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."


Comment viewing options

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

The tax laws do not distinguish between types of currency

That has nothing to do with it.

If we only used gold and silver coin, or U.S. Notes as you mentioned, the same laws would still apply and the arguments would still be dismissed as frivolous.

You only have to make your

You only have to make your demand for lawful money known, and have it recorded for it to take effect. This is an established fact as evidenced by the success stories over at savingtosuitorsclub.net


I'd like to put together a graphic of a timeline showing the relevant laws passed and court decisions to make it easier for someone new to learn what happened when, why it matters now, and where/how to go forward from here.

Do you know of any compiled list on that website that has references to the laws passed and court rulings through history?

I made this thread,

and the book referenced therein holds the information you seek.


This is an interesting development to be sure.

The Court usually doesn't take up cases unless there is NEW law to be decided.

And they have issued several opinions on this already since 1913.

Note - ALL of them which have addressed these direct questions, came down against the government. Specifically, they have limited ANY so-called "income tax" to only mean what the term meant to the American People when the 16th amendment was ratified - that is, a tax upon the gain or profit realized from doing business in a corporate capacity. That is what people understood "income" to mean back in 1913. This is evidenced by the amendment being over the fight between Congress and the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the 1909 Corporation Tax Act. (yes, you read that right)

The only way to redefine "income" in the law would be to pass a new Constitutional amendment. And I'm sure, if this goes viral, there will be no support to "expand" the 16th with a new amendment to include what the government is already illegally doing now.

But that brings up a critical point.

Will the SCOTUS throw caution to the wind? Will they render a correct decision that threatens the cash cow of Congress? Will they remove the siphoning mechanism for the FED that will expose hyperinflation? Will they beg the question of criminal prosecutions of every past IRS agent, member of Congress, and fellow justices in lower courts? Will they create the firestorm that results in pitchforks on main street demanding REFUNDS of all that plundered money to the People?

I'm not holding my breath.

Even if they do make the correct decision - they will bury it.

They will write it to be so confusing or limited, it will not be either reported or understood.


When Robert's issued his decision on Obamacare, I noted his language was quite strange.

He didn't imply that Congress can simply tax you to make you do things, though that is what people interpreted as.

He noted that in its nature, the "penalty" for not complying with the "mandate" essentially acted as - AN INCOME TAX.

That's because it was administered, and based ENTIRELY upon LIABILITY for that tax.

It is essentially, a "surtax" on top of what is already there.

If you comply with the mandate - you get a "deduction" or "exemption" equal to the surtax. If not - you pay up.

But this surtax is only payable and assessed upon people ALREADY liable for the so-called "income tax."

People who are not liable are not charged, and there is no enforcement mechanism in place in the law otherwise. Simply, there is NO WAY to impose the penalty OTHER THAN on a 1040 or it's cousins.

Thus, I don't necessarily see Robert's decision as a bad one.

I see it as exposing the answer to the elephant in the room question that the Court didn't answer outright:

"Can the government compel EVERYONE to purchase something?"

The answer from Roberts was thought to be "yes" but in reality, his answer was "no."

He gave this answer by showing that LIMITED class of persons upon whom Congress may impose such an obligation, IF they impose it in this particular manner - TAXPAYERS. (specifically, "income" taxpayers)

Remember, a "taxpayer" is not someone who pays a tax, but someone who has been "made liable" for an "internal revenue tax."

Thus, if you aren't liable for Subtitle A - Income Tax or Subtitle C - Employent Tax (a limited form of income tax) then you cannot be made to purchase health insurance. (or face a surtax)

Perhaps Roberts is a traitor.

Or, perhaps Roberts is about to deliver blow two of a one-two sucker punch and only ObamaCare made it possible.

The danger here isn't that the SCOTUS won't rule in this guy's favor and invalidate the income tax as misapplied.

Rather, the danger will be in making sure we don't end up with a VAT or other type of national sales tax in the wake of the chaos that ensues.

Are you suggesting that he

Are you suggesting that he planned to allow Obamacare to pass so he could later invalidate it along with income taxes? I am not sure I would take it that far. Perhaps he did leave the door open, but this begs the question that if he really was against Obamacare, why not just vote against it to begin with?

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Not necessarily, but rather he may have been looking for the


Certainly, he would be privy to which cases were making their way up to SCOTUS and you can pretty much bank on several per year being similar to this one.

But as I note above, this could be a "trap" in that the plaintiff screwed the pooch so to speak.

As for Obamacare, by making his argument that he did, he pigeon-holed the law into a very narrow slot of constitutionality. Some think it's big enough to drive a Mack truck through, but I disagree.

What he did was effectively DENY the individual mandate and instead, tied it to ONLY be constitutional IF it is implemented as a "surtax."

This does two things - one, it means there is no "blanket mandate" possible, and two, it ties the mandate to another liability which exposes that liability to also not be as far reaching as commonly thought.

Really, he doesn't need a specific tax case to take them both down. He already did it.

But additional cases will reinforce this line of thought, and may hopefully, serve to bring it to the proper light of day.

A couple lines that really stuck out to me

“The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority".

So true.

Also - "The fight is over the fact that when one individual exchanges a $10 bill for two $5 bills from another person, there is no “profit.” Substituting labor for either side of that agreement also does not create “profit,” he said."

Another good, basic point about the unconstitutional idea of this so called "income tax" which the Fed Govt imposes on us.

wolfe's picture


While *this* time the arguments are valid. And this time it seems like the person bringing the case is intelligent. And this time, the court is actually willing to listen to arguments.....

It means nothing.

You cannot make the slave owner obey his own rules. He will just change them as the need arises.

Fighting in this way is a waste of time because it will never succeed. The only way to succeed is for a vast majority of citizens to become non-payers, non-filers, and be OPEN and HONEST about that to everyone they meet.

If anything, willingness to hear the case is quite likely a preface to changing the law to be even more draconian.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Perhaps they have been asked to hear the case (quietly) so as to

make room for a VAT or the so-called "Fair Tax."

But to say this approach is pointless is false.

You're own arguments prove otherwise - past attempts failed because they were not brought by people who had a clue.

There ARE previous cases where the Court decided these questions. And they decided them against the government. So there has been success.

Now, the question is, will Congress comply? Will the case be big enough news to force public outcry?

That is something entirely different, and I'm not holding my breath.

wolfe's picture

The fact that there are previous cases...

is what proves my point... :) Laws that they don't like get ignored or changed.

A master is a master. We'll just have to take opposing viewpoints on this, you optimistic, me pessimistic.

When it comes to people, I am forever optimistic. But when it comes to government, I am forever pessimistic.

For what it's worth, I hope I am wrong... I just doubt it.

And I think your first few sentences are likely to be the reason for the hearing, or worse...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Sometimes the good guys win

Sometimes the good guys win court cases, its always worth a shot. This one specifically is largely a waste of time though, like you said. I do think the Direct Tax issues should be addressed though so that part is important.

Ventura 2012

I would love to see Rand sponsor a bill that in effect would

not fund the military, but take donations and voluntary tax in a time of war to pay to go to war. In other words, tax us for service men and womens salaries, but when they are called to war the elite would ask for donations to be sent in like those for Katrina to fund the war. I wonder how many neo-cons would pull double shifts to send money, and if the war was a dead end then they could stop sending money, this would put an end to illegal military use. Or in general, pay to play policies where by the government would hit payroll taxes from all workers to fund the wars, and if they were truly needed wars then the people would support them, but another Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. would be rejected after a period of time, and the politicians feet would actually be held to the fire.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

Truly, that was the point of excises and tonnage duties.

We aren't supposed to have a standing Army.

We ARE supposed to maintain a Navy.

The purpose of the Navy is more to protect shipping for our goods to and from America than it is to specifically repel attacks from the sea upon the States. (though it would do that of course)

The ability to control shipping lanes, keep them safe and open, allows trade to flow, which breeds interdependence and friendship - not enemies.

It also projects power outward, and gives you the ability to intercept any potential attacks by sea, long before they reach you. (as well as allow you to "bring the fight to the enemy")

This is why TRADE was taxed by import and export excises and duties. The excise is on the privilege of trade, and is usually imposed in percentages of value, and is for the purpose of protecting that trade. The duty is in the form of a "tonnage" or set rate per weight of goods, and is intended to fund regular government operations here at home.

Excise on trade - pays for securing that trade - aka the Navy.

Duties on tonnage - pays for general government - Congress, Courts, President & Executive departments.

Armies are to be raised out of the general Militia, from the several States which govern their respective Militia.

There is little public expense related to the militia, as arms are required to be owned privately. (though surely, heavy weaponry would be usually owned by the various State armories)

The inability to specifically tax to pay for a war was designed to make sure we didn't go to war.

After having just fought a war and facing the inability to collect to pay for the borrowing which funded it, the Framers weren't stupid when they wrote the taxing powers. They put in JUST ENOUGH to be able to conduct a war in which we were fighting for survival. But they otherwise did not allow for "wars of opportunity."

If we were attacked and the war was brought to us, then the people would volunteer to defend themselves.

But this has always been a problem - for thousands of years - some people will refuse to fight, even for themselves, if they aren't getting paid. Some can't give up their "day job" to join the troops.

The idea of "militia" was to instill this responsibility in the people.

But if ever government tries to fight a war where people are not directly threatened, they will always have a hard time finding enough volunteers, or funding.

I have NO confidence in the SCOTUS.

It has been corrupt since the Alien and Sedition Acts. Barring divine providence, the only way to rid us of the IRS, the banksters and the Income Tax will be armed revolution.

Unfortunately, your solution is very much the truth

The only logical conclusion per the American Citizenry is an armed Civil War which will ultimately result in a Revolution. The current government of these United States is an immutable anomalous bureaucracy. I see no other possible outcome.

Expect your FBI chaperone to the nearest psych ward in 3..2..1

Can't even speak our minds like this anymore. The career slugs in Washington will stop at nothing to ensure they'll retain their overpaid excuses of jobs.