01
Mar
08

The IRS vs the Truth

So, it seems that some of my readers disagree with me on my last post. They state that the 16th Amendment is legal and is the basis for the legalization of taxes upon persons working in the private sector. In some aspects, they are correct. As it stands now, the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. However, there is a lot of controversy surrounding that Amendment – and at this time, I will base my arguement based on the fact that the 16th Amendment is still standing and has not been repealed.

It has been quoted to me the Supreme Court case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), removed the apportionment. However, if we look at that case closely we will see that the court decided that the 16th Amendment allowed “Congress to tax stock dividends as income.” The key word here is dividends. This court case shows us nothing more than the fact that monies earned via investments – CDs, stocks, mutal funds, lottery winnings, etc. – are indeed taxable. This case does not address the legalization of taxes on payments derived from your employer (aka: your paycheck) whatesoever.

So with the assumption that the 16th Amendment is legal and still breathing, lets examine what the Supreme Court has said about it.
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . .”

United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no
real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it
does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”

United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 405 U.S. 505 (1988)

“The legislative history merely shows… …that the sole purpose
of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for
whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id.,
at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916).”

And also… United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

“We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the
government that all receipts– everything that comes in– are income…”

So it seems that the USSC has ruled that if you didn’t pay taxes before 1913 (the 16th came into existence), you don’t pay them now. And furthermore, that not everything that comes in is or should be considered “income.”
cock fight
In any case, this particular battle against the IRS is surely going be a cock fight…
Advertisements

7 Responses to “The IRS vs the Truth”


  1. 1 Publius
    4 March 2008 at 21:52

    I think I would tend to agree that everything that comes in is not considered income, the things that are considered income are quite specifically listed in the IRC. The Title starts out showing you tax rates for your income. Income is not a very tricky word, vague maybe from a legal stand point, but seriously, if my son mows lawns and earns 20 dollars and gives it to me, that is not income even though it came in, I do not understand your argument that my paycheck would fall into the “not” income category, if that were true, why are so many people going to jail for income tax evasion?

  2. 2 Kyle Huwer
    4 March 2008 at 22:48

    “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” – F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580 (emphasis mine)

    Why are so many people going to jail for income tax evasion? Couple reasons. First, they don’t know the laws. If you don’t know the law, then how can you win in court? Second, the Internal Revenue Code is like 15,000 pages long (2-4 million words long). It is meant to be confusing. Using words like “income” to be taxable, when they later (25 pages later) define the term to be something other than “your paycheck.” Third, the IRS is a rabid beast. They are a voluntary service, yet, you would never know that by how they act. It is a tyrannical entity, IMHO. Fourth, if you don’t file taxes (a 1040) then that may be punishable by law. What I am suggesting is that where it asks for “wages, salaries, and tips (line 7 on 1040)” that your wages, salaries, and tips are not the conventional definitions that you know. Wages are defined in that they are paid by the US Treasury. Do you get paid by the UST? No? Then you don’t have a “wage.” But the IRS nor any Congressman will never, ever tell you that you don’t earn a wage, now will they?

  3. 3 Publius
    11 March 2008 at 13:08

    I was looking to debate, not get lectured.
    I have finally had the chance to read all four of your links. It appears that in three of them the discussion surrounds corporate taxation, which imo, would not be the same as individual income. That being said, the fourth case Peck v. Lowe (btw, is it the same Lowe as in number 4?), the reference MAY be personal in nature, but it sounds to me that the arguments are about profits from stocks and or bonds, again, not personal income. I am not a legal scholar by any means, but I am curious as to your response- in a non-lecturing tone please.

  4. 4 Kyle Huwer
    11 March 2008 at 15:00

    I have a bad habit of lecturing when I am passionate about something. I am sorry that I lectured you.

    I am not really sure what you mean by that all my citations seem like they are referring to corporations. Are you saying that all of the US Supreme Court rulings about the 16th Amendment (that I listed) pertain to corporations only? In other words, the 16th Amendment did not add any new taxation powers against corporations?

    Ar 1, Sec 9: “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid…” So, no direct taxes.

    16 Amendment: “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.”
    The way I read it, all the 16th Amendment did was remove the apportionment requirement of taxes. That way we were not going around and having highly populated states bearing the tax burden without regard of how much money those people made.

    I guess the confusion comes in where the Article 1 Section 9 says, “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” So taxes cannot be direct taxes. A direct tax by definition is a tax that cannot be shifted to another person. So, if I make money at my job, how can I shift my “income” tax to someone else?

    This is in complete opposition to an indirect tax such as a tax on tobacco. I have the choice to not smoke and avoid the tax – or I can grown my own tobacco. Sure… the 16th says that it can tax any incomes, but “incomes” are not defined within that amendment. And this definition of “income” can be seen challenged in the United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918) case that I quoted above.

  5. 5 Ecclesiastes
    19 January 2009 at 11:33

    Eisner v. Macomber held that Congress could NOT tax stock dividends as though they were income.

    And the 16th Amendment did not give Congress any new power of taxation because Congress already had the power to tax incomes, as confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1880 in the Springer decision.

    But in 1895, in the Pollock decision, the Supreme Court modified its position somewhat, and said that a tax on incomes from property (but not labor) was a “direct tax” that had to be apportioned. (Up until that point, the only taxes the Supreme Court had considered to be “direct” were capitations and taxes on the value of land (and slaves).) The 16th Amendment was proposed (and ratified) in order to take income taxes out of the category of “direct taxes” by removing the requirement of apportionment.

    See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower for additional information on these arguments.

  6. 6 Steve P
    30 January 2010 at 04:44

    Please read and re-Read the preamble of the Constitution. “WE THE PEOPLE” established and ordained the Constitution. The government did not frame it or establish it or ordain it. WE THE PEOPLE are the creators of the Constitutional government. That’s the basics.

    Now please show me anywhere in the Constitution from the Preamble to Amendment 27… where WE THE PEOPLE surrendered our sovereignty and subjected ourselves to the Jurisdiction of the government or any branch/agency of it. Anything the Government creates like statutes, codes, regulations, etc is for the administration of the government, they are not for the administration or controlling of WE THE PEOPLE.

    So unless you voluntarily surrender yourself to their jurisdiction… Title 26 or any other tax code,statute,regulation does not apply to you…

    MAKE THEM PROVE THEIR JURISDICTION!!!! They CAN”T DO IT!!!! They know it… but YOU don’t!

    SO straighten out your identity crisis and figure it out… the government was formed to serve you not enslave you. They have no jurisdiction outside of the 10 square miles of Wash DC and Federally owned land or territories like Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa etc. They just bamboozled you into thinking they do. The IRS has as much lawful authority/jurisdiction over you as the homeless person on the corner.

    PS: The 16th Amendment was not LAWFULLY ratified.

  7. 7 Secure Party
    3 February 2010 at 19:49

    To Steve P.

    First off, if you are a citizen, you are a corporation, that happened when you weere born and your feet stamped the birth cert. It was turned into the state, then to the gov., then to the treasury which then attached a bond to it and put it up to a trading platform to be monitized many times.
    In 1933 the gold standard was removed, shortly after HJR 192 was signed in to provide a remidy for the greatist fraud in history. Our sweat and labor was guaranteed to the gov for the national debt. In return we enjoyed some benefits but most benefits we were never told about. All this was kept quite so we would go on each day working and paying taxes we were never meant to pay to start with, but because we are slaves, we didn’t need to know. All the laws, regulations, bills and all the mountains of bull to intentionaly frustrate us and motivate us not to learn about the problem was a well thought out plan.
    The US gov. and the IRS are foriegn corporations. The Federal Reserve Bank is not Federal at all, it’s a private bank owned by several Ultra elitist.
    The US gov does have jurisdiction over you because you are a citizen. Thr US has been in bankrupcy since about 1886. Operating in bankrupcy changes things considerably and the gov has powers that they don’t have when it isn’t in bankrupcy. Maybe this is why the national debt has been intentionally tripled, the gov. doesn’t want to come out of bankrupcy. As a citizen you are a slave to them. Bankrupcy requires them to operate under corporate regulations and as the US gov. is operating under corporate regs, you are a corporation under them, hint a slave.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Quotes:

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth... For my part, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst; and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

"Politicians and diapers both need to be changed, and for the same reason." - Anonymous

"Right is right, even if everyone is against it, and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it." - William Penn

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country" - Hermann Goering

"I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do this I keep on doing." - Romans 7:18-19

"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Mark Twain

Categories


%d bloggers like this: