Death and Taxes
A clip from the TV show: Boston Legal
The first Amendment allows the people to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances, and what recourse for redress does that mean, withholding taxes is the only logical one when other avenues have failed. We The People, an upstanding organization, has a lawsuit pending on appeal against the federal government because despite numerous requests for answers to simple questions, many in the administration and the heads of agencies REFUSE to answer their questions, including the IRS. That is what this show clip addresses, and I find it to be perfectly Constitutionally valid. Now whether or not I will begin withholding my taxes, I will wait for the outcome of the Appeal. Just because something is Constitutional, no longer means it will be upheld in this country, take a look at the Federal Reserve system, take a look at Bush's wiretapping system, the list endlessly goes on into infinity practically.
Now with regard to the actual legalness of taxes....
I have heard the arguments regarding whether or not the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, and from the research I have done I have come to the conclusion that this argument is invalid, as it is simply based upon small grammatical errors and inconsistencies of the ratifications of the states, so for the purpose of argument, I will stay away from that aspect of this debate unless someone can prove it otherwise. Bill Benson is the only case I have found utilizing this argument that has won, but all other cases since have been shot down by the lower courts, and none have been allowed to reach the Supreme Court level. I have read the full details of these cases, and frankly have to say that the actions of the Judges in the lower courts baselessly not allowing the arguments made and evidence to be presented, when his case won, are illegal.
The Sixteenth Amendment reads:
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.
Now lets break down what this means:
Income: a gain usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor.
Apportionment: (in context according to ) to distribute equally
Census: complete count of a population
Enumeration: to count or list.
A little history on why the 16th Amendment was needed:
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2n incomes over $3, 000. Derided by its opponents as "communistic, " it was challenged in federal court. FYI, the idea of income taxes comes directly from The Communist Manifesto.
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court declared the 1894 Act to be an unconstitutional unapportioned "direct tax" (because it taxed the rents from land and the dividends from stocks, and the Court said that such taxes "burden" the property). The Pollock case has never been overturned, yet Congress wrote the 16th Amendment to essentially overturn it.
However, in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the Congress a new power to tax incomes, as Congress already had that power. Although an income tax on income from property had been deemed (under Pollock, above) to be a direct tax, and an income tax on wages, etc., had been deemed to be an indirect tax (an excise), the Court in Brushaber decided that, after the Sixteenth Amendment, the Constitution allows Congress to tax any incomes without apportionment (and without regard to any census or enumeration) regardless of "source" -- that is, regardless of whether the particular income tax is deemed direct (such as a tax on income from property) or indirect (i.e., an excise, such as a tax on income from labor). The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax constitutionally irrelevant with respect to income taxes. In Brushaber, the Court upheld the validity of the Federal income tax.
In the Supreme Court case of Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), Mr. Justice Butler stated:
It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
------>side note: Notice how the Justice indicates that income may be defined as "gain, " I will come back to this.
In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealthwhether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actionsare all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption (as it has for things like gifts, bequests, and certain scholarships).
Now you will note that in the Bowers Case and the Glenshaw case, both indicate that taxes may be levied against ALL increases or gains in wealth. One might argue, and a case has never reached the Supreme Court, that the base of a person's labor is their own property, and not a gain or increase. Now should someone receive a pay increase on that property, then yes, the INCREASE only should be taxed. I have not found any cases which document this argument, but it seems perfectly plausible to me, and is upheld by all of the existing case law that I have found thus far.
So, the 16th Amendment gives CONGRESS (NOT the IRS) the power to collect taxes on any GAINS in income, equally among all peoples, without regard to a state's population, etc. Therefore, the current income tax system is technically illegal, as it is not a "flat tax" on everyone and it calculates your taxes not on the basis of increases in your wealth or property, but the amount of your wealth/property of your income, derived from your labor. This is like taxing you annually on the value of your car, your home, your furniture, your pedigree pooch. You get the idea. Your labor is your property, and the Supreme Court has upheld that. The direct language of this Amendment only provides for taxation against each increase.
Further, for years, people have been writing to the administration and the IRS to tell them where in the Internal Revenue Code does it specifically indicate that an American citizen-worker must pay taxes on wages directly derived from his/her labor or that companies must withhold. All have failed to answer this question, though the Internal Revenue Code specifically requires them to address this question when asked. That is where the now becoming popular phrase comes from "Show you the Money~ Show ME The Law!"
And to go even further, have you ever seen a copy of the Internal Revenue Code? It is roughly the size of a phone book, in fine print, completely filled with legal jargon that the average citizen cannot understand. This is why people have to go to accountants and spend $100 to file really very simple tax returns, because they are overwhelmed in trying to understand the tax code existing now.
The Case of Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) provides that a statute must set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest. The case of United State Civil Serv. Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) upheld this decision.
The cases of Greyned, Papachristou, Bouie, and National Diary Products Corp. all maintained that to pass constitutional scrutiny, a statue or code must give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice that their contemplated conduct is forbidden by action.
On 9/16/03, at a conference in front of the U.S. Treasury Building, Mr. Terry Lemmons, a senior spokesman for the IRS, stated in response to a question put before him by the New York Times regarding whey they refuse to answer the questions of the people regarding these issues, he stated "We are answering those petitions through enforcement actions." This is a blatant admission that they are not following the law.
Not sure if any of you noticed, but Bush indicated in his last two State of the Union addresses that he has a large committee on Income Tax Reform, which just finished their study, but the conclusions have not been released yet. When Bush took office, he sent people to all divisions of the government for evaluation, and I solely believe that this committee is attempting to fix this major flaw in the system, but they have not yet........
So even with this standing that there is no law within the Internal Revenue Code stating American citizens must pay income tax, that the 16th Amendment provides for Congress to levy the Tax, not the IRS (it does not allow for them to delegate that task~ which you will notice Presidential powers allow for delegation and formation of organizations to handle tasks, this Amendment does not), that the tax essentially is required to be a flat tax on ONLY gains or increases in wages, but it is completely appropriate for a citizen to withhold their income tax in retaliation for the lack of response for their Constitutional petitions for a redress of grievances afforded to them under the First Amendment. If one petitions the government for answers to simple clear questions to clarify the law, the government must answer them, and in so not doing, are violating the law. Thus, if we are afforded a right to request redress, but the government refuses to acknowledge this right by refusing to answer the questions, then is it really a right? Thus, the only way to properly address this situation is to withhold monies from the government until they comply with the law.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject for those of you with any questions on whether or not the federal income tax is legal. As it stands right now, it's not. That being said though, good luck trying to fight the government on it.....there is that saying that the only sure things in life are death and taxes.
I'll let you know when I hear about the outcome of the Appeal.
The first Amendment allows the people to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances, and what recourse for redress does that mean, withholding taxes is the only logical one when other avenues have failed. We The People, an upstanding organization, has a lawsuit pending on appeal against the federal government because despite numerous requests for answers to simple questions, many in the administration and the heads of agencies REFUSE to answer their questions, including the IRS. That is what this show clip addresses, and I find it to be perfectly Constitutionally valid. Now whether or not I will begin withholding my taxes, I will wait for the outcome of the Appeal. Just because something is Constitutional, no longer means it will be upheld in this country, take a look at the Federal Reserve system, take a look at Bush's wiretapping system, the list endlessly goes on into infinity practically.
Now with regard to the actual legalness of taxes....
I have heard the arguments regarding whether or not the 16th Amendment was ever ratified, and from the research I have done I have come to the conclusion that this argument is invalid, as it is simply based upon small grammatical errors and inconsistencies of the ratifications of the states, so for the purpose of argument, I will stay away from that aspect of this debate unless someone can prove it otherwise. Bill Benson is the only case I have found utilizing this argument that has won, but all other cases since have been shot down by the lower courts, and none have been allowed to reach the Supreme Court level. I have read the full details of these cases, and frankly have to say that the actions of the Judges in the lower courts baselessly not allowing the arguments made and evidence to be presented, when his case won, are illegal.
The Sixteenth Amendment reads:
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.
Now lets break down what this means:
Income: a gain usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor.
Apportionment: (in context according to ) to distribute equally
Census: complete count of a population
Enumeration: to count or list.
A little history on why the 16th Amendment was needed:
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2n incomes over $3, 000. Derided by its opponents as "communistic, " it was challenged in federal court. FYI, the idea of income taxes comes directly from The Communist Manifesto.
In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 157 U.S. 429 (1895), aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), the Supreme Court declared the 1894 Act to be an unconstitutional unapportioned "direct tax" (because it taxed the rents from land and the dividends from stocks, and the Court said that such taxes "burden" the property). The Pollock case has never been overturned, yet Congress wrote the 16th Amendment to essentially overturn it.
However, in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the Supreme Court indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not give the Congress a new power to tax incomes, as Congress already had that power. Although an income tax on income from property had been deemed (under Pollock, above) to be a direct tax, and an income tax on wages, etc., had been deemed to be an indirect tax (an excise), the Court in Brushaber decided that, after the Sixteenth Amendment, the Constitution allows Congress to tax any incomes without apportionment (and without regard to any census or enumeration) regardless of "source" -- that is, regardless of whether the particular income tax is deemed direct (such as a tax on income from property) or indirect (i.e., an excise, such as a tax on income from labor). The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between a direct tax and an indirect tax constitutionally irrelevant with respect to income taxes. In Brushaber, the Court upheld the validity of the Federal income tax.
In the Supreme Court case of Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170 (1926), Mr. Justice Butler stated:
It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". [cites omitted] "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
------>side note: Notice how the Justice indicates that income may be defined as "gain, " I will come back to this.
In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), the Supreme Court laid out what has become the modern understanding of what constitutes 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes could be levied on "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Under this definition, any increase in wealthwhether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or other property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a lawsuit, qui tam actionsare all within the definition of income, unless Congress makes a specific exemption (as it has for things like gifts, bequests, and certain scholarships).
Now you will note that in the Bowers Case and the Glenshaw case, both indicate that taxes may be levied against ALL increases or gains in wealth. One might argue, and a case has never reached the Supreme Court, that the base of a person's labor is their own property, and not a gain or increase. Now should someone receive a pay increase on that property, then yes, the INCREASE only should be taxed. I have not found any cases which document this argument, but it seems perfectly plausible to me, and is upheld by all of the existing case law that I have found thus far.
So, the 16th Amendment gives CONGRESS (NOT the IRS) the power to collect taxes on any GAINS in income, equally among all peoples, without regard to a state's population, etc. Therefore, the current income tax system is technically illegal, as it is not a "flat tax" on everyone and it calculates your taxes not on the basis of increases in your wealth or property, but the amount of your wealth/property of your income, derived from your labor. This is like taxing you annually on the value of your car, your home, your furniture, your pedigree pooch. You get the idea. Your labor is your property, and the Supreme Court has upheld that. The direct language of this Amendment only provides for taxation against each increase.
Further, for years, people have been writing to the administration and the IRS to tell them where in the Internal Revenue Code does it specifically indicate that an American citizen-worker must pay taxes on wages directly derived from his/her labor or that companies must withhold. All have failed to answer this question, though the Internal Revenue Code specifically requires them to address this question when asked. That is where the now becoming popular phrase comes from "Show you the Money~ Show ME The Law!"
And to go even further, have you ever seen a copy of the Internal Revenue Code? It is roughly the size of a phone book, in fine print, completely filled with legal jargon that the average citizen cannot understand. This is why people have to go to accountants and spend $100 to file really very simple tax returns, because they are overwhelmed in trying to understand the tax code existing now.
The Case of Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) provides that a statute must set out in terms that the ordinary person exercising common sense can sufficiently understand and comply with, without sacrifice to the public interest. The case of United State Civil Serv. Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) upheld this decision.
The cases of Greyned, Papachristou, Bouie, and National Diary Products Corp. all maintained that to pass constitutional scrutiny, a statue or code must give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice that their contemplated conduct is forbidden by action.
On 9/16/03, at a conference in front of the U.S. Treasury Building, Mr. Terry Lemmons, a senior spokesman for the IRS, stated in response to a question put before him by the New York Times regarding whey they refuse to answer the questions of the people regarding these issues, he stated "We are answering those petitions through enforcement actions." This is a blatant admission that they are not following the law.
Not sure if any of you noticed, but Bush indicated in his last two State of the Union addresses that he has a large committee on Income Tax Reform, which just finished their study, but the conclusions have not been released yet. When Bush took office, he sent people to all divisions of the government for evaluation, and I solely believe that this committee is attempting to fix this major flaw in the system, but they have not yet........
So even with this standing that there is no law within the Internal Revenue Code stating American citizens must pay income tax, that the 16th Amendment provides for Congress to levy the Tax, not the IRS (it does not allow for them to delegate that task~ which you will notice Presidential powers allow for delegation and formation of organizations to handle tasks, this Amendment does not), that the tax essentially is required to be a flat tax on ONLY gains or increases in wages, but it is completely appropriate for a citizen to withhold their income tax in retaliation for the lack of response for their Constitutional petitions for a redress of grievances afforded to them under the First Amendment. If one petitions the government for answers to simple clear questions to clarify the law, the government must answer them, and in so not doing, are violating the law. Thus, if we are afforded a right to request redress, but the government refuses to acknowledge this right by refusing to answer the questions, then is it really a right? Thus, the only way to properly address this situation is to withhold monies from the government until they comply with the law.
Hope this sheds some light on the subject for those of you with any questions on whether or not the federal income tax is legal. As it stands right now, it's not. That being said though, good luck trying to fight the government on it.....there is that saying that the only sure things in life are death and taxes.
I'll let you know when I hear about the outcome of the Appeal.
posted by Audrey at 6:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home