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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The INCREDIBLE Impacts of Methylene Blue The LARGEST Eruptions since the Merapi Disaster in 2010 at Lewotobi Laki Laki in Indonesia Feds ARREST 11 Leftists For AMBUSH On ICE, 2 Cops Shot, Organized Terror Cell Targeted ICE In Texas What is quantum computing? 12 Important Questions We Should Be Asking About The Cover Up The Truth About Jeffrey Epstein TSA quietly scraps security check that every passenger dreads 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

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: 3107
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  

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  

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

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.

Here's my theory:

If one participates in the Socialist Security Insurance Scheme that person has opted out of the Representative Republic founded and operated under Constitutional restraints, having entered into a contract for "expected" benefits and volunteered into the Socialist Democracy.

I contacted the IRS after researching the 6331(a) portion of the Lien, Levy and Distraint clause only to find that it applies to Federal Officers of Federal Corporations, and people living on federal land, enclaves and some Islands like Guam and the Mauanna Islands ... but that ain't me ! Upon contacting a bozo at the number provided on the form and inquiring about the code, he stated that "there are a lot codes and I don't know them all" ... I asked him to get a supervisor and he told me no one else was there and hung up on me !!!

Starwind seems to suffer prosecutorial prejudice while ignoring the Constitution, precedent, history and common sense. As far as I could tell Joe Banister's arguments were Bill Bentson's non-ratification of the 16th Amendment, and a recently devised 5th Amendment claim against filing a 1040 based upon self-incrimination, ignoring the fact that you swear under penalty of perjury to be a Federal U.S. Citizen ... just like an immigrant from Vietnam, China or Russia. The courts have stated a million times that even if the 16th wasn't properly ratified, we've operated under it for so long it doesn't matter. (Cute huh) !

Birthright isn't free, one has a duty to protect the country which is something foreigners granted the "privilege" of citizenship generally avoid.

I don't know how others approach problems like the tax code, but as soon as I have enough info to see a fraud ... I'm 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  2006-12-06   13:02:26 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.

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

But the acceptance of the rule of apportionment was one of the compromises which made the adoption of the constitution possible, and secured the creation of that dual form of government, so elastic and so strong, which has thus far survived in unabated vigor. If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.

We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalid.

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.

Obviously, Pollock ruled that taxes on income from property (rents, real estate) was in reality an unapportioned direct tax and therefor unconstitutional, whereas the 16th amendment specifically removes taxes on income from any source from the apportionment requirement regardless of being construed direct, or indirect.

It is on that basis that the 16th amendment overruled Pollock.

Note further that Pollock was a narrow ruling to begin with and reinforced congress' authroity to levy taxes provided they were direct and apportioned or indirect and uniform. But the 16th amendment broadened that authority to remove the apportionment test on income from any source.

[...] 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.

It [16th Amendment] 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.

Oh please Neil, which part of "The Congress shall have power" ... " to tax incomes, from whatever source" ... "without apportionment ... census or enumeration" do you not get? That is precisely the tax-protestor mindset that keeps shooting itself (and the rest of us) in the foot.

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.

Oh, I assure you the preponderance of established case law "plagues" the current judicial mindset, and absolutely do lower courts anticipate Appellate and Supreme reviews, as do lawyers and litigants. That is the way the system is supposed to work. The system is not supposed to just keep circling endlessly and repetitously re-arguing established facts anew everytime someone reasserts a discredited belief. It isn't an internet discussion forum.

Our mindsets are supposed to be "plagued" by what has been legislated, ajudicated, written down for all to read. Why, they even go so far as to teach that in law school and drive it home in internships. The hubris.

Would that such an understanding likewise "plague" the tax-protestor mindset, in futile hope they'd do their homework better and stop mucking it up for the rest of us.

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-06   13:18:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Oh, I assure you the preponderance of established case law "plagues" the current judicial mindset, and absolutely do lower courts anticipate Appellate and Supreme reviews, as do lawyers and litigants.

Lower courts rule in error quite often, forcing litigants to feed lawyers whether they win or lose through every appellate level necessary to get it overturned ... usually wearing a defendant out or bankrupting him/her.

Congress doesn't have plenary authority to enslave the populace, but to listen to your arguments one might think so. If congress said tomorrow that they could take every penny you made, would that be Law ?

The term "income" is where the confusion begins because people think their earnings from labor are income and they're not.

"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   13:33:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If congress said tomorrow that they could take every penny you made, would that be Law ?

If they enacated it as law and the Supreme court upheld it, yes it would be Law, wouldn't it. Or did you think it's only Law when you say it is?

The term "income" is where the confusion begins because people think their earnings from labor are income and they're not.

And which part of "The Congress shall have power" ... " to tax incomes, from whatever source" ... "without apportionment ... census or enumeration" do you not get?

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-06   13:44:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(1). If they enacated it as law and the Supreme court upheld it, yes it would be Law, wouldn't it. Or did you think it's only Law when you say it is?

And which part of "The Congress shall have power" ... " to tax incomes, from whatever source" ... "without apportionment ... census or enumeration" do you not get?

(1). If they enacted it, it would be law until the Supreme Court struck it down, which is quite different from your statement because someone negatively impacted by the law would have to have standing and then fight their way through a corrupt court system to the Supreme Court in order to have it heard.

(2). Yes, they can Tax incomes [profit or gain from capital investments] from whatever (taxable) source without apportionment ... the source must be a taxable source, not everything under the sun is a taxable source ... it's like I said earlier, our tax system has never intended to tax every dollar in circulation 20 times ...

Yes, of course, it's only law when I say it is !

I think I asked you earlier if you could state what three things taxes are "imposed" upon, I don't think you responded. If you did I missed it but would be interested to know.

On a different note I'd like for you to express your opinion regarding the 14th Amendment admonishment against the citizens questioning the national debt.

"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   14:10:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

Let me help.

16TH 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."

See if you can find what was left of Pollack overturned by South Carolina v. Baker.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/485/505.htm

U.S. Supreme Court SOUTH CAROLINA v. BAKER, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

* * *

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, and in which SCALIA, J., joined except for Part II. STEVENS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 527. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 528. REHNQUIST, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 528. O'CONNOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 530. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

* * *

III

South Carolina contends that even if a statute banning state bearer bonds entirely would be constitutional, 310 unconstitutionally violates the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity because it imposes a tax on the interest earned on a state bond. We agree with South Carolina that 310 is [485 U.S. 505, 516] inconsistent with Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), which held that any interest earned on a state bond was immune from federal taxation.

The Secretary and the Master, however, suggest that we should uphold the constitutionality of 310 without explicitly overruling Pollock because 310 does not abolish the tax exemption for state bond interest entirely but rather taxes the interest on state bonds only if the bonds are not issued in the form Congress requires. In our view, however, this suggestion implicitly rests on a rather mischievous proposition of law. If, for example, Congress imposed a tax that applied exclusively to South Carolina and levied the tax directly on the South Carolina treasury, we would be obligated to adjudicate the constitutionality of that tax even if Congress allowed South Carolina to escape the tax by restructuring its state government in a way Congress found more to its liking. The United States cannot convert an unconstitutional tax into a constitutional one simply by making the tax conditional. Whether Congress could have imposed the condition by direct regulation is irrelevant; Congress cannot employ unconstitutional means to reach a constitutional end. Under Pollock, a tax on the interest income derived from any state bond was considered a direct tax on the State and thus unconstitutional. 157 U.S., at 585 -586. If this constitutional rule still applies, Congress cannot threaten to tax the interest on state bonds that do not conform to congressional dictates. We thus decline to follow a suggestion that would force us to embrace implicitly a proposition of law far more controversial than the current validity of Pollock's ban on taxing state bond interest, and proceed to address whether Pollock should be explicitly overruled.

Under the intergovernmental tax immunity jurisprudence prevailing at the time, Pollock did not represent a unique immunity limited to income derived from state bonds. Rather, Pollock merely represented one application of the more general rule that neither the Federal nor the State Governments could tax income an individual directly derived from any contract with another government. Not only was it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to tax a bondowner on the interest he or she received on any state bond, but it was also unconstitutional to tax a state employee on the income earned from his employment contract, Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 (1871), to tax a lessee on income derived from lands leased from a State, Burnet v. Coronado Oil, 285 U.S. 393 (1932), or to impose a sales tax on proceeds a vendor derived from selling a product to a state agency, Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 570 (1931). Income derived from the same kinds of contracts with the Federal Government were likewise immune from taxation by the States. See Weston v. City Council of Charleston, 2 Pet. 449 (1829) (federal bond interest immune from state taxation); Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Pet. 435 (1842) (federal employee immune from state tax on salary); Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501 (1922) (income derived from federal lease immune from state tax); Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 (1928) (vendor immune from sales tax on vendor's proceeds from sale to the United States). Cases concerning the tax immunity of income derived from state contracts freely cited principles established in federal tax immunity cases, and vice versa. See, e. g., Coronado Oil, supra, at 398; Indian Motocycle, supra, at 575-579; Pollock, supra, at 586. See generally Indian Motocycle, supra, at 575 (immunity of States from federal tax equal to immunity of Federal Government from state tax); Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, 269 U.S. 514, 521 -522 (1926); Collector v. Day, supra, at 127.

This general rule was based on the rationale that any tax on income a party received under a contract with the government was a tax on the contract and thus a tax "on" the government because it burdened the government's power to enter into the contract. The Court in Pollock borrowed its reasoning directly from the decision in Weston exempting federal bond interest from state taxation:

"'The right to tax the contract to any extent, when made, must operate upon the power to borrow before it is exercised, and have a sensible influence on the contract. The extent of this influence depends on the will of a distinct government. To any extent, however inconsiderable, it is a burthen on the operations of government. . . . The tax on government stock is thought by this court to be a tax on the contract, a tax on the [government's] power to borrow money . . . and consequently to be repugnant to the Constitution.'" Pollock, supra, at 586, quoting Weston, supra, at 467, 468.

Thus, although a tax was collected from an independent private party, the tax was considered to be "on" the government because the tax burden might be passed on to it through the contract. This reasoning was used to define the basic scope of both federal and state tax immunities with respect to all types of government contracts. See, e. g., Coronado Oil, supra, at 400-401 ("Here the lease . . . was an instrumentality of the State . . . . To tax the income of the lessee arising therefrom would amount to an imposition upon the lease itself"); Panhandle Oil, supra, at 222 ("It is immaterial that the seller and not the purchaser is required to report and make payment to the State. Sale and purchase constitute a transaction by which the tax is measured and on which the burden rests"); Gillespie, supra, at 505-506 ("`A tax upon the leases is a tax upon the power to make them . . .'" (quoting Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Oklahoma, 240 U.S. 522, 530 (1916))). The commonality of the rationale underlying all these immunities for government contracts [485 U.S. 505, 520] was highlighted by Indian Motocycle, 283 U.S. 570 (1931). In that case, the Court reviewed the then current status of intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, observing that a tax on interest earned on a state or federal bond was unconstitutional because it would burden the exercise of the government's power to borrow money and that a tax on the salary of a State or Federal Government employee was unconstitutional because it would burden the government's power to obtain the employee's services. Id., at 576-578. It then concluded that under the same principle a sales tax imposed on a vendor for a sale to a state agency was unconstitutional because it would burden the sale transaction. Id., at 579.

The rationale underlying Pollock and the general immunity for government contract income has been thoroughly repudiated by modern intergovernmental immunity case law. In Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), the Court announced: "The theory . . . that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable." Id., at 480. The Court explained:

"So much of the burden of a non-discriminatory general tax upon the incomes of employees of a government, state or national, as may be passed on economically to that government, through the effect of the tax on the price level of labor or materials, is but the normal incident of the organization within the same territory of two governments, each possessing the taxing power. The burden, so far as it can be said to exist or to affect the government in any indirect or incidental way, is one which the Constitution presupposes...." Id., at 487.

See also James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U.S. 134, 160 (1937) (the fact that a tax on a Government contractor "may increase the cost to the Government . . . would not invalidate the tax"); Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 424 (1938). The thoroughness with which the Court abandoned the burden theory was demonstrated most emphatically when the Court upheld a state sales tax imposed on a Government contractor even though the financial burden of the tax was entirely passed on, through a cost-plus contract, to the Federal Government. Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U.S. 1 (1941). The Court stated:

"The Government, rightly we think, disclaims any contention that the Constitution, unaided by Congressional legislation, prohibits a tax exacted from the contractors merely because it is passed on economically, by the terms of the contract or otherwise, as part of the construction cost to the Government. So far as such a non-discriminatory state tax upon the contractor enters into the cost of the materials to the Government, that is but a normal incident of the organization within the same territory of two independent taxing sovereignties. The asserted right of the one to be free of taxation by the other does not spell immunity from paying the added costs, attributable to the taxation of those who furnish supplies to the Government and who have been granted no tax immunity. So far as a different view has prevailed, we think it no longer tenable." Id., at 8-9 (citations omitted).

King & Boozer thus completely foreclosed any claim that the nondiscriminatory imposition of costs on private entities that pass them on to States or the Federal Government unconstitutionally burdens state or federal functions. Subsequent cases have consistently reaffirmed the principle that a non-discriminatory tax collected from private parties contracting with another government is constitutional even though part or all of the financial burden falls on the other government. See Washington v. United States, 460 U.S. 536, 540 (1983); United States v. New Mexico, 455 U.S. 720, 734 (1982); United States v. County of Fresno, 429 U.S. 452, 460 -462, and n. 9 (1977); United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U.S. 466, 469 (1958).

With the rationale for conferring a tax immunity on parties dealing with another government rejected, the government contract immunities recognized under prior doctrine were, one by one, eliminated. Overruling Burnet v. Coronado Oil, 285 U.S. 393 (1932), and Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U.S. 501 (1922), the Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal tax on net income a corporation derived from a state lease in Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938). See also Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 (1949) (upholding constitutionality of state tax on gross income derived from Indian lease). Later, the Court explicitly overruled Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113 (1871), and upheld the constitutionality of a nondiscriminatory state tax on the salary of a federal employee. Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, supra. And in the course of upholding a sales tax on a cost-plus Government contractor, the Court in King & Boozer overruled Panhandle Oil Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Knox, 277 U.S. 218 (1928). See also James, supra (upholding state tax on gross income independent contractor received from Federal Government). The only premodern tax immunity for parties to government contracts that has so far avoided being explicitly overruled is the immunity for recipients of governmental bond interest. That this Court has yet to overrule Pollock explicitly, however, is explained not by any distinction between the income derived from government bonds and the income derived from other government contracts, but by the historical fact that Congress has always exempted state bond interest from taxation by statute, beginning with the very first federal income tax statute. Act of Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, II(B), 38 Stat. 168.

In sum, then, under current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine the States can never tax the United States directly but can tax any private parties with whom it does business, even though the financial burden falls on the United States, as long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals. See Washington, supra, at 540; County of Fresno, supra, at 460-463; City of Detroit, supra, at 473; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, supra, at 359-364. A tax is considered to be directly on the Federal Government only "when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities." New Mexico, supra, at 735. The rule with respect to state tax immunity is essentially the same, see, e. g., Graves, supra, at 485; Mountain Producers Corp., supra, at 386-387, except that at least some nondiscriminatory federal taxes can be collected directly from the States even though a parallel state tax could not be collected directly from the Federal Government. See generally n. 11, supra.

We thus confirm that subsequent case law has overruled the holding in Pollock that state bond interest is immune from a nondiscriminatory federal tax. We see no constitutional reason for treating persons who receive interest on government bonds differently than persons who receive income from other types of contracts with the government, and no tenable rationale for distinguishing the costs imposed on States by a tax on state bond interest from the costs imposed by a tax on the income from any other state contract. We stated in Graves that "as applied to the taxation of salaries of the employees of one government, the purpose of the immunity was not to confer benefits on the employees by relieving them from contributing their share of the financial support of the other government, whose benefits they enjoy, or to give an advantage to a government by enabling it to engage employees at salaries lower than those paid for like services by other employers, public or private . . . ." 306 U.S., at 483 . Likewise, the owners of state bonds have no constitutional entitlement not to pay taxes on income they earn from state bonds, and States have no constitutional entitlement to issue bonds paying lower interest rates than other issuers.

Indeed, this Court has in effect acknowledged that a holder of a Government bond could constitutionally be taxed on bond interest in Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392 (1983), which involved a state tax on federal bond interest. Although that case involved an interpretation of 31 U.S.C. 742, we premised our statutory interpretation on the observation that "[o]ur decisions have treated 742 as principally a restatement of the constitutional rule." 459 U.S., at 397 . We then stated: "Where, as here, the economic but not the legal incidence of the tax falls upon the Federal Government, such a tax generally does not violate the constitutional immunity if it does not discriminate against holders of federal property or those with whom the Federal Government deals." Ibid. (emphasis added).

TEFRA 310 thus clearly imposes no direct tax on the States. The tax is imposed on and collected from bondholders, not States, and any increased administrative costs incurred by States in implementing the registration system are not "taxes" within the meaning of the tax immunity doctrine. See generally United States v. Mississippi Tax Comm'n, 421 U.S. 599, 606 (1975) (describing tax as an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government). Nor does 310 discriminate against States. The provisions of 310 seek to assure that all publicly offered long-term bonds are issued in registered form, whether issued by state or local governments, the Federal Government, or private corporations. See supra, at 510. Accordingly, the Federal Government has directly imposed the same registration requirement on itself that it has effectively imposed on States. The incentives States have to switch to registered bonds are necessarily different than those of corporate bond issuers because only state bonds enjoy any exemption from the federal tax on bond interest, but the sanctions for issuing unregistered corporate bonds are comparably severe. See ibid. Removing the tax exemption for interest earned on state bonds would not, moreover, create a discrimination between state and corporate bonds since corporate bond interest is already subject to federal tax.

IV

Because the federal imposition of a bond registration requirement on States does not violate the Tenth Amendment and because a nondiscriminatory federal tax on the interest earned on state bonds does not violate the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we uphold the constitutionality of 310(b)(1), overrule the exceptions to the Special Master's Report, and approve his recommendation to enter judgment for the defendant.

It is so ordered.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-06   14:22:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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.

Do a felony, do the time, pay the fine, and pay the cost of prosecution.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=26&sec=7201

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE F - PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
SUBCHAPTER A - CRIMES
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 7201. Attempt to evade or defeat tax

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

================

Section 6673. Sanctions and costs awarded by courts

(a) Tax court proceedings

(1) Procedures instituted primarily for delay, etc.

Whenever it appears to the Tax Court that -

(A) proceedings before it have been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer primarily for delay,

(B) the taxpayer's position in such proceeding is frivolous or groundless, or

(C) the taxpayer unreasonably failed to pursue available administrative remedies,

the Tax Court, in its decision, may require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty not in excess of $25,000.

[snip]

================

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-06   14:45:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If they enacted it, it would be law until the Supreme Court struck it down, which is quite different from your statement

Not all that different. In fact highly controversial laws often sit unenforced because prosecutors know/suspect it may be struck down, and they wait until a test case comes along. But I would have to operate on the presumption it would be upheld, and then if a case could be made for an error, I'd have to litigate.

If for example SCOTUS ruled "Congress shall the right to take every penny made by Starwind" and did not address the uniformity requirement or ruled contra to uniformity, on that basis I might prevail.

Yes, they can Tax incomes [profit or gain from capital investments] from whatever (taxable) source without apportionment ... the source must be a taxable source, not everything under the sun is a taxable source ...

But now you're arguing provisions/deductions of the tax code and you can't very well agree that Amendment 16 can tax your labor-based income, and then proffer a P/L or investment argument that it can't, while simultaneously dismissing Title 26 as law (which law provides the basis for your P/L argument).

I think I asked you earlier if you could state what three things taxes are "imposed" upon, I don't think you responded. If you did I missed it but would be interested to know.

You did ask, I opted not to answer. I see little point in my trying to shoe-horn the entirety of tax law into your expectations.

On a different note I'd like for you to express your opinion regarding the 14th Amendment admonishment against the citizens questioning the national debt.

Similarly, I don't care to reiterate what constitutional scholars have already written which you already have chosen to ignore.

I responded to your post #86, as I had just made the point in my post #85 of the tax-protestor mindset repeatedly ignoring the obvious, which your questions overlooked. It seemed a illustrative opportunity; I was mistaken; it wasn't.

I'm not big on repetition, being misquoted, or ad-hominem inuendo, as that seems to have escaped your notice.

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-06   14:47:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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?

The Constitution most certainly changes when it is amended. Regarding the income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment changed the Constitution to have it allow taxation upon income from any source without regard to apportionment.

Notably, originally booze was constitutional. Then booze was unconstitutional. It may have been a dumb idea, but it was duly ratified and people went to prison over it. Then booze was constitutional again.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-06   15:03:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

You did ask, I opted not to answer. I see little point in my trying to shoe-horn the entirety of tax law into your expectations.

I think you have a gift for sounding intelligent while knowing nothing.

The Income tax is a complex subject and even Judges have difficulty with it.

In an article called Thomas Walter Swan, 57 Yale Law Journal No. 2, 167, 169 (December 1947), Judge Hand wrote:

In my own case the words of such an act as the Income Tax . . . merely dance before my eyes in a meaningless procession: cross-reference to cross-reference, exception upon exception — couched in abstract terms that offer [me] no handle to seize hold of [and that] leave in my mind only a confused sense of some vitally important, but successfully concealed, purport, which it is my duty to extract, but which is within my power, if at all, only after the most inordinate expenditure of time. I know that these monsters are the result of fabulous industry and ingenuity, plugging up this hole and casting out that net, against all possible evasion; yet at times I cannot help recalling a saying of William James about certain passages of Hegel: that they were no doubt written with a passion of rationality; but that one cannot help wondering whether to the reader they have any significance save that the words are strung together with syntactical correctness.

"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   15:04:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The Income tax is a complex subject and even Judges have difficulty with it.

Indeed, so there was little point in my trying to shoe-horn it into your three pat premises.

#41. To: Neil McIver, Starwindbag (#32)

I think you have a gift for sounding intelligent while knowing nothing.

I at least rest my arguments on more than insults.

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

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-06   15:16:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

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

LINK

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

LINK

United States Code
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
SUBTITLE A - INCOME TAXES
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
SUBCHAPTER B - COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
PART I - DEFINITION OF GROSS INCOME, ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME, TAXABLE INCOME, ETC.

U.S. Code as of: 01/19/04
Section 63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means adjusted gross income, minus -

(1) the standard deduction, and
(2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.

nolu_chan  posted on  2006-12-06   15:19:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Notably, originally booze was constitutional. Then booze was unconstitutional. It may have been a dumb idea, but it was duly ratified and people went to prison over it. Then booze was constitutional again.

That's a good point. The Sixteeenth Amendment didn't repeal Article 1 section 8 subsection 1 or Article 1 section 9 subsection 4 which covered the means of collecting the tax dependent upon whether it was direct or indirect.

The 16th Amendment speaks to indirect taxation, an excise tax to be collected uniformly throughout the States, based upon taxable events conducted by one who profits from taxable events that becomes a taxpayer by so doing.

The type of event (source) determines whether or not taxable income is derived from it, and when it is a taxable event the dollar amount of total profit is used as the measurement to determine the amount owed by the taxpayer.

"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   15:20:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income

Nolu ... it's impossible to define the word income with the word income. This phraseology doesn't define income.

I believe the word income was defined in the 1939 Income Tax Act (going from memory) and it was defined as a profit or gain from a capital investment. The term income has never been otherwise defined in law.

"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   15:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Comments (98 - 200) not displayed.

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

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