The Impossible Dream
By Bill Price
People are demanding that government show the law that makes private, unincorporated U.S. citizens liable for an individual federal income tax. But, that’s impossible! Who says? The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court, that’s who! I call your attention to the following Supreme Court ruling, precedence law: “…concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purposes of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment.” BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
Article continued here.
People are demanding that government show the law that makes private, unincorporated U.S. citizens liable for an individual federal income tax. But, that’s impossible! Who says? The U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court, that’s who! I call your attention to the following Supreme Court ruling, precedence law: “…concluding that the classification of direct was adopted for the purposes of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulations of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment.” BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
Article continued here.
posted by The Freedom Fellowship at
5:33 PM
11 Comments:
Sorry, but there is only a requirement that direct taxes be apportioned 'among the several states'. The 16th amendment clearly says [direct] income taxes can be levied without [or outside of the boundary for] apportionment among the several states.
It was levied in a Constitutional manner, it just isn't enforced the way the law is written, as far as my research leads. What class or category of taxes would the Tariff of 1909 and/or 1913 cover? Are Customs duties subject to the rule of apportionment? Are they within or without that requirement?
Sorry Cia w,
The Supreme Court and the Constitution disagrees with your analysis, they say that ALL direct taxes must be apportioned.
“The contentions under it (the 16th Amendment) if acceded to would cause one provision of the constitution to destroy another; that is they would result in bringing the provisions of the amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned…this result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power…would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion” Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 US 1
Next time spare us the snake oil.
cia w said,
Sorry, but there is only a requirement that direct taxes be apportioned 'among the several states'.
I say, ....DUH....nobody here needs to be reminded of what the constitution says... (yer preachin' to the choir!)
cia w said,
The 16th amendment clearly says [direct] income taxes can be levied without [or outside of the boundary for] apportionment among the several states.
I say,
Indeed! (I think) all patriots here would agree that Corporate Income should be taxed! ...shareholders, board members, stockholders... ect..ect..
because corporate privelege ...is taxable!
Now just explain to us all how a non corporate citizen has (what you call) income!
hint:(none of us has any money that "comes in" from corporate activity)
I guess what (we) really need to see from you, (cia w) (before we "volunteer" a 1040) ..is...
(produce for us please)
A supreme court decision other than (later than) BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
the supreme court has said it multiple times!
Income=Corporate profit
I'm not selling anything, let alone 'snake oil'. Are we on the same side or not? I've learned over the last few years to suspect those who engage in name-calling, Bill Price.
Your quote from Brushaber didn't contradict what I said, and that decision is one of the most convoluted and unclear decisions I've ever read. Try Flint v Stone Tracy, I think it makes it more clear, in relation to the Tariff of 1909 / Corporate income tax act. And the Flint decision is referenced in Brushaber. Then look up the regs. in Title 19 under section 351.102, definitions for the Tariff Act of 1930, where an income tax is found defined under the term 'direct tax'.
Then look at Title 19, chapter 4 in ref. the Tariff Act of 1930, and see how many sections of that chapter were updated under the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (wherein the IRC of 1954 was renamed the IRC of 1986. Pub. L. 99-514). That's just the tip of the iceberg, in connecting various Tariff acts to the IRC.
And lifetimenonfiler said: "I say,
Indeed! (I think) all patriots here would agree that Corporate Income should be taxed!"
It's not a question of what 'should be' taxed, but a question of what IS taxed, isn't it? When you're dealing with tariffs, you need an item (such as sneakers) and a SOURCE (such as China). Think about it.- cmw
Note "erroneous assumption" below.
“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…”
BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
And then there's:
“…it manifestly disregards the fact that by previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.”
STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916)
And, of course---
The IRS’s silence to the questions posed by honest U.S. citizens is conspicuous and speaks volumes. The courts have ruled that:
“Silence can only be equated with fraud”
US v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297, 299. See also U.S. v Prudden, 424 F. 2d
Now, on to the Supreme Court’s conclusions regarding the 16th Amendment’s alleged power to impose a tax:
• “conferred no new power of taxation”
STANTON v BALTIC MINING CO., 240 US 103 (1916)
• does not “provide for any unknown power of taxation”
BRUSHABER v UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO. 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
• “must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the
original Constitution” EISNER v MACOMBER, 252 US 189 (1920)
Again fraud, conspiracy and gocernment corruption is the rule of the day.
Yahoo Groups
ACLJ_vs_ACLU
Conspiracy-Theory...
jail4judges
legality-of-incom...
mn-taxation
NCP-MN-Washington
No-Income-Tax
RonPaul2008
saveedbrown
Tax-Freedom-Unity
teaparty
ThePowerHour
TheRevolutionaryC...
txfairtax
we-the-people-inc...
WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED
WTPNEC
Many thanks Scott, you saved me the trouble of responding. Not only that cia w doesn’t trust any more.
To Bill:
You're welcome.
Cia w may be well-meaning; perhaps he (or she) became lost in a somewhat confusing maze of post-16th Amendment rulings.
:)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home