a brief interlude in the irs odyssey

trying to get to the very ❤️ of the matter

make sure you’ve read my 16th amendment post because the commentary below won’t make much sense if you haven’t.

from my conversation with the licensed cpa it’s notable we can both can read the exact same words yet come to two completely different conclusions about what they mean. our minds have been stirred. if you want to know where we are in the decline of civilization, we are now arguing over the definitions of words.

this is fith generation warfare. if you haven’t figured it out yet, you are the mark.

it shouldn’t surprise you that what you believe about the income tax is false. i can only try to show you how i see it, you just have to be open to it. it all hinges on what you think the 16th amendment says and why it’s important.

"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."

your licensed cpa believes those words mean:

despite the fact that the constitution states in article one, section two that, “direct taxes shall be apportioned” and in article one, section eight that, “all duties, imposts and excises (indirect taxes) shall be uniform,”

and despite the fact that since its inception during the civil war the tax on incomes had been an excise (a uniformly applied indirect tax) that applied only to gains from the profitable exercise of federal privileges,

we have decided to amend our constitution where, by simply adding the words “from whatever source derived,” suddenly the definition of “income” changes to, “every penny you exchange your labor for, regardless of whether you were engaged in the exercise of federal privilege,”

which means that now it’s a direct tax, a capitation if you will, but we’re no longer going to abide by that pesky apportionment requirement, which means it’s some brand new hybrid, and now you are all slaves working for the man

<insert evil laugh>

i think it makes more sense to understand it as:

due to the pollock court ruling that said the source of income caused the income tax to move from being a uniform indirect tax, which it had been since the beginning, to a direct tax, which would require apportionment,

we have decided to amend our constitution to overrule the pollock decision and to clarify that the income tax does not suddenly become a direct tax due to the source of income, but remains an indirect tax regardless of the source of income, and therefore does not need to be apportioned.

i have three questions:

#1 - which of these two understandings is consistent with the following quotes?

"...in Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , it was held that a tax upon gains, profits, and income was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and that its imposition was not, therefore, unconstitutional."

Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

"[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."

Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard quoted in a summary of the amendment’s effect for Congress in hearing testimony in 1943:

"The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."

Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. 298 (1915-16)

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."

Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above.  Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"

Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws'

#2 - which of these two understandings is consistent with the following supreme court rulings?

“[B]y the [Brushaber] ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth 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.”

U. S. Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"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..."

U.S. Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

"[T]he settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income."

U.S. Supreme Court, Taft v. Bowers, 278 US 470, 481 (1929)

"[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co.,240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-18 (1916)"

U.S. Supreme Court, So. Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)

"If [a] tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Whether the [income] tax is to be classified as an "excise" is in truth not of critical importance [for this analysis]. If not that, it is an "impost", or a "duty". A capitation or other "direct" tax it certainly is not."

U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) (Emphasis added; citations omitted.)

#3 - which of these two understandings is consistent with the following definitions in the tax code?

Section 3401(c) "employee"

"For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation."

Section 7701(a)(26) “trade or business”

"The term "trade or business" includes the performance of the functions of a public office."

i rest my case.

why is it necessary for us to finally settle the meaning of the 16th amendment?

the first paraphrase is the matrix. all your life you’ve heard, “nothing is certain but death and taxes.” they can sell you anything with a slogan.

isn’t it interesting the supposed tax “experts” don’t seem to know the fundamentals of their field? seems to be affecting many fields lately.

how did we get here were experts are idiots and we can’t agree on the definition of words?