[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Iran Receives Emergency Airlift of Chinese Air Defence Systems as Israel Considers New Attacks Russia reportedly used its new, inexpensive Chernika kamikaze drone in the Ukraine Iran's President Says the US Pledged Israel Wouldn't Attack During Previous Nuclear Negotiations Will Japan's Rice Price Shock Lead To Government Collapse And Spark A Global Bond Crisis Beware The 'Omniwar': Catherine Austin Fitts Fears 'Weaponization Of Everything' Roger Stone: AG Pam Bondi Must Answer For 14 Terabytes Claim Of Child Torture Videos! 'Hit Us, Please' - America's Left Issues A 'Broken Arrow' Signal To Europe Cash Jordan Trump Deports ‘Thousands of Migrants’ to Africa… on Purpose Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy

Business/Finance
See other Business/Finance Articles

Title: Westminster man told to stop running tax scheme
Source: Baltimore Sun
URL Source: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/lo ... story?coll=bal-local-headlines
Published: Dec 4, 2006
Author: AP
Post Date: 2006-12-04 18:32:27 by Starwind
Ping List: *unUsual Suspects*     Subscribe to *unUsual Suspects*
Keywords: Kotmair, Save-A-Patriot Fellowship
Views: 3095
Comments: 200

A Westminster man has been barred by a federal judge from running a scheme in which he promised to help members avoid paying federal taxes, the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

The "Save-A-Patriot Fellowship" run by John Baptist Kotmair Jr. falsely advised that clients didn't have to pay taxes and could legally withdraw from the Social Security system, U.S. District Judge William Nickerson said in his ruling. Despite legal action by the U.S. Justice Department, Kotmair's organization continued to file frivolous protest letters with the Internal Revenue Service on behalf of more than 800 clients and showed "no inclination ... to cease their activities," Nickerson noted.

Nickerson's order, issued last week, permanently bars Kotmair and his organization from representing or assisting anyone in corresponding with the IRS, or preparing court filings relating to income taxes. Kotmair and his organization must also notify all individuals involved in the scheme of the injunction and provide the Justice Department with the names of the customers, their e-mail addresses and telephone and Social Security numbers.

The injunction also must be posted prominently on the organization's Web sites for a year, and fraudulent promotional materials must be removed from the sites.

Poster Comment:

Kotmair's defense and taxation arguments were inane to put it charitably. His website (where he's to post the injunction) is at http://save-a-patriot.org/

Stupid tax-protestors and their schemes just muddy the water for legitimate tax-protest arguments. Kotmair, Schiff, Schultz, Rose all will become boilerplate examples of tax schemes which will be used unfairly to broad-brush and defeat otherwise legitimate arguments, rasing the cost and complexity to properly take on the IRS.

I cite Joe Banister as an example of how to do it right, intelligently, and the above tax schemes just make it difficult if not impossible for people like Banister to prevail honestly on the merits. Subscribe to *unUsual Suspects*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

That's funny ... the forms are on the internet in pdf form and you can print them out.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   0:27:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

First and foremost, to the best of my knowledge, as of this writing, neither John Kotmair nor SAPF's attorney have been served notice of any order. Until we are served, there's not much we can say about it. I think it's quite interesting that the DOJ might have made such an annoucement prior to SAPF being served.

I'm puzzled to see you write "we", as if you are a party to the action against Kotmair and SAPF, and as if you yourself expect to be served????

As for the facts of the injunction, it's over, stick a fork in it. The order, injunction and opinion were all filed by Judge Nickerson 11/29/06 (I've read them - they're available on the court website https:// ecf.mdd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iqquerymenu.pl?130431 select History/ Documents... then select doc #s 68, 69 & 70 - you'll need a pacer account which anyone can register and receive, these are public records) with instructions to the clerk to transmit copies to all counsel of record. I'm sure Kotmair knew this on the 29th and has received the clerks transmitted copies as of today. I'm a bit skeptical that his website doesn't show any of the 37 filings that have been made since 5/16/06.

You are aware, aren't you, that John Kotmair/SAPF defeated the IRS in their criminal case in 1993-96? The IRS raided the fellowship headquarters in full military/swat-team style and took everything that wasn't nailed down. They were subsequently ordered to bring it all back, which they did. Because they lost that case -- with prejudice, and that at their own motion -- they could not take any criminal action against the fellowship.

I don't actually know what the facts are. I'd have to go pull the docs on that case as well (perhaps I might). But what Kotmair has posted and referred to as:

"If the court declared the Fellowship's operation legal in 1996, it must certainly be legal in 2005. If the IRS could not find any criminal activity in 1993 and 1994, while they had all of our computers and paper files, surely they would not find any today."

is disingenuous as the posted signature pages of two filings from that case don't show any such declaration or finding of legality. Just that the case is being dismissed with prejudice - that is not a finding on the merits. The case it seems was withdrawn by the government as the IRS (in a botched raid) botched the case. But the tax issues themselves were not litigated or adjudicated. And obviously, even if they were dispensing valid legal tax advice or operating legally as of 1995, that doesn't mean that they remained so in the last 10 years.

For the record, there is a framed sign hanging in the lobby of SAPF's office which informs the reader that SAPF's interest is not in protesting any tax, but only insists on proper application of the current tax law. Becaues it does not protest any tax, lawful or otherwise and it is not a tax-protest organization and does not advance any tax protest arguments.

Well Kotmair (and SAPF) failed to dispute the government's case and it seems was non-responsive and frivolous to the discovery filings, on which basis the judge granted summary judgment to the government. Avoiding summary judgement is lawyering 101 - there is no excuse (assuming Kotmair had a case to make).

Though I've not read all 70 documents, it appears Kotmair/SAPF failed to comply with the trial judges rulings on discovery and was uncooperative in general, and the case then reverted from the assigned trial judge back to district court to Nickerson for disposition, where again Kotmair seems to have lost every motion and appeal, I would assume, for continuing to be non-responsive (or frivolous) to discovery and motions.

I might be more sympathetic to Kotmair's side of the debacle if he were more forthcoming in presenting his refutation of the judges rulings, but he stopped posting filings with doc #33 on 5/16/06. The record was not sealed and they are public findings. While Kotmair is not obligated to post them, one has to wonder why he stopped posting them as his defense was disintegrating. In view of what I have read (and past observations of similar fiascos), I'm inclined to accept the judges viewpoint at face value.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

So what if it's a kooky argument. If I'm an attorney and my client wants to argue that the sky is green, why would/should I run away from doing what he's paying me to do? Answer: Judges will get mad at me if I do. Now how legitimate is that?

Firstly, because, there are many other litigants waiting in line to get their day in court with legitimate complaints against insurance companies, wall- street robber barrons, check bouncers, dead-beat dads, etc, and you think they should cool their heels while some moron fritters away everyones' time, and taxpayers foot the bill for expanding/juggling the court system?.

Secondly, the purpose of courts is to adjudicate points or interpretations of *established* law between two or more parties. It is *not* a sandbox for contentious/litiguous people to invent new "law".

Nor do you get to "filibuster" or hold your breath and stamp your feet in a courtroom.

Time is of the essence. Justice delayed is justice denied.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:38:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I gotta agree this is disingenuous, Star. It costs you nothing as it's on the net and might explain why it's not a matter of shouting "Eureka" and announcing your find to the world.

This isn't like WTC collapses or 747's (or lack thereof) flying into the Pentagon where visual evidence is pivotal.

No, this is simple, straight forward legal argumentation, best proffered in writing with cites.

If the key points are there to be viewed, why haven't they been made in court? If they've been made in court, I've likley read them already and they've not been upheld.

You know perfectly well, I'm open to considering a new argument, I'm just not opne to wasting time "watching" someone talk about it. If an agrument can be made, then make it and shut me up.

I don't care to spend time viewing and re-viewing a video searching for some nugget of legal tax argument that I've not heard yet. I said I'd gladly read a written brief. Anyone who is serious about prevailing over the IRS writes and vets their argument. A written argument is not too much to expect in litigation - but then maybe that's why most (except Banister) keep getting their asses handed to them. Now if they could just get the judge to watch youtube instead.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   0:51:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Just asking: Could you point me in some direction concerning this, ie, "proper setup?"

You want to investigate irrevocable pure-equity holder trusts or charitable foundations. Circumstances dictate which to choose (and how many).

I don't know any website or lawfirm to recommend. The trust library at BYU is very useful. You'll need very competant accounting and legal advice as well as careful selection of trustees and trust/foundation managers. You are essentially giving your money away to someone else to manage for the benefit of your chosen beneficaries.

The key to the one-time tax benefit is that trust is funded via an exchange of "shares" for whatever asset it is given. The shares then have a recognized but unrealized value equal to the corpus, hence the transaction is at arms length and no taxable benefit was transferred. The shares entitle the holder to receive distributions from the trust's corpus, *if* the trustees so vote. But you can't be one of the trustees. The trustees shouldbe 50% blood related (who ostensibly look out for your interests) and 50% independent (or adverse) to maintain the trusts impartiality from you.

Charitable foundations are less complicated to fund, but you must give away 5% of its assets each year for the foundations charitable purpose to eliminate tax liability. Again, you can't be the charitable purpose, but you can be the paid manager who oversees the giving.

Setting up trusts or foundations is similar to setting up a C-corp, in that "articles" are drawn up that describe the trusts purpose and management. These articles provide for replacement of trustees, listings of beneficiaries, and the wishes of the founder. But unlike corporations, th etrust is essentially a contract under common law between the founder and the trustees to operate the trust and invest and distribute the trusts assests among the beneficiaries from time to time as the trustees deem appropriate. It is irrevocable and the founder has no control other than the provisions of the trust articles and selection of trustworthy and competant trustees.

With both, the transactions of the trust or foundation must not be intermingled with your own finances (must be kept separate at arms length, like a corporation) and any payments to you as manager or consultant will be scrutinized and must be reasonable. For example a trust can't pay you 50% of its assets as a "managment fee" - that will invite IRS scrutiny and invalidation.

The above is essentially the kind of trusts/foundations setup by the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Morgans, etc and Hewletts & Packards, Bill & Melinda Gates foundations. They do it as a means to lawfully reduce tax liabilities on their "extra" cash and provide support to their respective heirs, or "give back to the community" (lol). They don't do it to keep their money for themselves and avoid taxes.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   1:21:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

not to mention they themselves are likely to be targeted/audited by the IRS. the IRS strikes fear into the heart of every man. only the most courageous, those like John Kotmair and all those featured in Freedom To Fascism, dare to fight them.

It is undeniable that a general fear of the IRS blankets the entire country. That's because it's the one entity above all others that has such unfettered access to our personal lives, even beyond no-fly lists and driver licenses.

Why it is that in a so-called free country, we are expected to share something so intimate as our own personal finances -- things we would never dream of sharing with even our own siblings -- with the US Government bohemoth is beyond me.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:22:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I am not aware of judges having the power to revoke the license of an attorney appearing before them. Judges can certainly file complaints with the ethics tribunal.

That's my understanding, though I'll admit to not having proof of that. I've heard it said before and never challenged. I'm open to correction.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I thought the 521 was for terminating SS "benefits", which might be (are?) referring to payouts, as in, if you want to stop getting SS checks, you filled it out and they stopped sending it to you.

It really calls for an OMB number check against the regs to see why the form was created.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:29:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm puzzled to see you write "we", as if you are a party to the action against Kotmair and SAPF, and as if you yourself expect to be served????

I am a member of SAPF, as as a member, I believe I'm technically party to the suit even though I've not be served so much as a scribbled-upon napkin.

As for the facts of the injunction, it's over, stick a fork in it. The order, injunction and opinion were all filed by Judge Nickerson 11/29/06

I'm sure you're conveying what the web site says, but the fact remains that it's required that we be served and my latest info is we have not. I'm sure there will be an appeal and, if rumors are true as to its content, maybe some clarification on the order as well.

I'm a bit skeptical that his website doesn't show any of the 37 filings that have been made since 5/16/06.

I'll ask the webmaster about that, though the front page says it was last update on 9/12/06. Might be a case of them being posted but missing links on the page.

is disingenuous as the posted signature pages of two filings from that case don't show any such declaration or finding of legality. .... Just that the case is being dismissed with prejudice - that is not a finding on the merits.

There was a formal decision by a judge (Garbis) and SAPF won. The IRS appealed that decision but then moved to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, which was granted. So there was a judicial decision favoring SAPF. This is not a case of them getting off to a bad start and aborting prior to any ruling.

And yes, they really mishandled things, as the plan was for a grand jury to indict Kotmair in South Dakota or some state up that way. They summoned him up there on false pretenses of being a witness and then faced the GJ that just got an earful from the DOJ. He spent 45 minutes with them and walked out unindicted. Apparently the IRS didn't get the memo as they proceeded to raid SAPF the following AM.

Well Kotmair (and SAPF) failed to dispute the government's case and it seems was non-responsive and frivolous to the discovery filings, on which basis the judge granted summary judgment to the government. Avoiding summary judgement is lawyering 101 - there is no excuse (assuming Kotmair had a case to make).

Do you know this to be true? I have it that there were plenty of arguments made. The ball was not dropped by SAPF, Star. If you are basing your comments solely on what the judge wrote, then I'm afraid you're not getting the facts. This is a very deep case in which the IRS didn't even want to offer their witnesses for deposition. It was pulling teeth with them all the way.

I will admit I've not been involved with the details of the case, but I converse with those who have been on a very regular basis so I'm quite confident that your impressions on SAPF's handling of the case are very, very wrong.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   1:56:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Firstly, because, there are many other litigants waiting in line to get their day in court with legitimate complaints against insurance companies, wall- street robber barrons, check bouncers, dead-beat dads, etc, and you think they should cool their heels while some moron fritters away everyones' time, and taxpayers foot the bill for expanding/juggling the court system?.

A jury trial is a right. It's not a privilege. A Right. You can't sacrifice someone's right out of expediency. And maybe if the government wasn't so busy carrying on it's illegal drug war they'd have more time to afford the rest their Right to a trial.

Nor do you get to "filibuster" or hold your breath and stamp your feet in a courtroom.

Nor should you. There can be adequate safeguards for that while still affording the accused their right to a trial. There is no shortage of court rules in existance now. A no-filbuster rule can be one of them, if needed. In fact, there's nothing stoping someone from filbustering under the present system, is there?

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Better delayed that denied outright.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:01:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If you are refusing to watch FtF, then that's your decision.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:04:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This link to the SAPF site does indeed have documents as recent as 9/11/06.

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/doj/docket/docket.html

There are 67 PDF documents listed there. You can say a lot of things, but to say we were non-responsive in the suit is flat out wrong.

This link is on the same page that also shows the listing that stops at 5/12/06. It's labeled "Complete Docket" above the listing. I guess our webmaster got tired of updating the list.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   2:25:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

the IRS code is not the law.

Laws as passed by Congress are published as Statutes at Large.

The phrasing used by Congress is codified and becomes part of the United States Code. At this stage, it is a positive law as specifically contained in the Statutes at Large. It is Non-Positive law as it is contained in the United States Code. What is in the United States Code should be an accurate reflection of the positive law contained in the Statutes at Large. If there is any variance between the two, the text in the Statutes at Large is the controlling language.

The codified version of the law includes all amendments and revisions. Sometimes Congress acts to adopt the codified version and make it the positive law.

While Title 26 of the United States Code is "non-positive law," that designation does not effect the "legality" of the provision except that any variance with the text appearing in the Statutes at Large would be controlling.

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591. The Internal Revenue Code is now known as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986" as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514.

The imposition of the Income Tax appears at Title 26, United States Code, Section 1.

Link

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER A - DETERMINATION OF TAX LIABILITY
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and

(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[snip]

The legislative history of this income tax law is provided below:

Link

Section 1 - Notes

SOURCE

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 5; Pub. L. 88-272, title I, Sec. 111, Feb. 26, 1964, 78 Stat. 19; Pub. L. 89-809, title I, Sec. 103(a)(2), Nov. 13, 1966, 80 Stat. 1550; Pub. L. 91-172, title VIII, Sec. 803(a), Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 678; Pub. L. 95-30, title I, Sec. 101(a), May 23, 1977, 91 Stat. 127; Pub. L. 95-600, title I, Sec. 101(a), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2767; Pub. L. 97-34, title I, Secs. 101(a), 104(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 176, 188; Pub. L. 97-448, title I, Sec. 101(a)(3), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2366; Pub. L. 99-514, title I, Sec. 101(a), title III, Sec. 302(a), title XIV, Sec. 1411(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2096, 2218, 2714; Pub. L. 100-647, title I, Secs. 1001(a)(3), 1014(e)(1)-(3), (6), (7), title VI, Sec. 6006(a), Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3349, 3561, 3562, 3686; Pub. L. 101-239, title VII, Secs. 7811(j)(1), 7816(b), 7831(a), Dec. 19, 1989, 103 Stat. 2411, 2420, 2425; Pub. L. 101-508, title XI, Secs. 11101(a)-(c), (d)(1)(A), (2), 11103(c), 11104(b), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388-403 to 1388-406, 1388-408; Pub. L. 103-66, title XIII, Secs. 13201(a), (b)(3)(A), (B), 13202(a), 13206(d)(2), Aug. 10, 1993, 107 Stat. 457, 459, 461, 467; Pub. L. 104-188, title I, Sec. 1704(m)(1), (2), Aug. 20, 1996, 110 Stat. 1882, 1883; Pub. L. 105-34, title III, Sec. 311(a), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 831; Pub. L. 105-206, title V, Sec. 5001(a)(1)-(4), title VI, Secs. 6005(d)(1), 6007(f)(1), July 22, 1998, 112 Stat. 787, 788, 800, 810; Pub. L. 105-277, div. J, title IV, Sec. 4002(i)(1), (3), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-907, 2681-908; Pub. L. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(7) [title I, Sec. 117(b)(1)], Dec. 21, 2000, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-604; Pub. L. 107-16, title I, Sec. 101(a), (c)(1), (2), title III, Secs. 301(c)(1), 302(a), (b), June 7, 2001, 115 Stat. 41, 43, 54; Pub. L. 108-27, title I, Secs. 102(a), (b)(1), 104(a), (b), 105(a), title III, Secs. 301(a)(1), (2)(A), (b)(1), 302(a), (e)(1), May 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 754, 755, 758, 760, 763.)

AMENDMENT OF SECTION

For termination of amendment by sections 107 and 303 of Pub. L. 108-27, see Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

For termination of amendment by section 901 of Pub. L. 107-16, see Effective and Termination Dates of 2001 Amendment note below.

REFERENCES IN TEXT

The enactment of this clause, referred to in subsec. (h)(13)(A)(iii), means the date of enactment of Pub. L. 105-206, which was approved July 22, 1998.

AMENDMENTS

2003 - Subsec. (f)(8)(A). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 102(b)(1), 107, temporarily substituted "2002" for "2004". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (f)(8)(B). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 102(a), 107, temporarily inserted table item relating to years 2003 and 2004. See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(1)(B). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(a)(1), 303, temporarily substituted "5 percent (0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after 2007)" for "10 percent". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(1)(C). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(a)(2)(A), 303, temporarily substituted "15 percent" for "20 percent". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below. Subsec. (h)(2). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(A), (B), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (3) as (2) and struck out heading and text of former par. (2). Text read as follows:

"(A) Reduction in 10-percent rate. - In the case of any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2000, the rate under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 8 percent with respect to so much of the amount to which the 10-percent rate would otherwise apply as does not exceed qualified 5-year gain, and 10 percent with respect to the remainder of such amount.

"(B) Reduction in 20-percent rate. - The rate under paragraph (1)(C) shall be 18 percent with respect to so much of the amount to which the 20-percent rate would otherwise apply as does not exceed the lesser of -

"(i) the excess of qualified 5-year gain over the amount of such gain taken into account under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; or

"(ii) the amount of qualified 5-year gain (determined by taking into account only property the holding period for which begins after December 31, 2000),

and 20 percent with respect to the remainder of such amount. For purposes of determining under the preceding sentence whether the holding period of property begins after December 31, 2000, the holding period of property acquired pursuant to the exercise of an option (or other right or obligation to acquire property) shall include the period such option (or other right or obligation) was held." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(3). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 302(e)(1), 303, temporarily amended heading and text of par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows: "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'adjusted net capital gain' means net capital gain reduced (but not below zero) by the sum of -

"(A) unrecaptured section 1250 gain; and

"(B) 28-percent rate gain." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(B), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (4) as (3). Former par. (3) temporarily redesignated (2). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below. Subsec. (h)(4) to (7). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(B), 303, temporarily redesignated pars. (5) to (8) as (4) to (7), respectively. Former par. (4) temporarily redesignated (3). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(8). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (10) as (8). Former par. (8) temporarily redesignated (7). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(9). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(A), (C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (11) as (9) and struck out heading and text of former par. (9). Text read as follows: "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'qualified 5-year gain' means the aggregate long-term capital gain from property held for more than 5 years. The determination under the preceding sentence shall be made without regard to collectibles gain, gain described in paragraph (7)(A)(i), and section 1202 gain." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(10). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (12) as (10). Former par. (10) temporarily redesignated (8). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(11). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 302(a), 303, temporarily added par. (11). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (11) as (9). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (h)(12). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 301(b)(1)(C), 303, temporarily redesignated par. (12) as (10). See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(1)(B)(i). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 104(a), 107, temporarily substituted "($12,000 in the case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, and before January 1, 2008)" for "($12,000 in the case of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2008)". See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(1)(C). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 104(b), 107, temporarily amended heading and text of subpar. (C) generally. Text read as follows: "In prescribing the tables under subsection (f) which apply with respect to taxable years beginning in calendar years after 2000 -

"(i) the Secretary shall make no adjustment to the initial bracket amount for any taxable year beginning before January 1, 2009,

"(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment used in making adjustments to the initial bracket amount for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2008, shall be determined under subsection (f)(3) by substituting '2007' for '1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof, and

"(iii) such adjustment shall not apply to the amount referred to in subparagraph (B)(iii).

If any amount after adjustment under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $50, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50." See Effective and Termination Dates of 2003 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (i)(2). Pub. L. 108-27, Secs. 105(a), 107, temporarily amended table generally. Prior to amendment, table read as follows:

DEFINITIONS

Pub. L. 105-277, div. J, title IV, Sec. 4001(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-906, provided that: "For purposes of this title [amending this section, sections 51, 56, 67, 68, 86, 135, 137, 163, 172, 219, 221, 264, 351, 368, 408A, 469, 873, 954, 2001, 2031, 6015, 6103, 6159, 6311, 6404, 6693, 7421, 7443A, 7491, 9503, and 9510 of this title, and sections 401 and 407 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, enacting provisions set out as notes under this section, sections 51, 67, 68, 86, 172, 833, 6103, and 9503 of this title, and section 401 of Title 42, and amending provisions set out as notes under sections 6601 and 7508A of this title] -

"(1) 1986 code. - The term '1986 Code' means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

"(2) 1998 act. - The term '1998 Act' means the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-206) [see Tables for classification].

"(3) 1997 act. - The term '1997 Act' means the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34) [see Tables for classification]."

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in sections 2, 3, 15, 23, 24, 25A, 32, 41, 42, 55, 59, 63, 68, 132, 135, 137, 146, 162, 163, 179, 213, 219, 220, 221, 223, 301, 306, 453A, 460, 468B, 511, 512, 513, 584, 641, 646, 685, 691, 702, 774, 854, 857, 871, 876, 877, 891, 904, 911, 936, 962, 1022, 1260, 1291, 1301, 1398, 1446, 2032A, 2503, 2631, 3402, 3406, 4001, 4261, 6014, 6015, 6039F, 6103, 6242, 6323, 6334, 6428, 6601, 6652, 6655, 6867, 7430, 7518, 7519 of this title; title 7 section 940d; title 46 App. section 1177.

Public Law 108-27 of 2003 is linked and quoted in part below:

Link [PDF]

Link [TEXT]

[DOCID: f:publ027.108]

[[Page 751]]

JOBS AND GROWTH TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2003

[[Page 117 STAT. 752]]

Public Law 108-27

108th Congress

An Act

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004. <>

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, <>

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This <> Act may be cited as the ``Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003''.

(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[snip]

SEC. 102. ACCELERATION OF 15-PERCENT INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX RATE BRACKET EXPANSION FOR MARRIED TAXPAYERS FILING JOINT RETURNS.

(a) In General.--The table contained in subparagraph (B) of section 1(f )(8) (relating to applicable percentage) <> is amended by inserting before the item relating to 2005 the following new item:

"2003 and 2004............................. 200''.

(b) Conforming Amendments.--

(1) Section 1(f)(8)(A) is amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2002''.

(2) Section 302(c) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 <> is amended by striking ``2004'' and inserting ``2002''.

(c) Effective Date.--The <> amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002.

As reflected in the United States Code, 26 USC 1, subparagraph (B) of section 1(f)(8):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=1

(B) Applicable percentage

For purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable percentage shall be determined in accordance with the following table:
For taxable years beginning..... The applicable
in calendar year - ............. percentage is -
2003 and 2004 .................. 200
2005 ........................... 180
2006 ........................... 187
2007 ........................... 193
2008 and thereafter ............ 200.

The codified version is non-positive law. However, this does not mean that the provision is not positive law. Public Law 108-27 of 2003 IS positive law. All of the other listed Public Laws from which the codified version is derived are equally POSITIVE LAW.

The codified law is a more readable version of the text passed by Congress, with amendments incorporated into the text rather than existing as separate documents. The only time the content of the U.S. Code is not reflective of positive law is when it fails to accurately reflect the text authorized by the original positive law published in the Statutes at Large.

The Tax Law and the Amendments thereto were passed by Congress and enacted as positive law.

The courts have said this:

"Indeed, as we have repeatedly held, the entire Internal Revenue Code was validly enacted by Congress and is fully enforceable." United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146 (10th Cir. 1990); [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 940 [9th Cir. 1986].

"Congress's failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. § 204(a) (1982), (the text of titles not enacted into positive law is only prima facie evidence of the law itself). Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law, and the defendants did not violate Ryan's rights by enforcing it." Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985).

"The petitioner's argument that the Internal Revenue Code was not enacted by Congress is equally meritless. The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by the 83rd Congress on August 16, 1954 (ch. 736, 68A Stat. 3) and has been amended by Congress with some frequency since that time." Urban v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-220, affd. per curiam, 964 F.2d 888 (9th Cir. 1992).

The claim that "Title 26 was not enacted into 'positive law,' has been rejected as 'frivolous,' 'baseless,' 'specious,' and 'preposterous.' See United States v. Hooper, No. 93-35565, 1995 WL 792039, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 1995) ('frivolous'); United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D.C.Conn.1984), aff'd, 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.) (table), 'specious'); accord, Young v. Internal Revenue Service, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind.1984) ('preposterous'); Sloan v. United States, 621 F.Supp. 1072, 1076 (N.D.Ind.1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed, 812 F.2d 1410 (7th Cir.1987) (table) (litigants advancing 'frivolous' arguments such as assertions that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law subjected to sanctions under Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P.); Hackett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 85-1558, 1986 WL 16862, at *1 (6th Cir. April 21, 1986) (appeal of dismissal of petition challenging tax deficiency assessment describing 'positive law' argument as 'frivolous')." United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996).

"In his opposition, Plaintiff asserts that 'Title 26 U.S.C. (including section 6321) has not been enacted into positive law, and is not the law, but is only prima facie evidence of the law.' ... Congress' failure to enact a title into positive law has only evidentiary significance and does not render the underlying enactment invalid or unenforceable. See 1 U.S.C. section 204(a). 'Like it or not, the Internal Revenue Code is the law'. Ryan v. Bilby, 764 F.2d 1325, 1328 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Zuger, 602 F.Supp. 889, 891-92 (D. Conn. 1984)

('holding that the failure of Congress to enact a title as such and in such form into positive law . . . in no way impugns the validity, effect, enforceability, or constitutionality of the laws as contained and set forth in the title'), aff'd. without op., 755 F.2d 915 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 805 (1985); Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 149 (N.D.Ind. 1984) (asserting that 'even if Title 26 was not itself enacted into positive law, that does not mean that the laws under the title are null and void'). Plaintiff's positive law argument is without merit." Bilger v. United States, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-468, No. CIV F 00-6486 OWW JLO (U.S.D.C. E.D.Ca. 1/9/2001).

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-05   5:22:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It really calls for an OMB number check against the regs to see why the form was created.

OMB NO. 0960-0015

My intent was to publish / give Notice of my refusal to participate in any way with the Feds at any level or with any legal fiction, damn the consequences.

Mine is not simply a matter of financial concern. I'm of the opinion that the number is the Mark of the Beast or its precursor. I determined that I could not participate in the system as it has been altered mid-stream to facilitate an evil agenda that would have prevented its passage in the initial stages, but has been slipped in over time. I won't support the murder of innocent people to facilitate elitists economic goals or to stay out of jail.

At some point in the not to distant future it won't matter what attempts have been made to be up front with Uncle Sambo because the goons will have no respect for any law. Some might say we are at that point already.

The real problem is that the weakness and apathetic ignorance of the masses is what forbids change.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   7:31:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm sure you're conveying what the web site says, but the fact remains that it's required that we be served and my latest info is we have not.

Just to be clear, I'm not reading some paraphrased summary, I'm reading the judge's filed order, opinion, and injunction. The exact same documents as were distributed to the parties.

And your understanding of a need to be served in this instance is incorrect. This is a trial matter. When the suit started, attornies of notice and record were identified with addresses for the specific purpose of designating to whom and where documents are to be sent. There is no need for a process server to track down and "serve" parties to a suit with court documents filed pursuant to that suit. This is not like process serving. The attorney of record for Kotmair/ SAPF is George E Harp Attorney at Law LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (I've withheld his address from this post, but it is a matter of public record), and he most likely received a 1-2 day courier delivery of the judge's rulings.

A jury trial is a right. It's not a privilege. A Right. You can't sacrifice someone's right out of expediency. And maybe if the government wasn't so busy carrying on it's illegal drug war they'd have more time to afford the rest their Right to a trial.

Not quite. The Seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in federal civil cases at common law or monetary damages, but not for injunctions. Read more at Juries In-depth: Right to a jury trial.

There are 67 PDF documents listed there. You can say a lot of things, but to say we were non-responsive in the suit is flat out wrong.

That docket is a list of filings, within which the substantive filings (which complied with court procedure) were mostly made by the government. The Kotmair filings were often (not always) frivolous in their argument and non-responsive in their content and/or violation of rules. The judge overruled Kotmair's objections and denied his motions generally, and the US occasionally. The bottom line is Kotmair represented himself poorly and it shows in his pleadings. The case never got out of discovery phase because Kotmair did not supply what he was asked to supply - that is the sense in which he was non- responsive, and further invented novel and frivolous interpretations of established law, and consequently failed to dispute the government's showing of no genuine issue of material fact on which to deny the injunction, and so on that basis the judge awarded summary judgement to the government.

And I doubt there will be an appeal because Kotmair failed to enter into the court record any basis on which an appellate court could find the trial court erred. ie, because Kotmair was mainly non-responsive and frivolous, there is very little of substance for an appellate court to reconsider.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   13:08:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The claim that "Title 26 was not enacted into 'positive law,' has been rejected as 'frivolous,' 'baseless,' 'specious,' and 'preposterous.'

Clearly, the claim that Title 26 has not been enacted into "positive law" is true. The claim is, therefore, neither frivolous, baseless, specious or preposterous. Whoever composed the annotations should be more accurate in summations.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   13:09:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The government is trying to supress it because most of it is just plain wrong and many naive people are being hurt by it as well as tax revenues potentially taking a big hit if some of these illegal schemes were adopted en- mass

I think we can pretty much discount the first motivation.

Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-12-05   13:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is said don't go into a gunfight armed with a pocket knife. The mistakes happen long before that. If all one understands is pocket knives, one would do well to listen to the advice of professional gunfighters.

Knives are harder to trace than bullets though. Don't agree to a gunfight.

Those who are tardy do not get fruit cup.

Tauzero  posted on  2006-12-05   13:13:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The attorney of record for Kotmair/ SAPF is George E Harp Attorney at Law LEAD ATTORNEY, ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED (I've withheld his address from this post, but it is a matter of public record), and he most likely received a 1-2 day courier delivery of the judge's rulings.

Yes. Perhaps by now he has received it, but the latest word I have is he has not received it. Neither he nor SAPF. When I said we'd not been served, I meant neither SAPF nor Harp.

Not quite. The Seventh Amendment provides for jury trials in federal civil cases at common law or monetary damages, but not for injunctions. Read more at Juries In-depth: Right to a jury trial.

I believe you were arguing against allowing people the defense of their choice because the halls of our courts our quite crowded. My point is that crowded halls are no excuse for depriving people of due process. I'll amend my statement from "jury trial" to "due process". If you feel that due process should rightly be curtailed such that people are not permitted a defense not approved by the bench, simply because the courts are crowded, fine. But that's clearly wrong on a moral, if not legal, basis.

And I doubt there will be an appeal ...

I'm sure the effort will be made. Maybe the appeal will be tossed, but the appeal will be made.

Since you apparently hold no validity in the arguments of the "tax honesty" movement, so called, I'm curious as to what it was about Banister that you consider applaudable.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   13:31:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If you feel that due process should rightly be curtailed such that people are not permitted a defense not approved by the bench, simply because the courts are crowded, fine.

Due process is not any process.

"Due" as in to what one is entitled. There is no right to frivolous process, non-responsive process, or just plain stupid process. One is entitled to due process in accordance with laws, regulations, statutes, and court procedures.

And my argument was that the rest of the litigants awaiting their day in court, waiting for their right to due process, should not be unduely delayed or if already at trial have their expenses and damages unduely increased because of someone elses imagined right to any process.

The same rules that apply to insurance companies seeking to avoid paying off a dying accident victim are the same rules that apply to Kotmair or the government. That's what due process looks like. Trial attornies know these rules, they know how due process works and where its boundaries are. This is the stuff of law schools and internships. These rules weren't just invented to thwart Kotmair. He represented himself and he alone is responsible for knowing and abiding by trial procedures.

I'm curious as to what it was about Banister that you consider applaudable.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   13:48:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Clearly, the claim that Title 26 has not been enacted into "positive law" is true. The claim is, therefore, neither frivolous, baseless, specious or preposterous. Whoever composed the annotations should be more accurate in summations.

(litigants advancing 'frivolous' arguments such as assertions that the Internal Revenue Code is not positive law subjected to sanctions under Rule 11, FED. R. CIV. P.); Hackett v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 85-1558, 1986 WL 16862, at *1 (6th Cir. April 21, 1986) (appeal of dismissal of petition challenging tax deficiency assessment describing 'positive law' argument as 'frivolous')." United States v. Maczka, 957 F.Supp. 988, 991 (W.D.Mich. 1996).

Unless the litigant provides a showing that the United States Code is inaccurate in its presentation of the underlying positive law, assertions that the U.S. Code is not positive law are rightfully considered a frivolous waste of the court's time.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=1&sec=204

United States Code
TITLE 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 3 - CODE OF LAWS OF UNITED STATES AND SUPPLEMENTS; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CODE AND SUPPLEMENTS

U.S. Code as of: 01/3/05

Section 204. Codes and Supplements as evidence of the laws of United States and District of Columbia; citation of Codes and Supplements

In all courts, tribunals, and public offices of the United States, at home or abroad, of the District of Columbia, and of each State, Territory, or insular possession of the United States -

(a) United States Code. - The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

(b) District of Columbia Code. - The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of the District of Columbia current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws, general and permanent in their nature, relating to or in force in the District of Columbia on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included, except such laws as are of application in the District of Columbia by reason of being laws of the United States general and permanent in their nature.

(c) District of Columbia Code; citation. - The Code of the District of Columbia may be cited as "D.C. Code".

(d) Supplements to Codes; citation. - Supplements to the Code of Laws of the United States and to the Code of the District of Columbia may be cited, respectively, as "U.S.C., Sup. ", and "D.C. Code, Sup. ", the blank in each case being filled with Roman figures denoting the number of the supplement.

(e) New edition of Codes; citation. - New editions of each of such codes may be cited, respectively, as "U.S.C., ed.", and "D.C. Code, ed.", the blank in each case being filled with figures denoting the last year the legislation of which is included in whole or in part.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-05   14:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

And my argument was that the rest of the litigants awaiting their day in court, waiting for their right to due process, should not be unduely delayed or if already at trial have their expenses and damages increased because of someone elses imagined right to any process.

That is hardly an argument against allowing people the defense of their choice. And I'm not talking about a filbuster defense. I'm talking abuot the right to tell a jury that one smoked marijuana out of medical need because he is seriously ill with cancer or something, or the right to tell a jury that one honestly believed there was no duty to file a tax return. Both of these defenses are routinely denied by judges, and they have absolutely *nothing* to do with a heavy docket. They have to do with suppression. In the latter case, just as a footnote, it is established by the supremes that *willful* failure to file is not applicable in cases where people have a good faith belief that there is not duty to file, regardless of the stated reason for the belief. I have seen court orders that bar defendents the defense of, among other things, telling the jury what the defendents believed the law to say or what the law required of them.

If you are of the position that there is justice in today's courts, then I suspect you just haven't been in many at all.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   14:04:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All I was saying is that the claim that title 26 has not been enacted into positive law is factual, and that, therefore, the annotation claiming otherwise was incorrect. I know it's likely the annotation is not accurately conveying the finding in those cases.

Yes, I agree that using that as a basis to say the laws listed in title 26 are not legally binding carries no weight.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   14:10:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

These rules weren't just invented to thwart Kotmair.

I agree, many of the so-called "rules" were invented to thwart (manage) justice in general, and are violated by the courts themselves when the situation arises wherein the court feels justified or compelled.

I disagree that lawyers and internships have much to do with understanding the rules ... reading comprehension above a 3rd grade level is sufficient. I had an action against my father's Estate summarily dismissed by brief that had been sued out by a Probate Attorney (thug), that was also a Law Professor at Indiana University, and the Judge laughed him out of court. Incompetence is rampant in the legal profession.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   14:15:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All I was saying is that the claim that title 26 has not been enacted into positive law is factual, and that, therefore, the annotation claiming otherwise was incorrect. I know it's likely the annotation is not accurately conveying the finding in those cases.

Yes, I agree that using that as a basis to say the laws listed in title 26 are not legally binding carries no weight.

This information is correct.

I think I started this aggravating and unimportant series of irrelevant posts. I apologize !

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   14:18:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

That is hardly an argument against allowing people the defense of their choice.

When the "defense of their choice" is merely a euphemism for a novel, fabricated reading of otherwise established case law and ignoring standard procedures, then yes I would disallow that defense. In Kotmair's case, the judge allowed it, and ultimately ruled on its failure to be an adequate defense and granted summary judgement.

If you are of the position that there is justice in today's courts, then I suspect you just haven't been in many at all.

If you are of the position that the meaning of justice in todays courts can be made up by you as you go along, then I likwise suspect you just haven't been in many at all.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   14:18:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of slavery ... was that Justice or was that an expedient decision given by the whores in black robes for their masters

And, is it even thinkable that the Kelo Case represents the intent of the writers of the Constitution, or is it more likely that it supports the necessary theft to build the Trans-Texas Corridor ?

Only someone with a horse in the race could look at our current legal system and condone its outrages.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   14:32:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

attornies

it's attorneys, not attornies. /spelling nazi

;)

christine  posted on  2006-12-05   14:38:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

At some point in the not to distant future it won't matter what attempts have been made to be up front with Uncle Sambo because the goons will have no respect for any law. Some might say we are at that point already.

i am of that opinion and not for lack of evidence. i've been witness to far too many courtroom atrocities to think otherwise.

christine  posted on  2006-12-05   14:42:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Good posts, nolu_chan.

Neil, I alluded somewhere up thread that the purpose of courts was to adjudicate disputes at law between two or more parties.

Aside from constitutional issues, the courts are generally not the place to argue what the law ought to be. They are generally the place to argue whether the law "as-is" was in fact followed or not.

If one does not like the law as-is, one needs to work through congress and elections, constitutional conventions to get the law changed so as to read and mean what one might like it to be. In which case you and Kotmair, et.al. would be appreciative (I assume) that the same court procedures that today weigh the evidence against the law as-is would in the future weigh that evidence against the new law as-is and not as-was or as-might-be.

The point being, ignoring what the law actually is, or imagining one can waltz into court and argue the position that the established law isn't really established, had better be armed to the teeth with substantive filings and proof, to show major errors in how the law was written or enacted, and not mere wishful reinterpretations based on cherry-picking from Black's Law Dictionary and ignoring caselaw, court procedures, regulations and law.

nolu_chan's posts demonstrate the legislative and case history of the tax code and the basis on which courts have previously, ad-nauseum, weighed arguments against the law as-is and found repeatedly that it has the weight of law, and tax-protestors ought simply to get over it and move on to more productive avenues of change.

Kotmair's strategic error was to dismiss that the law as written wasn't applicable to him or his fellowhsip. His tactical error was to go into court ill prepared to argue his strategy.

By ignoring or arguing that somehow Title 26 isn't really law, or to think that courts will continue to entertain such arguments, is to repeat Kotmair's mistakes.

The point of establishing law (what the congress and executive do) is to make known rules by which we all live, whether we agree or not. If we disagree, take it up with the congress. If we don't abide by established law, then expect the courts to narrowly focus on what the law is and what the evidence is compared to the law.

The courts will not (forever) entertain arguments that the law isn't really what the law is, and they will quickly move on to trying the evidence and granting summary judgement.

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   14:56:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

it's attorneys, not attornies. /spelling nazi

i am of that opinion and not for lack of evidence. i've been witness to far too many courtroom atrocities to think otherwise.

It's assholes ... not attorneys !!!

Me too, and I've witnessed a plethora of incompetent or indifferent lawyers, that become incompetent and indifferent Judges.

Aside from kicking the Law Professor's ass in court, I also won a Judgment of 100K by whipping a scum bag divorce lawyer that frequently acted as a Judge Pro- Tem in California. They're a collection of super-scum that manages to ooze its way through law school, buy a cheap suit and kiss Judicial ass for the next 20 years to earn a living by stealing it from others.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-05   14:57:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

it's attorneys, not attornies. /spelling nazi

I do have a mental block about that word. I seldom spell it correctly out of the gate, and sometimes catch and correct it on a proof read.

God bless spelling nazis, apostrophe nazis, comma nazis, punctuation nazis, grammar nazis, et. al. :)

(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-05   15:00:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This page gives a pretty good historical summary of federal taxation.

http://civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm

For authoritative law on the subject, the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and provides for all taxes to be either direct or indirect, each of which comes with its own requirements and restrictions. Case "law" or case "history" as I choose to call it, under the Supreme Court cases of Brushaber vs Union Pacific RR and Stanton vs Baltic Mining, provided that the 16th amendment did not confer upon congress any new power of taxation, but merely qualified the answer to the question of the nature of the income tax as falling into the indirect category. It is not an exception to the direct tax that can be imposed without apportionment, it's instead an indirect tax, an excise to be precise. These cases have never been overturned, but are indeed ignored by today's lower courts.

If you do decide to watch FtF, you'll see an interview with former IRS Comissioner Rosotti who is asked about these SC decisions. I don't recall his exact words, but he says that they simply don't apply anymore, and it's not because they've been overturned because they haven't. It is that particular attitude which the tax-honesty movement encounters both within the courts and in the mainstream. We've all been brought up, myself included, believing that income taxation, as commonly applied, is necessary and essential to preserving freedom and our countries infrastructure, but most of us have never challenged that notion. I no longer believe either to be the case.

nolu_chan's posts demonstrate the legislative and case history of the tax code and the basis on which courts have previously, ad-nauseum, weighed arguments against the law as-is, and found repeatedly that it has the weight of law and tax-protestors ought simply to get over it and move on to more productive avenues of change.

If you are suggesting that we should just forget about the Constitutional provisions re: taxes and the current SC rulings in the Brushaber & Stanton decisions and pretend they don't exist because that is what the lower courts do, then on a pragmatic level, you may be right. But it is not SAPF or Kotmair that is ignoring these precedents. It is the lower courts. If there is a mistake being made by SAPF/Kotmair, it is the notion that meaning of the Constitution cannot change without an amendment, or at the very least, an SC ruling on what it means. And that's a mistake I would stand with him in making.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-05   16:08:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

This page gives a pretty good historical summary of federal taxation.

http://civil-liberties.com/pages/taxationtale.htm

From the cited/linked A Fairy Tale of Taxation

1895: In Pollock vs Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co, the Supreme Court rules that general income taxes are unconstitutional because they are unapportioned direct taxes. To this day, the ruling has not been over-turned.

Pollack was nullified by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The matter went back and forth until it was resolved by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Amendment XVI

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.

From American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume One, by Laurence H. Tribe, at page 843:

Article I, § 9, also states that "[n]o Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census." Article I, § 2, provides that "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Num­bers." A direct tax is one imposed upon property as such, rather than on the performance of an act. Because of the impractical apportionment requirement attaching to direct taxes, the fate of federal income taxation in the nineteenth century turned on the content the Supreme Court gave to the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. In Springer v. United States, the Court held a Civil War income tax to be an indirect excise tax. But in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., a majority of the Justices ruled that, insofar as the source of income is property, an income tax is a direct tax, and is therefore invalid unless apportioned. By 1911, however, the Supreme Court had again reversed direction, holding in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. that a tax on corporations measured by income was not a direct tax but an excise tax on the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. The confusion was put to an end in 1913 with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which pro­vides: "Congress shall have power to lay and to collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[boldface added, footnotes deleted]

From A Practical Companion to the Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman, at page 55:

APPORTIONMENT OF TAXES.

* * *

Very early on, the Supreme Court indicated that it would read the clause narrowly. In 1796 the Court sustained a tax on carriages without regard to the census or apportionment, holding that such a tax is an "excise" or "duty," not a direct tax. [1115] But nearly a century later the Supreme Court, against the weight of its precedents, declared that a federal tax on income derived from real estate and personal property was a direct tax, and that the Income Tax Act of 1894 was unconstitutional because it did not apportion. [1887] That decision was overruled by the adoption of the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, which expressly permits Contress to tax incomes without apportionment. Since then the Court has not struck down any federal tax as violating the apportionment clause and has upheld several taxes against such a challenge, including the federal estate tax [1687] and the federal gift tax. [284]

[FOOTNOTES abbreviated to show case citation only]

[1115] Hylton v. U.S., 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796)

[1887] Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), 158 U.S. 601 (rehearing) (1895).

[1687] New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921)

[284] Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 27 (1928)

From Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, Second Edition, by Erwin Chemerinsky, at page 270-1:

Direct and Indirect Taxes

Article I, §2, of the Constitution states that "direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers." Article I, §9, provides that "[n]o Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census." In its initial cases considering these provisions, the Court narrowly defined what is a direct tax and thus accorded Congress broad authority to impose various kinds of taxes. Under the earlier cases, direct taxes seemed limited to taxes on real property; therefore, all other taxes could be imposed by Congress without concern about apportion­ment among the states. For example, in Hylton v. United States, in 1796, the Court held that a federal tax on carriages was indirect and therefore did not need to be apportioned among the states. [12]

In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, in 1869, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal tax on state bank notes. [13] The Court concluded that this was an indirect tax and declared that "direct taxes have been limited to taxes on land and appur­tenances, and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes." [14] The Court repeated this view in Springer v. United States, where the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War Income Tax. [15]

However, in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., the Court, by a 5 to 4 margin, declared unconstitutional the federal income tax. [16] The Court explained that be­cause the income tax collected revenue gained from property, among other sources, it was a direct tax and had to be apportioned among the states. In 1913, eighteen years after Pollock, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to overturn that decision and to allow a federal income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment pro­vides: "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 Court eventually abandoned the distinction between direct and indirect taxes. [17] In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., the Court upheld the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909, which imposed a tax on corporations doing business in states or territories. [18] Similarly, the Court upheld taxes such as those on estates [19] and gifts. [20] The constitutional provisions quoted above, requiring apportionment of direct taxes, seem limited, at most, to taxes on real property. In other words, unless Congress were to create a national property tax, all other taxes are very lokely to be deemed indirect and threfore are constitutional even without apportionment among the states.

[12] 3 U.S. (3Dall.) 171 (1796).

[13] 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 533 (1869).

[14] Id. at 544.

[15] 102 U.S. (12 Otto) 586, 602 (1880).

[16] 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

[17] But see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920) (stock dividents are not income prior to their sale or conversion and therefore are not taxable without apportionment).

[18] 220 U.S. 107 (1911)

[19] Bank & Trust Co. of New York v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345 (1921)

[20] Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

From Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition, by John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, at page 188-9:

The sixteenth amendment, which permits imposition of a federal income tax without apportionment among the states, was necessitated by the five to four decision in Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. [2] Forty-two years later, with its decision in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, [3] the Court in effect overruled Pollack and in so doing rendered the sixteenth amendment redundant.

[2] 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (initial decision), 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 192, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (decision on rehearing) (1895)(t5ax upon income from real and personal property held invalid in the absence of apportionment.)

[3] 300 U.S. 308, 57 C.Ct. 466, 81 L.Ed. 666 (1937) (sustaining New York income tax on income derived by New York resident from New Jersey real estate).

From Constitutional Law, National Power and Federalism, Second Edition, by Christopher N. May and Allan Ides, at page 29:

First, the people may register their disagreement with the Court by amending the Constitution. While this is a difficult feat to accomplish, it has occurred four times in our history. The Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), which had allowed a state to be sued in federal court without its consent. The Fourteenth Amendment reversed Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) and its holding that former slaves and their descendants could not be citizens of the United States. The Sixteenth Amendment overturned Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601 (1895), which had barred the federal government from collecting an income tax that was not apportioned among the states. And the Twenty-Sixth Amendment rejected Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970), which had held that states could deny persons 18 to 21 years old the right to vote in state elections.

From Pollack (rehearing) at 635:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

From the cited/linked A Fairy Tale of Taxation

January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional; The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes; The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional;

Pollack did NOT declare general income taxes unconstitutional. Explicitly, Pollack did not even consider anything but tax on income derived from real estate and from invested personal property and explicitly said it did not comment on income from gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments.

From Pollack (rehearing) at 635:

We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.

The 16th Amendment applies only to gains and profits from commercial and investment activities: The 16th Amendment only applies to excises taxes;

[Sixteenth 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 Sixteenth Amendment explicitly authorizes taxes, without apportionment, upon incomes from whatever source derived.

The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

This author seriously (?) purports that an Amendment to the Constitution did not amend the Constitution. Froot Loops.

From the cited/linked A Fairy Tale of Taxation

1913: With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress creates the federal internal income tax

Brushaber states that the 16th Amendment returned the income tax to an "indirect tax."

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution, - a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

Stanton states that the 16th Amendment returned the income tax to an "indirect tax" where it inherently belonged.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-06   7:04:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The confusion was put to an end in 1913 with the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, which pro­vides: "Congress shall have power to lay and to collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Many confuse "income" with anything (money) coming in ... this leads to people paying tax on non-taxable funds. Less than 3% of all Americans paid an income tax prior to WW II (which was after the 16th Amendment was passed).

Define this term "income" ... if the term is defined as a profit or gain from a capital investment ... then:

If a guy earns $500.00 working and invests it in the market and makes $100.00 profit or gain, the $100.00 is taxable while his labor is non-taxable.

If one is involved in a taxable activity (cigarette manufacturing for example) the tax is on the event, not upon the money. The money is merely the measurement used to determine the amount owed.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-06   8:38:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Pollack was nullified by the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

I've looked through your cites but found no evidence to support this claim.

From American Constitutional Law, Third Edition, Volume One, by Laurence H. Tribe, at page 843:

In response, there was indeed confusion as to whether the income tax should be considered a direct or indirect tax. The Pollack and Flint cases were in regard to two separate taxes and they came to separate conclusions. There is no dispute here that the 16th amendment clarified that a tax on income was an indirect tax, but that does not mean that the Pollack case was overturned. Independent, non-judicial authors merely claiming such does not carry legal weight and certainly are not up to the standard of SC precedent.

From A Practical Companion to the Constitution, by Jethro K. Lieberman, at page 55:

[...] That decision was overruled by the adoption of the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, which expressly permits Contress to tax incomes without apportionment.

The author gave no evidence or support for this claim.

Since then the Court has not struck down any federal tax as violating the apportionment clause and has upheld several taxes against such a challenge, including the federal estate tax [1687] and the federal gift tax. [284]

That's perfectly understandable, as the income tax is indirect required to follow the rule of uniformity, and not direct, requiring apportionment. The 16th amendment would have blocked any such challenges.

From Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, Second Edition, by Erwin Chemerinsky, at page 270-1:

[...] In 1913, eighteen years after Pollock, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified to overturn that decision and to allow a federal income tax.

This is bunk as, again, there's no support for the claim that the 16th overturned Pollack.

The Court eventually abandoned the distinction between direct and indirect taxes.

This is serious bunk. The Constitution has never lost that distinction, and there's no SC case that supports the claim.

In other words, unless Congress were to create a national property tax, all other taxes are very lokely to be deemed indirect and threfore are constitutional even without apportionment among the states.

Correct, but as an indirect tax, the tax is not upon money, which would be direct, but upon certain activities that might generate the income, as Flint makes clear: "In other words, the tax is imposed upon the doing of business of the character described, and the measure of the tax is to be income..." The money generated is merely the measure by which the tax is computed, and not the subject of the tax itself. The same applies today, such that any income generated outside of a taxable activity is not income taxable. (That is, within the states of the union).

From Constitutional Law, Fourth Edition, by John E. Nowak and Ronald D. Rotunda, at page 188-9:

The sixteenth amendment, which permits imposition of a federal income tax without apportionment among the states,

No, it does not. At least not in the conventional definition of the word "permits". The 16th qualifies the income tax as indirect, and as an indirect, shows that congress always had that power.

...was necessitated by the five to four decision in Pollack v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. [2] Forty-two years later, with its decision in New York ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, [3] the Court in effect overruled Pollack and in so doing rendered the sixteenth amendment redundant.

Here's a link to the Graves case: http://supreme.justia.com/u s/300/308/case.html

It had nothing to do with federal taxation. It addressed the question of whether NY could tax someone on income derived from property in NJ. Obviously federal constitutional restrictions on direct/indirect taxation do not apply to states, so the entire case is completely removed from the issue of federal taxation. I challenge you to read it and show me where it says Pollack was overturned.

From Constitutional Law, National Power and Federalism, Second Edition, by Christopher N. May and Allan Ides, at page 29:

The Sixteenth Amendment overturned Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 601 (1895), which had barred the federal government from collecting an income tax that was not apportioned among the states.

Bunk. The SC stated that congress always had the power to tax incomes based on the rule of uniformity. The 16th merely clarified that income taxes would always be considered indirect.

[From the tax tale site] January 24, 1916: In Brushaber vs. Union Pacific Railroad, the Supreme Court ruled: that the 16th Amendment doesn’t over-rule the Court’s ruling in the Pollock case which declared general income taxes unconstitutional;

Pollack did NOT declare general income taxes unconstitutional.

On this I'll agree, though it was considered unconstitutional insofar as it was construed as a direct tax without apportionment. I'll take this moment to say that I did not pen the site and do take certain exception to wordings. I offered it as a general summary on the history of income taxation.

The Sixteenth Amendment explicitly authorizes taxes, without apportionment, upon incomes from whatever source derived.

Not true. It does not authorize anything. Remember it does not confer any new powers of taxation, but merely confines the power to tax income, which it always had, to the indirect class.

The 16th Amendment did not Amend the U.S. Constitution; The 16th Amendment only clarified the federal governments existing authority to create excise taxes without apportionment.

I agree this is penned incorrectly. Yes it amended the Constitution. Of course it did. What it did not do is grant any new taxing power to congress.

In summary, I don't think any of your numerous citations support the claims that Pollack was overturned or that there is no longer any Constitutional distinction between direct and indirect taxes.

Care to try again?

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-06   9:11:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If one is involved in a taxable activity (cigarette manufacturing for example) the tax is on the event, not upon the money. The money is merely the measurement used to determine the amount owed.

Great minds....

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-06   9:15:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Taxation as envisioned by the framers was to share the nations wealth by paying for the necessary government requirements through taxing those entities privileged to benefit from the collective resources owned by the nation in general. (Not to tax every dollar in circulation 20 times over).

An example would be a coal mining operation owned by John Doe that extracts the nations natural resources while benefitting only Mr. Doe. The tax is imposed on the fact that the nations ore is only making Mr. Doe rich and it's not all his, so a tax makes it possible for the entire nation to benefit indirectly when the money serves to support the government we all need. The same holds true for the nations air-waves. We all own them, but we all can't extract individual profits from them, so a certain amount is taxed into the general fund.

To think for an instant that this country's taxing formula was ever meant to tax everything is ludicrous especially considering the people's immediate history.

Today, Americans are so willing to be taxed on every-frickin-breath of air they breathe it causes those with a brain to suffer the ravages of the morons !

I'd have to admit I was one of those morons for a long time too ... but it was investigation of sub-section 6331(a) of the IR Code that pursuaded me to investigate further. Especially after the schemers at the IRS had left that section off of a form wherein every other clause they quoted had A, B, C, and D printed. So why did they leave off (a) ? Because there it explains who is and who ain't subject to their B.S. ... and they leave it off so you can subject yourself to their crap if you so choose.

Thanks !

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined."

Patrick Henry

noone222  posted on  2006-12-06   9:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

By the way, I'm sure the preponderance of this kind of literature about the income tax is what plagues the current judicial mindset and goes a long way to explaining why lower court cases go the way they often do. Most have, of course been schooled with such literature. Though it doesn't explain why judges do stuff like allow someone to be charged for violating the law that merely prescribes the penalty to be imposed upon someone for evasion or failure to file.

But the question is, do those sources really stand up to Constitutional Law and current SC precedent, or do they simply rewrite them by obfuscation as though the Constitution was a "living document" that can mutate over time?

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-06   9:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Taxation is necessary. I'm no anarchist, which is the only alternative to a zero tax society.

I've not really appreciated the community property aspect of mining and drilling operations until recently due to my time in Ecuador. There, as in Venezuela, oil is considered the property of the people and stories of corruption in which senior officials are paid off in the back room for bargain drilling rights is a serious problem. The winners are the oil companies, pretty much all foreign, and the bribed officials. The loosers are the people deprived of their birthright, which is the equal right of access to their own country's resources. The fact that many in Ecuador are poor reinforces the sentiment, and is also probably one of the main the source of communist sympathies since such corruption is viewed as an trademark of capitalism.

So yes, mining and drilling rights are morally taxable activities as is any activity that takes away worth from society.

Today, Americans are so willing to be taxed on every-frickin-breath of air they breathe it causes those with a brain to suffer the ravages of the morons !

Well, that's how it is in a pure democracy. Whatever the majority wants taxed is taxed, and many Americans love taxes.

investigation of sub-section 6331(a) of the IR Code that pursuaded me to investigate further. Especially after the schemers at the IRS had left that

I'm thinking that's the "who can be levied" section, if I'm not mistaken. Yes, it's peculiar that they jumped right to subsection 'b' in their quotation.

Pinguinite.com

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-06   10:41:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (84 - 200) not displayed.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]