mean happy but has changed, marriage used to mean an act between a man and a woman but is changing, bitch used to refer to a female dog and pussy to cat. but since the words of man get twisted the words in the Constitution have likewise been twisted. Would we expect anything less from lawyers?

Excellent Point

The Supreme Court fully agrees with you on the changes in language. That is why they have taught in their rulings that no word can be safely interpreted except by referring to a legal, or other, dictionary/writing of the time the words were used. For example, when interpreting what Washington or Jefferson wrote you must refer to Websters or Bouvier's Law Dictionary which was written during their lifetimes. A current Black's Law Dictionary, isn't going to reflect what "gay" means today as opposed to its common meaning then.

The 16th, the Fed, and the IRS were all "passed" in 1913.

Coïncidence? Subterfuge and coercion.

then why am i forced to pay

then why am i forced to pay once i reach say 3,000 dollars/year of "income"?

so you're saying if I tell the IRS that I gain 3,000 dollars, they will claim that i made that much through income? so to counter this, should i just list $0.00 on my tax return?

Your forced to pay because...

... that is the will of the government. Making a good argument is one thing, selling it to the government is another. I would advise that you pay your taxes, then change the conversation, like we are now, then repeal the income tax through proper channels. I wish I had the "silver bullet", but, like I said previously, "might makes right", they have the might and we lose the right. At least if, and until we change that.

please change "your"

to "you're" in the title... i have been letting the lose and loose go by among other words, but i really am tired of reading these things in titles. RP people understand when a mistake has been made and enjoy correcting it! i certainly won't be caught overusing caps!!!!
this 16th amendment claim has always been confusing. i do believe that at any moment now, the world is going to change and the irs will be irrelevant.


thank you so much!!!!!!!

wow- if only YOU were in charge of the USA!!!!! LOL


The 16th Amendment limits taxation to

officers of corporations and federal employees!

Since wages is an equal exchange for Labor there is no gain, no income.

Unless you think your labor is worth nothing?

So if one thinks they labor

So if one thinks they labor is worth $25/hr, but they are only paid $10/hr, they should be able to record each hour as a $15 loss on their taxes! Yea, I like this! Probably is only about 5% to 10% of people are capable of critical thinking! And a lynch mob of 90% is enough to hang anyone!



The Income tax is constitutional

Because it is voluntary.

"A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself within" W. Durant

Wow...never really thought of

Wow...never really thought of it like that. This was very informative!