64 votes

Income Tax Gets Supreme Court Review

Well, It seems that this issue, constantly branded "frivolous" by many lower courts, now gets docketed by the Supreme Court. After 25 years or more, doing my own research, and studying the writings of other researchers, such as Larken Rose, Pete Hendrickson, Irwin Schiff, Dave Champion, Tom Cryer, and others, the issue may finally get a hearing. Notice I didn't say FAIR hearing. In order to bring the income tax regulations back in line with the Constitution, (and standing black letter law, and previous supreme court decisions) the government must walk away from a lucrative revenue stream they are comfortable with, and start funding the government via other means, eg. Tarrifs, excises, and imposts. And, they must stop treating earnings of individuals as a government privilege.
Just the act of docketing this case has erdicated the government's phony tactic of declaring similar positions "frivolous."
"Let justice be done, though the Heavens fall."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/supremes-docket-income-tax-challe...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The 16th settled the question. It is an indirect tax.

It is in the form of an excise on the privilege of realizing gain or profit from corporate activity.

The Supreme Court has laid this out clearly already.

wolfe's picture

Semantics.

This is why using the "constitution" as your blue print for what is acceptable or not is not productive.

Don't ask yourself if it is direct or indirect. Ask yourself if it is just or unjust. Is it theft or is it service? Is it right or wrong?

Those are the important questions. Not the interpretation of specific words through the filter of the court.

Think for yourself, and then the rest becomes irrelevant.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

That's only true if you don't know how to read.

If you do, and you read the Constitution and the cases about it you'll understand it isn't meaningless.

"Semantic" means "meaning."

Thus you want people to ignore the meanings of words and just do whatever they damned well please?

Perhaps you are confusing the Income Tax with how the present Subtitle A is enforced.

Perhaps you are confused because you THINK it is one thing, when it is entirely another.

The problem is most Americans think like you do about the tax, including the IRS. They have no idea what it really is and instead keep behaving as if what they are TOLD it is, is the truth.

wolfe's picture

Incorrect.

First of all, semantic does not mean "meaning". It is a term referring to the study of meaning. And when someone says that the words being used are a semantic difference, or the argument is based on semantics, it means that you are paying too much attention to the literal meaning of the word and avoiding the logical intent and meaning. So quite the opposite of your statement above.

Case in point, direct vs. indirect taxation. It is all theft, so discussing the (literal)"meanings" of the words direct and indirect is waste of time since both words are, at the heart, immoral theft (logical meaning).

As far as the rest, I am not going to go into the details, but I assure you that I am very well versed in taxation from an intimate perspective. I also understand all forms of taxation are theft and slavery. I must be misremembering but I could have sworn that you did as well from your previous posts.

Involuntary asset seizure, regardless of any words you want to wrap it up in, is theft.

steal(theft)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force.

tax
1. a sum of money demanded by a government

The two are logically equivalent, regardless of how you want to play games with qualifier words. In fact, the only difference between the two words, is that "tax" names the perpetrator, while "theft/steal" do not.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Yes, I agree, all taxation is theft. It does not matter if it

is considered direct or indirect.

Yes, I gave a simplified use of semantic. Your explanation is more complete and accurate.

I don't think the issue is one of semantics here, but one of materiality.

The debate over the meaning of the words in the amendment or law is not being overly focused on meaning, but rather from your perspective, is moot because it is all theft.

That is true.

But we were discussing the nature of the tax. You came in and said that is immaterial because it is all theft.

The fact it is theft, which I agree with, does not negate the discussion over the nature of the theft.

wolfe's picture

Agreed.

And point taken, immaterial would be a more appropriate description.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

No question its theft...

Its theft...and its also used as a control method.

wolfe's picture

In that case...

Nothing else matters, including what the courts have to say. (My comments about the government leasing it's slaves to the corporations below might be of interest to you.)

Violating an immoral law, is an honorable act. So, violate it everywhere and in anyway that you can *safely* do so. Teach others to do the same.

Of the many who will eventually do that, some will choose to not be safe (Irwin Schiff) and to become martyrs, and as long as they stand on principle will motivate others.

Examples:
1) Black market = farmers markets, coops, and friend cash exchanges.
2) Cash = Use cash everywhere and anywhere that you can.
3) No financing = avoid all forms of debt.

These are just a handful of ways in which you can fight back. Every dime that you keep from the government, is a dime that they can't use to kill, rape, and steal.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Income its self is not a tax!

You speak as if income within its self is a tax! Income is the tool used to measure the amount of tax that is due from the source that is being taxed!

Go look it up and stop being lazy.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. Sorry, I left that part out

for brevity while trying to explain uniformity.

I don't repeat each and every point every time I make a new one.

Please read more of what San Adams & SamAdamsCW write.

You will appreciate Same Adams, one of our founding fathers more. Sam Adams was & SanAdamsCW is strong willed, opinionated, & persuasive. Both have studied history with devotion. Though this particular comment of his did not set well with you, perhaps as you study more, you will gather more from what Sam Adams taught. I encourage you to do as you suggest.

I'll be on my way now. Regards,

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

My take on it...

Is that they rely on confusion about the meaning of 'without' and 'source' to get away with it, for the most part. I believe they crafted an 'income' (it used to be called a 'normal') tax that applies outside of those areas or activities that would require apportionment. (without means outside) In addition, the word 'source' means a physical location, not an activity.

The way they get us to declare to be inside of the area where they can levy such a direct tax is by the whole employer / employee definition. When a company applies for an EIN they are declaring themselves to be an agency or instrumentality of the government, since that's what the definition of an employer is in the witholding regs. So, if a company has an EIN, they are no longer a 'private company', imho. Anyone that runs such a company and wants to quit playing the game is ruined, a la Dick Simkanin and Al Thompson. Now I'm off to read the WND article.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you.

The 16th did NOT create a "new" class of taxes.

There are only two - direct apportioned taxes, or indirect uniform taxes.

The 16th did not create a direct unapportioned tax.

What it did, was once and for all, define "income" taxes to be indirect, and thus not needing apportionment. They could have left off the apportionment language most likely and nothing legally would have changed.

Essentially, nothing legally did change. The amendment just clarified the power that Congress already had.

The confusion is over what is and is not, "income" within the meaning of the amendment.

People today refuse to accept that their current definition is flawed.

"Income" is very specific and limited. It does NOT mean "any money you receive." That is pure bunk.

I agree about income

I agree that it's very specific and limited, and that earning one's living ('wages' is a statutory term) should not be considered 'income'.

What I was saying, is that even in the case when one has received 'income', it is limited as to where it can be considered taxable under the Constitution. The need for apportionment only applies 'among the several states'. If one is 'without' (or outside) that area, i.e. the now 50 states, but in the area where Congress has what's called plenary power, then such a tax is not subject to the rule of apportionment.

Then it falls in the Constitutional category of 'taxes, tariffs and imposts'. The 1913 Tariff is where the original 'income' tax was levied. However, the Corporate income tax derives from the 1909 Tariff. It's all word games, and they're very good at them.

I see, you're speaking of Territories and Insular

Possessions then?

That all makes sense.

Yes, I am aware of this word game as well.

Ever look up the definition of "United States" in the tax code? Ever see a definition of "United States" in other titles? Ever wonder why they aren't the same everywhere?

Talk about "word games!"

Agree...

Income within itself is not a tax. Its the tool used to measure the tax that is due for the source that is being taxed.

Yes, this is true. But it still doesn't change the issue over

what exactly constitutes "income."

Since that is how the privilege being taxed is measured, it is critical to be able to accurately count it.

But this begs a question - the source is not being taxed. That would make the tax direct, and needing apportionment. What is being taxed is not property - but privilege.

So is working to sustain your life a privilege?

No?

Then where is the basis for the tax on your pay?

There is none.

So what exactly IS being taxed under the law and the amendment?

The privilege of realizing a gain or profit arising from corporate activities.

Why is that a privilege?

Because a corporation cannot exist without government permission.

A corporation exists as a privilege bestowed by government - the privilege to conduct business with liability limited only to financial investment, nothing more.

Such action is not a natural state under common law.

Thus you need government granted privilege to do so.

They are taxing this privilege.

They are measuring the privilege by the income - by the gain or profit - you realize from exercising this privilege.

So if you aren't exercising this privilege, and instead, are merely exercising your right to sustain your life, with full liability for your actions - then THERE IS NO TAX.

Well said!!!

I agree with you here! Sorry I did not see this before I made the statement above.

Were the independent states

Were the independent states ever restricted from collecting an income tax from their citizens?

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Not technically, no. But what people think of as 'income' is

the problem - not the tax.

Income is certainly taxable at any level.

Exchanging labor for property is NOT.

That is a fundamental right, and rights are not taxable. If they were, they wouldn't be "rights."

Whatever you prefer to call

Whatever you prefer to call it, the states were not restricted from collecting it.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

They are restricted by the nature of law.

What it is (as opposed to what you call it) is critical.

If the tax is upon the exchange of labor for property, yes they are prohibited, by common law and the clause of protecting contracts, both in the federal constitution, and that in most if not all state constitutions.

It is your right to sustain your own life. That cannot be taxed - by anyone.

If the tax is upon the privilege of realizing a gain or profit arising from corporate activities - THAT certainly can be taxed by the states, unless the corporation is chartered by Congress, in which case, only Congress can tax that corporation, unless it decides to "share revenue" with a state on that subject.

And your labor is not taxed.

And your labor is not taxed. The profit on your labor is what is taxed.

The Legal entity, created by the incorporation using your legal name (your citizenship, or other creations of "person" such as legal resident) is being taxed for the marketing and sale of your natural individual's(man's) labor, the profit is the difference between the cost of maintaining the Man and the total revenue from selling the Man's labor.

The Legal Person (person) receives a deduction for business expenses(maintaining the Human Resource, Man), either a pre calculated "standard deduction" or the Person may choose to itemize deductions for the cost of maintaining the Human Resource and other expenses related to the "business". The Person may also receive credit for the cost of expanding the Parent Corporation (government) by creating additional Human Resource (children).

The Person reports as profit/loss the difference between the total revenue minus the business expense for maintaining/operation of the Human Resource.

The PERSON is a business entity operating the Human Resource, the Man. Lossing ones citizenship ELIMINATES the PERSON. Then only LABOR of the Man is seen, which is not taxable.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

To "incorporate" means to

To "incorporate" means to join together, to marry. Are not citizens incorporated with the State? Certainly even the current US government recognizes you right to expatriate, to divorce the husband, and thereby pay no further taxes, provided you follow their statutes as their citizen in doing so. The citizenship is voluntary, but by accepting the citizenship you agree to follow their private laws, tax upon your income being one of such laws. Thereby, income tax is voluntary as you can relinquish your citizenship and end your tax burden, provided you do it by the statutes you agree to follow as a citizen.

The natural law as well as the Constitution recognizes the individuals right to enter private contract, and that these contracts are binding. The citizenship is an agreement, a contract. It provides remedy just as a credit card contract provides remedy. You are in a corporation, a collection of people joined together to form a whole, for a common purpose. That purpose is government benefit, and the benefit comes with a burden. Just as a credit card comes with a benefit, and a burden. But the contract provides a method to remedy, to terminate, this relationship. It is all voluntary, if you don't like it then terminate your agreement.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

No, you are using common definitions for specific

statutory ones.

That'll get you in trouble every time.

And citizenship is not the issue.

They tax resident aliens too. And they have the power to because aliens don't have a right to be here, only citizens do.

You have it backwards.

The last thing you want to do is expatriate to avoid taxes. Unless of course, you're living elsewhere and they don't have taxes there either.

You have a right to live upon

You have a right to live upon the land, nation, which you were born. Even the UN, and the US, recognizes this. A resident alien was not born in, say, Texas. But I was born in Texas. I have a right to remain here, even without citizenship. At that point I am not a resident alien, I am a non resident alien.

There are many reasons to expatriate besides taxes. Certainly if you do expatriate for the primary reason of avoiding taxes the tax code very specifically states that you will continue to pay such. It says nothing about avoiding taxes being prohibited as a secondary reason for one's expatriation.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

No, a non-resident wouldn't even be living there.

You'd be considered an "American National."

You were born here, but don't hold citizenship.

I doubt though that would relieve you of tax liability since citizenship isn't the crux, it's the activity.

Remember, the tax is very limited to the privilege of earning corporate based profit. If you aren't doing that, why expatriate?

"I doubt though that would

"I doubt though that would relieve you of tax liability since citizenship isn't the crux, it's the activity."

IRS section 877 and 877a lay out which expatriates will and which will not have to continue to pay tax. The average expatriate will not have to continue to pay tax. Those who have had a high level of "privledge" as you say, income, will continue to file for 10 years. Whether those with high income/networth actaully pay anything during those 10 years is determined by whether they continue to produce income. On the 10th year they can file their final return. Those who have less of this "priviledge" can fill their final return upon expatriation.

If you do not reside out of your nation of birth, Texas in my case, then you are a non resident. If you are not a national/citizen of the United States then you are alien. If I am a Texas National non US Citizen then I would be, as far as the US Statutes are concerned, a non resident alien.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

You'll end up in prison right next to Pete Hendrickson for

following that line of reasoning.

That argument is flawed from top to bottom.

If you aren't liable, you shouldn't be filing anything.

The act of filing itself will be used as evidence that you believe you are in fact liable.

If I buy a McDonalds

If I buy a McDonalds franchise, and they require me to by their products and only their products, and they require me to PAY A ROYALTY on my profits, then I AM liable to follow those agreements as a franchisee. I benefit from the franchise, but there is a cost to those benefits. If I really disagree, I can terminate the franchise, and thereby terminate both my benefit and my burden with McDonalds.

I DO beleive in upholding agreements. And as a citizen one is under ALLEGIANCE to that entity called State. This means following their statutes. ALLEGIANCE CARRIES LIABILITIES. Their statutes provide a way to break from their statutes, but you are under their authority/statutes, therefore it is ONLY through their statutes that one can lawfully remove the allegiance. And I am not referring only to the tax code, but the US Statutes entirely.

Hendrickson did not expatriate. He was trying to have his cake and eat it too. Losing one's citizenship is a burdern, it makes life in this country very difficult. What Hendrickson did has to twist the word around to mean what he wanted them to mean. What I'm talking about is very clearly spelled out in the statutes. You recieve a letter of expatriation from the US Attorney general when you expat, you send that along with your final filling, just as statute directs you to do. If you had a high income/net worth you then continue to file for 10 more years. You ARE liable, because you bought the franchise, now you must follow its terms before you can exit. It's called contract law, where no jury can rule on the contract(law) but can only rule on the facts of the case. And in a Federal court, the jury WILL be instructed that they cannot judge the terms of the contract(statutes), but may only find on the facts of the case.

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence