Great QFFT Comments Illuminating The Truth
HARMEN v. FORESSENIUS, 380 U.S. 528, 540 (1965) the Supreme Court Ruled:
“…constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544.”
This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it’s agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS’s own manual stating:
“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the code.”
Because the IRS is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and because “26 C.F.R. Sec. 601.702(ii) Effect of failure to publish” makes it clear that any matter which imposes an obligation and is not so published will not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”(Exhibit 1) Reviewing the Administrative Procedures Act, the IRS does not publish all of their required, hence mandatory, regulations in accordance to the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except 600.1(b) has been discontinued. This was published in the federal registry in October, 1948 and reads:
Click here to read more.
“…constitutional deprivations may not be justified by some remote administrative benefit to the State. Pp. 542-544.”
This is only the beginning of the many Supreme Court rulings that the IRS and it’s agents and employees seem to ignore in spite of the IRS’s own manual stating:
“Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the code.”
Because the IRS is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act and because “26 C.F.R. Sec. 601.702(ii) Effect of failure to publish” makes it clear that any matter which imposes an obligation and is not so published will not adversely change or affect a person’s rights.”(Exhibit 1) Reviewing the Administrative Procedures Act, the IRS does not publish all of their required, hence mandatory, regulations in accordance to the Act. For instance, codification of Part 600, except 600.1(b) has been discontinued. This was published in the federal registry in October, 1948 and reads:
Click here to read more.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
11:36 AM
7 Comments:
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently allowed the convictions and fines of tax protestors to stand, and in the Cheek case called their arguments "surely frivolous".
THAT is what the U.S. Supreme Court thinks of tax protestor arguments.
The problem isn't what the Supreme Court has ruled, the problem is what the IRS agents, DOJ and lower Courts ignore that the Supreme Court has ruled.
So what is it that you so dislike about Ed and Elaine Brown the most? That they threaten your $60,000 - $80,000 per year paycheck?
Internal Revenue Manual 4.10.72.9.8 (5-14-99)
1. “Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.”
“Certain Court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court Decisions have the same weight as the code.”
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); 240 U.S. 1:
“…the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it…”
“…the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source…”
“…on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
This statement is quoted in IRS documents: “the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.” This is the statement that IRS literature uses to fraudulently deceive and coerce citizens into paying taxes not due. They fail to print the complete statement by the U.S. Supreme Court that plainly states that this is indeed an “erroneous assumption” and further evidence of fraudulent concealment of truth.
STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916):
“Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock… a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.”
“…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..”
“…it was settled in Stratton’s Independence… that such tax is not a tax upon property… but a true excise levied on the result of the business..”
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have the power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power.”
PECK v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 165, 173 (1918)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects…”
DOYLE v. MITCHELL BROS., 247 U.S. 179, 183 (1918)
“An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (Sixteenth Amendment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations.”
EISNER v. MACOMBER, 252 U.S. 189, 205, 206 (1920)
“The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted. As respectfully held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects.”
EVANS v. GORE, 253 U.S. 245, 259 (1920)
“Does the Sixteenth Amendment authorize and support this tax and the attendant diminution; that is to say, does it bring within the taxing powers subjects theretofore excepted? The court below answered in the negative; and counsel for the government say; ‘It is not, in view of recent decisions, contended, that this amendment rendered anything taxable as income that was not so taxable before.”
Just as the issue of wages was settled in countless Supreme Court Decisions, the IRS chooses to look the other way. What the Supreme Court established in EVANS v. GORE was that not only did the 16th amendment NOT confer any new taxing powers to Congress to tax the American Citizen living and working within the United States of America, but it also acknowledged the definition of income as defined by the Supreme Court in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO.
In FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107, 144, 165 (1911), this is also stated:
“A reading of this portion of the statute (1909 Corporation tax Act) shows the purpose and design of Congress in its enactment and the subject-matter of its operation. It is at once apparent that its terms embrace corporations and joint stock companies or associations which are organized for profit, AND HAVE CAPITAL STOCK represented by shares. Such joint stock companies, while differing somewhat from corporations, have many of their attributes and enjoy many of their privileges…
It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable. Applying that doctrine to this case, the measure of taxation being the income of the corporation from all sources, as that is but the measure of a privilege tax within the lawful authority of Congress to impose, it is no valid objection that this measure includes, in part, at least, property which, as such, could not be directly taxed. See, in this connection, Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 142 U.S. 217 , 35 L. ed. 994, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 807, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 121, 163, as interpreted in Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Texas, 210 U.S. 217, 226 , 52 S. L. ed. 1031, 1037, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638.”
MERCHANT’S LOAN & TRUST CO. v SMIETANKA, 255 US 509, 519 (1921)
“There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word income must be given the same meaning as in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise tax Act, and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”
BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926):
“Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax Act of 1909, in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.”
HELVERING v. EDISON BROS. STORES, 8 Cir. 133 F2d 575 (1943):
"The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulation make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. v. LOWE, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918):
"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, the broad contention submitted on behalf of the government that all receipts, everything that comes in, are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 than in that of 1909, and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts."
BUTCHER’S UNION v. CRESENT CITY CO., 111 US 746, 757 (1884):
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.”
You misinterpret what the U.S. Supreme Court has written to meet your own little (wrong) view of the world.
What is to like or dislike about Ed and Elaine Brown? They don't mean too much to me one way or other other, except their antics are good for the occasional laugh. At the end of the day, they are just two more convicted felons about to spend some years in the Greybar Hotel.
Anonymous said...
You misinterpret what the U.S. Supreme Court has written to meet your own little (wrong) view of the world.
What is to like or dislike about Ed and Elaine Brown? They don't mean too much to me one way or other other, except their antics are good for the occasional laugh. At the end of the day, they are just two more convicted felons about to spend some years in the Greybar Hotel.
12:01 PM
What wrong view of the world? Is it wrong to think that people shouldn't be forced to give a lot of their money to the government supported mofia (IRS?) I would say that if anybody has a wrong view of the world it's government agents like you who's job in life is to bully people into giving you money to waste on things such as unnecessary wars.
Thanks anon. 10:42 a.m. I've tried to summarize what you wrote about over at the nhfree dot org forum, and in my Reply #2245 to be exact on page 150 at 06:25:02 p.m. See http://forum.soulawakenings dot com/index.php?topic=3868 dot 2235 spelled out so as to not go off the page border here. Best wishes, -- Joe P.S. You reference Exhibit #s. Is that for your case? and if so, did you win yet? It looks like there is no way for the government weasles to find an escape clause.
Ed & Elaine are monument to what our founding fathers meant when they created the Constitution. They put a face to what the creators of the Constitution meant by "We the People". It's truly amazing that so many choose to ignore what is happening to our country. My husband says to me why do you waste your time with all these things, He Said even if I want to believe in half of what you claim; you know there's nothing any of us can do! Being an optimist I believe we can if we stand together. I told him; look at what they did to the Jews; I don't want to be a sheep lead to slaughter, to go willingly without a dang good fight.
Our leaders are allowing Illegal immigrants into our Country for several reasons, not the least of which is it gives them power. The more people they can get to be dependent on the government the more powerful they become. The real sad part is that within the next ten or fifteen years we the people will become the minority. Who will fight for our rights then? Their own country wasn't worth the effort to fight for, why would they fight here?
Pres. Bush has given 7000 Iraqi's visas to America.... So now we will be importing the Shiites and Sunnis so they can bring their fight here on our land.
Don't misunderstand me... I have nothing against legal immigrants.... after all they helped build our Great Nation we have today... the immigrants brought their cultures, most for the betterment of man kind... But its got to make you wonder what culture Islam has to offer other than a fanatical religion and war. We have to start looking at the broader picture Folks.. The excuse of not having enough time is over, because if you don't start seeing things for what they truly are it will be too late, for us, our children, and grandchildren...
YankeesPie
ANON AGENT: To you I have this to say...
Actually, It is the INCOM TAX ADVOCATES who are wrong, and who all Hate America and what this Country stands for. Because it is the Income Tax Advocate, Who primarally Benifits in some way from the Income Tax Imposed upon others.
Most People who Agree with the Income tax are those who Impose it, or, are those in Congress who are in fact... too damned scared of the fed to Honor their own Oath of Office and put a stop to it.
The rest of the People who agree with the Income tax are Citizens who simply have not studied, or do not know what the Constitution, and the Laws actually Say.
Most People, when trying to understand tax law, Go directly to the IRS for information, and are Decieved about the ACTUAL LAWS, and are burried so deeply in the Internal Revenue Code, that they simply give up anyway.
They have not made any CLEAR Laws regarding Income Tax to cite to the People, Because doing so would show that there never was one, and, in essence, show themselves to be Theives of Labor.
I Myself believe in Most Taxes that we all pay. What I do not believe in, is an income tax imposed on American Citizen's who derive their entire income solely from WITHIN THE US, and in the Private Sector!
It has been handed down as Un-Constitutional Time and Time again! Those of you who do not agree are under-studied regarding the Laws and the Constitution itself... Are too Lazy to study them at all, and are more eager to take the IRS's word for it... Too Scared to argue the facts you know to be true... Or are a flat out Communist Bastard being paid off to shut your Mouth and close your eyes on the Constitution.
There it is... plain and simple. ED BROWN IS A TRUE PATRIOT! He is the epidamy of the Word itself... And He has more intestinal Fortitude than the Majority of the People in this Contry who CLAIM to be Patriot Citizens. You should... whether you support him or not... Give him your Utmost respect and Admiration for Standing on his beliefs... Because most of you, have never done anything so profound in your Life! You would much rather Lay Down, and Concede to the Government, everything that makes you a PERSON UNDER GOD.
If you were a Farmer, and cought someone stealing your Chickens, you'ld shoot them... If they were raiding your Crops... You'ld shoot them... If they were stealing your Horses... You'ld shoot them.
Well I have news for you Folks... The Government has been Stealing Eggs out of your Hen House for over 80 years!
Wake up! For the sake of your own Children and their Future! Soon... the Government will be taking .90cents of every Dollar you make... and your Children will work for free!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home