Comment: Well *IF* state income tax ...

(See in situ)


Well *IF* state income tax ...

... is an extension of federal income tax, then it is a violation of the 10th Amendment. That's how it's done, I know. But it is still a violation of the 10th Amd.

Regarding the foreign aspect, I have checked out Larken Rose's stuff and he makes a compelling case that the original federal income tax section for defining "gross income" morphed into what is today Section 861, which is about foreign source income.

It would be interesting to see who was paying income taxes back in the 1920's or so.

It's also interesting to note that most of the high court cases I've come across from the early days of the income tax all have to do either with income related to the government or something foreign.

Even the famous case of Brushaber vs. Union Pacific fit this profile because Union Pacific Railroad was a corporation created by an act of Congress, similar to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

Congress created Union Pacific to finish the railroad in the West (from the Union to the Pacific Ocean), and there were no states out there (it was federal territory). Brushaber was a shareholder and receiving dividends, from which the new income tax was being withheld.

In any case, that argument is a side discussion. If the states are just sponging off the feds on income tax, then it's a clear violation of the 10th Amd.