You're a star Dawn, and thank you so much for wising me up to Henderson's Look forward to reading it- and I note that you subscribed to my Substack thank you for that - what inspired you to do so?
Yes I know, I absolutely 100% agree with you on it, and have a long list of reasons in my file on the war to justify your statement. Thanks for that link, I hadn't seen Miles Mathis work before.
Just read brushaber for the first time... justice White was quite an idiot. It does seem apparent that he argues that the income tax is NOT direct, and therefore not subject to apportionment. But man, he does not make it easy to follow any of his thoughts. The guy needs a good English professor to slap him up side the head and review the avoidance of run on sentences, not to mention many other basic principles of effective communication.
I think it’s obvious that the income tax as currently administered IS direct in effect, and so, in conflict with brushaber.
However, I think what happened is that subsequent cases indirectly recognized that the reasoning in Brushaber makes no sense, and so they just take the “not subject to apportionment” part and discard the “income tax is indirect” part. But Justice White didn’t make a typo, he seems to make it pretty clear several times that he considered the income tax an indirect tax, and THAT is why he considers it not subject to apportionment. He’s very clear in stating that the 16th amendment does NOT alter the previous constitutional provisions that direct taxes must be apportioned. So he clearly disagrees with subsequent district federal case law.
Seems that the Supreme Court should take up another case here and lay the matter to rest, because it sure seems inconsistent to me. But I doubt they would upset the cart like that, so we’d just be stuck trying to convince a district court that Justice White means what he says. Shouldn’t be hard. But Justice White’s logic makes no sense, so a district court won’t know what to do with it and will err on the side of not upsetting the status quo. This seems a legitimate line of questioning though.
subsequent supreme court cases agree with white, as i have shown in this post. plus the other cases and commentary i shared in previous posts. the “confusion” appears to be deliberately introduced to facilitate the scam.
I guess the issue still just becomes, in my mind, will the current Supreme Court stand up for what the past Supreme Court ruled? Because if not, even though you’re correct, in effect you’ll be wrong.
I have a post coming up on this. it of course has crossed my mind that even though I have the precedent to prove my case, the tax court will play just as dumb (or worse) as our troll here. I mean, the level of the lying we've seen so far does not instill confidence.
I think t paine is sincere here, i don’t think he’s trolling or purposely lying, though i do think you have a good rationale to be doing what youre doing. Can’t wait to read your post on this subject
Hmm we won't even comment on "Mr. Paine" have a tad bit of a conflict of interest here when he makes he INCOME solely from telling others what to do LOL
I have zero conflict of interest. Assurance work for the banks and bonding agents is far more lucrative than tax work. I think that they should repeal the income tax laws and implement a VAT tax.
However, y’all arguing something that the courts have repeatedly struck down. It’s one helluva an expensive endeavor and I don’t think the federal government needs more of our money- and that is exactly what happens when you try this argument that Mrs. French has cribbed from other people who have also tried it and been fined or wound up in federal prison. But, by all means- go on and try it like the other thousand people before you - it’s your money.
Well good for you working for banks. We know they are all on the up and up, right?
You are right on one account, nothing will change and that's pretty darn sad. As we both know tax dollars are only going to pay debt now and there really is no good way outta this situation.
As for a VAT tax if you think "they" will get rid of the IRS and all the machinations that have their hand in our tax pocket and change to a VAT TAX you are now not thinking straight. They would do the VAT and still keep the current system. And the top 1% would still be rich beyond their dreams.
Businesses would be increasing costs due to the amount of work to calculate everything. We can't even get teens these days to know what change to give without looking at the register.
I don’t work for the banks. You don’t run a business do you? I work in public accounting and our clients are construction companies. They need financial statements to show the banks and bonding agents so they can get financing/bonding.
I said what I thought should happen. They will never repeal the income tax. It’s a money pot for waste, fraud, and abuse.
But by attempting to litigate these same dead horses- you’re just giving the federal government more of your money. $500 - $25,000 penalty that was completely pointless. Sigh.
You do realize that IF income taxes are indirect, that they are still constitutional because indirect taxes are only subject to uniformity? And uniformity means geographical uniformity. So... lol thanks for playing.
yes, hun, but the difference is that indirect taxes are avoidable, because they are taxes on federally privileged activity. you no play, you no have to pay.
that's why this fundamental point is so very important to my argument. the fact that I have to spell this out for you is astounding.
again, you don't have to participate so you don't have to pay. no one is demanding I pay an alcohol tax when I don't drink, or a gas tax if I don't drive, or an airline tax if I don't fly.
really, are there any other trolls out there besides you who can actually argue this logically? or are you really the best they've got?
I guess that’s the point, is that they clearly are direct, and hence subject to apportionment. Justice White clearly states that the 16th amendment does not change this. So either SCOTUS was wrong, and the 16th amendment really DOES invalidate the preexisting provisions of the constitution, OR the district courts are wrong and the income tax is actually indirect (most likely). But that is ripe for legal challenge because the income tax is clearly direct by definition. Look, i think you’re sincere in your argument, and not trolling, and i know you’re an accountant but that doesn’t mean you have a conflict of interest.. you’re still going to have a job regardless of the truth here. I’m just here to find the truth
I don’t just do taxes. Assurance work for the banks and bonding agents is actually more lucrative. I just have an interest in taxation. Mostly I enjoy getting people out of the tax trouble they’ve gotten themselves into.
I suggest you read Brushaber again. Many people confuse the plaintiff’s arguments with the opinion of the court. A large segment of it is not the judge’s opinion, but rather the argument the plaintiff brought.
If income taxes are direct, they are constitutional because the 16th amendment did away with the requirement of apportionment.
If income taxes are indirect, they are still constitutional because only uniformity is required, and the uniformity is solely geographical uniformity.
I will read Brushaber again, but i also read some independent analyses on it that generally agree that he clearly states that the 16th amendment does NOT remove the requirement for apportionment on direct taxes. So, the argument becomes: if income taxes are direct, they still require apportionment. This is according to SCOTUS, the highest court in the land (yes it was a long time ago, but that generally doesn’t invalidate case law). I recognize that you are coming from an argument rooted in the reality of “district courts will see it this way and uphold fraudulent return penalties”, whereas dawnfrench is coming from a (in my mind) more correct angle of “yes, but they are technically wrong, regardless of whether they will admit it, and we have an obligation to fight back against government tyranny”. I’m not going to run out and resubmit my corrections trying to get my taxes back, because I’m a coward and i fear the government. But it sounds to me like (whether the courts will admit it or not) there is something to this legal argument.
TC Memo 2014-35 is her script and she never goes off script. it tells her what brushaber "says" and what hendrickson "did" or "says" and how they are "wrong." so she cannot agree with any other reading of brushaber, or the other supporting cases and statements, because it's not in her script.
notice she can't opine at all about the second half of my post where I point out that the tax and appeals courts are deliberately misstating what brushaber says. that's not in the script.
You obviously didn't read Brushaber or the case from US Tax Court TC Memo 2014-35. You also didn't read my post on either of them. Or if you did, you have zero reading comprehension.
You are misquoting Brushaber. What you are quoting is the plaintiff's arguments, not the Supreme Court's opinion. Sheesh. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber that income tax was Constitutional. You also selectively quote the case leaving out important statements, like:
"“Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the [Sixteenth] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock case was decided -- that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since, in express terms, the [Sixteenth] Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. (Brushaber 1916)"
The last sentence there - it completely contradicts you.
"Brushaber merits special mention, because Cracking the Code misleadingly cites that case. A stockholder brought suit against a corporation to prevent the corporation from paying taxes imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913. The Supreme Court summarized the stockholder's arguments, stating: "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them." Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 10. The Supreme Court then proceeded to untangle the stockholder's arguments, which ultimately proved to be losing arguments. Yet Cracking the Code cites the Supreme Court's summary of the losing arguments as though it were the Supreme Court's analysis of the underlying constitutional issues. Cracking the Code, supra note 16, at 19-20. (2014-35)"
If you're going to go to Tax Court and argue with a judge there, you might want to know what you're getting yourself into. You should read TC Memo 2014-35, and if you can't understand it, you need to get someone to explain it to you. Because guess what? The judge is going to summarily dismiss your petition because of Crain v. Commissioner and slap the penalties on you. And you are going to pay them. Do you really want to give the federal government more money? I mean seriously. Did you have a head injury during your service or something? Because I cannot fathom why anyone would pursue this after being presented with all the evidence that I have given you.
yes i read brushaber, and no, I did not quote the plaintiff's argument and anyone who reads the opinion (besides you apparently) can confirm that.
here's the entirety of what you "quoted" above:
"It is clear on the face of this text [of the 16th amendment] that it DOES NOT purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned — or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another,"
[so anyone claiming the 16th gives the power to levy any NEW kind of taxes is wrong]
"but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
[pretty fucking clear that the WHOLE PURPOSE of the 16th was to invalidate the source argument, as I've shown REPEATEDLY, because ALL INCOME TAXES ARE EXCISES regardless of source. and now we come to the piece you claim proves me wrong.]
"Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based,"
[pay attention, this next part is important]
"there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived,"
[the pollock case was determining whether a tax on income was direct by taking into view the burden which resulted on the PROPERTY from which the income was derived, and THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION that the 16th was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with this principle.]
"since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."
[again, income taxes are excises, and the amendment has now done away with any consideration of the source whence the income was derived, in order to claim a tax on income was direct and needed apportionment]
"From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all *the contentions* which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish."
[all you have to do is read all of those "contentions" as to the nature and character of the income tax so you can see what exactly finds no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the amendment was adopted to accomplish.
here's the first one to get you started: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment]
"Second, that the 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"
[there's that WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION part that is clearly part of the opinion and not the plaintiffs argument, so you're wrong again. are you sure about your own comprehension?]
"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."
[the amendment forbids the application of the rule applied in pollock, by which ALONE such taxes were removed from the class of excises and placed under the other or direct class. the entire opinion is consistent from start to finish. and the fact you pretend it says otherwise tells us everything we need to know about you.]
I recommend everyone read brushaber and you'll see who is telling you the truth.
After reading the Harvard Law Review Pollock didn't mean "INCOME" as we are talking "INCOME" today. It only had to do with property, rents and the like. When you relate it to "income" in the Pollock decision you are talking apples to oranges.
From the TC Memo 2014-35 "Upon the death of her husband in 1932, Crane (plaintiff) became the beneficiary of an apartment building and lot." Again that "income" was talking about property. AND the taxable gain and the taxes paid to the IRS due to that issue.
There are different types of income. I never said there wasn’t. If you read my post on Pollock, I discuss that.
The argument is irrelevant though for the purposes of whether it’s taxable or not. It’s all taxable. Brushaber makes that perfectly clear to anyone with English reading comprehension skills. Y’all quoting Brushaber and acting like it’s saying something it simply isn’t saying. You’re proving my point when quoting it, but apparently don’t grasp that fact. Go find an attorney that agrees with your reading of Brushaber and that will go to court with you. You probably won’t find one.
you keep coming back to definitions in the code, as if that matters.
none of my arguments hinge on any definitions in the code:
1. the income tax is an excise. the supreme court says so. multiple times. in order to refute the indirect nature of the tax [you and] the irs has to lie about what the supreme court actually says.
2. an excise is a tax on privileged activities. this is not disputed.
3. literally anyone can engage in federally privileged activities and can therefore be liable for an excise. residents, citizens, nonresident aliens, government workers, private sector workers, anyone. being an “employee” under 3401 just subjects you to withholding under chapter 24.
4. i did not engage in any privileged activities and am therefore not liable for any excise tax. i’m therefore also not an “employee” under 3401 so am not subject to withholding under chapter 24.
5. gains, profits, and income are the results of excisable activities. but it is the activities that make you liable for the tax. the amount of the tax is calculated from the amount of the gains, profits, and income.
6. the pollock case opened a weird loophole where an excise tax was treated as a direct tax because the source of the income was rent and dividends from property. the 16th amendment closed the loophole.
7. now, gains, profits, and income from the exercise of federal privilege are taxed as such, regardless of the source of the income, without appointment, as they had been since the first income tax during the civil war.
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.”
Good Sunday morning, my favorite cafeteria constitutionalist. It’s raining here today and I’m quite bored.
The employee thing tickles me to no end. You have no idea how entertaining this all is to me. I’m in absolute hysterics over that one. Rolling on the proverbial floor.
But you didn’t read the actual case did you? It’s quite long. Took me several hours. You might consider reading it. Traditionally, under English Common Law, income taxes were considered direct taxes. The court ruled in Pollock that was the case for income derived from land rents, they found those to be direct taxes, but that they considered service income from jobs indirect, and they said that *was* constitutional because indirect taxes only required uniformity. However the appointment rule is gone with the wind because of the 16th Amendment. So now it doesn’t matter as far as whether it’s direct or indirect- neither requires appointment, and indirect taxes must be uniform. And the income tax is uniform.
So, thanks for playing guys. This has been super entertaining watching people with no basic understanding of taxation in general, and definitely no understanding of tax law, meander through stuff they don’t comprehend and then telling someone who does understand it and works in it for a living that they don’t understand it. What a time to be alive! It’s a bit like watching a train wreck to be honest. See also: bemused.
I’m seriously hoping that OP goes to tax court with this. I cannot wait.
The principle of uniformity of taxation bears a close relation to the concept of equality because similar items are taxed equally only if the mode of assessment is the same or uniform.
A tax that is levied upon property must be in proportion or according to its value, ordinarily determined as its fair cash or fair market value. This requirement protects equality and uniformity of taxation by preventing ARBITRARY or inconsistent methods of determining how much tax is due. This requirement applies only to property taxes, not to excise taxes.
Hi Dawn - have you ever considered writing a book on the IRS scam?
That is probably the best way to add to the public discussion and help move the needle.
Articles get lost in time, but books endure. Just a thought. Great article by the way.
Hendrickson already wrote it, and put it online for free:
https://losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm
You're a star Dawn, and thank you so much for wising me up to Henderson's Look forward to reading it- and I note that you subscribed to my Substack thank you for that - what inspired you to do so?
“the Israel-Hamas war is a FAKED WAR. It is a FALSE FLAG. Israel has actually sponsored Hamas for a long time, they helped create it in fact.”
https://theresearchofmilesmathis.substack.com/p/israelhamas-war
Yes I know, I absolutely 100% agree with you on it, and have a long list of reasons in my file on the war to justify your statement. Thanks for that link, I hadn't seen Miles Mathis work before.
Just read brushaber for the first time... justice White was quite an idiot. It does seem apparent that he argues that the income tax is NOT direct, and therefore not subject to apportionment. But man, he does not make it easy to follow any of his thoughts. The guy needs a good English professor to slap him up side the head and review the avoidance of run on sentences, not to mention many other basic principles of effective communication.
I think it’s obvious that the income tax as currently administered IS direct in effect, and so, in conflict with brushaber.
However, I think what happened is that subsequent cases indirectly recognized that the reasoning in Brushaber makes no sense, and so they just take the “not subject to apportionment” part and discard the “income tax is indirect” part. But Justice White didn’t make a typo, he seems to make it pretty clear several times that he considered the income tax an indirect tax, and THAT is why he considers it not subject to apportionment. He’s very clear in stating that the 16th amendment does NOT alter the previous constitutional provisions that direct taxes must be apportioned. So he clearly disagrees with subsequent district federal case law.
Seems that the Supreme Court should take up another case here and lay the matter to rest, because it sure seems inconsistent to me. But I doubt they would upset the cart like that, so we’d just be stuck trying to convince a district court that Justice White means what he says. Shouldn’t be hard. But Justice White’s logic makes no sense, so a district court won’t know what to do with it and will err on the side of not upsetting the status quo. This seems a legitimate line of questioning though.
subsequent supreme court cases agree with white, as i have shown in this post. plus the other cases and commentary i shared in previous posts. the “confusion” appears to be deliberately introduced to facilitate the scam.
I guess the issue still just becomes, in my mind, will the current Supreme Court stand up for what the past Supreme Court ruled? Because if not, even though you’re correct, in effect you’ll be wrong.
I have a post coming up on this. it of course has crossed my mind that even though I have the precedent to prove my case, the tax court will play just as dumb (or worse) as our troll here. I mean, the level of the lying we've seen so far does not instill confidence.
I think t paine is sincere here, i don’t think he’s trolling or purposely lying, though i do think you have a good rationale to be doing what youre doing. Can’t wait to read your post on this subject
You don't HONESTLY think the Supremes would overturn the ability of the government to college taxes on income would you?
Exactly. I think it sounds like dawnfrench is correct here, i just don’t trust the judicial system to play out correctly. I hope I’m wrong
Hmm we won't even comment on "Mr. Paine" have a tad bit of a conflict of interest here when he makes he INCOME solely from telling others what to do LOL
I have zero conflict of interest. Assurance work for the banks and bonding agents is far more lucrative than tax work. I think that they should repeal the income tax laws and implement a VAT tax.
However, y’all arguing something that the courts have repeatedly struck down. It’s one helluva an expensive endeavor and I don’t think the federal government needs more of our money- and that is exactly what happens when you try this argument that Mrs. French has cribbed from other people who have also tried it and been fined or wound up in federal prison. But, by all means- go on and try it like the other thousand people before you - it’s your money.
Well good for you working for banks. We know they are all on the up and up, right?
You are right on one account, nothing will change and that's pretty darn sad. As we both know tax dollars are only going to pay debt now and there really is no good way outta this situation.
As for a VAT tax if you think "they" will get rid of the IRS and all the machinations that have their hand in our tax pocket and change to a VAT TAX you are now not thinking straight. They would do the VAT and still keep the current system. And the top 1% would still be rich beyond their dreams.
Businesses would be increasing costs due to the amount of work to calculate everything. We can't even get teens these days to know what change to give without looking at the register.
I don’t work for the banks. You don’t run a business do you? I work in public accounting and our clients are construction companies. They need financial statements to show the banks and bonding agents so they can get financing/bonding.
I said what I thought should happen. They will never repeal the income tax. It’s a money pot for waste, fraud, and abuse.
But by attempting to litigate these same dead horses- you’re just giving the federal government more of your money. $500 - $25,000 penalty that was completely pointless. Sigh.
You do realize that IF income taxes are indirect, that they are still constitutional because indirect taxes are only subject to uniformity? And uniformity means geographical uniformity. So... lol thanks for playing.
yes, hun, but the difference is that indirect taxes are avoidable, because they are taxes on federally privileged activity. you no play, you no have to pay.
that's why this fundamental point is so very important to my argument. the fact that I have to spell this out for you is astounding.
Gasoline tax is an indirect excise tax. Is it “federally privileged”? And do you pay it or do you request a refund?
What about alcohol tax? Cruise ship tax? Airline tax? Tobacco tax? Are those all “federally privileged” too? Or do you consider them unconstitutional?
again, you don't have to participate so you don't have to pay. no one is demanding I pay an alcohol tax when I don't drink, or a gas tax if I don't drive, or an airline tax if I don't fly.
really, are there any other trolls out there besides you who can actually argue this logically? or are you really the best they've got?
I guess that’s the point, is that they clearly are direct, and hence subject to apportionment. Justice White clearly states that the 16th amendment does not change this. So either SCOTUS was wrong, and the 16th amendment really DOES invalidate the preexisting provisions of the constitution, OR the district courts are wrong and the income tax is actually indirect (most likely). But that is ripe for legal challenge because the income tax is clearly direct by definition. Look, i think you’re sincere in your argument, and not trolling, and i know you’re an accountant but that doesn’t mean you have a conflict of interest.. you’re still going to have a job regardless of the truth here. I’m just here to find the truth
I don’t just do taxes. Assurance work for the banks and bonding agents is actually more lucrative. I just have an interest in taxation. Mostly I enjoy getting people out of the tax trouble they’ve gotten themselves into.
I suggest you read Brushaber again. Many people confuse the plaintiff’s arguments with the opinion of the court. A large segment of it is not the judge’s opinion, but rather the argument the plaintiff brought.
If income taxes are direct, they are constitutional because the 16th amendment did away with the requirement of apportionment.
If income taxes are indirect, they are still constitutional because only uniformity is required, and the uniformity is solely geographical uniformity.
I will read Brushaber again, but i also read some independent analyses on it that generally agree that he clearly states that the 16th amendment does NOT remove the requirement for apportionment on direct taxes. So, the argument becomes: if income taxes are direct, they still require apportionment. This is according to SCOTUS, the highest court in the land (yes it was a long time ago, but that generally doesn’t invalidate case law). I recognize that you are coming from an argument rooted in the reality of “district courts will see it this way and uphold fraudulent return penalties”, whereas dawnfrench is coming from a (in my mind) more correct angle of “yes, but they are technically wrong, regardless of whether they will admit it, and we have an obligation to fight back against government tyranny”. I’m not going to run out and resubmit my corrections trying to get my taxes back, because I’m a coward and i fear the government. But it sounds to me like (whether the courts will admit it or not) there is something to this legal argument.
TC Memo 2014-35 is her script and she never goes off script. it tells her what brushaber "says" and what hendrickson "did" or "says" and how they are "wrong." so she cannot agree with any other reading of brushaber, or the other supporting cases and statements, because it's not in her script.
notice she can't opine at all about the second half of my post where I point out that the tax and appeals courts are deliberately misstating what brushaber says. that's not in the script.
You obviously didn't read Brushaber or the case from US Tax Court TC Memo 2014-35. You also didn't read my post on either of them. Or if you did, you have zero reading comprehension.
You are misquoting Brushaber. What you are quoting is the plaintiff's arguments, not the Supreme Court's opinion. Sheesh. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber that income tax was Constitutional. You also selectively quote the case leaving out important statements, like:
"“Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the [Sixteenth] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock case was decided -- that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since, in express terms, the [Sixteenth] Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. (Brushaber 1916)"
The last sentence there - it completely contradicts you.
"Brushaber merits special mention, because Cracking the Code misleadingly cites that case. A stockholder brought suit against a corporation to prevent the corporation from paying taxes imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913. The Supreme Court summarized the stockholder's arguments, stating: "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them." Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 10. The Supreme Court then proceeded to untangle the stockholder's arguments, which ultimately proved to be losing arguments. Yet Cracking the Code cites the Supreme Court's summary of the losing arguments as though it were the Supreme Court's analysis of the underlying constitutional issues. Cracking the Code, supra note 16, at 19-20. (2014-35)"
If you're going to go to Tax Court and argue with a judge there, you might want to know what you're getting yourself into. You should read TC Memo 2014-35, and if you can't understand it, you need to get someone to explain it to you. Because guess what? The judge is going to summarily dismiss your petition because of Crain v. Commissioner and slap the penalties on you. And you are going to pay them. Do you really want to give the federal government more money? I mean seriously. Did you have a head injury during your service or something? Because I cannot fathom why anyone would pursue this after being presented with all the evidence that I have given you.
yes i read brushaber, and no, I did not quote the plaintiff's argument and anyone who reads the opinion (besides you apparently) can confirm that.
here's the entirety of what you "quoted" above:
"It is clear on the face of this text [of the 16th amendment] that it DOES NOT purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned — or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another,"
[so anyone claiming the 16th gives the power to levy any NEW kind of taxes is wrong]
"but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived."
[pretty fucking clear that the WHOLE PURPOSE of the 16th was to invalidate the source argument, as I've shown REPEATEDLY, because ALL INCOME TAXES ARE EXCISES regardless of source. and now we come to the piece you claim proves me wrong.]
"Indeed in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based,"
[pay attention, this next part is important]
"there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided, that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived,"
[the pollock case was determining whether a tax on income was direct by taking into view the burden which resulted on the PROPERTY from which the income was derived, and THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM THE CONCLUSION that the 16th was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with this principle.]
"since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."
[again, income taxes are excises, and the amendment has now done away with any consideration of the source whence the income was derived, in order to claim a tax on income was direct and needed apportionment]
"From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all *the contentions* which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish."
[all you have to do is read all of those "contentions" as to the nature and character of the income tax so you can see what exactly finds no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the amendment was adopted to accomplish.
here's the first one to get you started: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment]
"Second, that the 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"
[there's that WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION part that is clearly part of the opinion and not the plaintiffs argument, so you're wrong again. are you sure about your own comprehension?]
"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."
[the amendment forbids the application of the rule applied in pollock, by which ALONE such taxes were removed from the class of excises and placed under the other or direct class. the entire opinion is consistent from start to finish. and the fact you pretend it says otherwise tells us everything we need to know about you.]
I recommend everyone read brushaber and you'll see who is telling you the truth.
After reading the Harvard Law Review Pollock didn't mean "INCOME" as we are talking "INCOME" today. It only had to do with property, rents and the like. When you relate it to "income" in the Pollock decision you are talking apples to oranges.
And I believe from Brushaber you are also talking apples vs oranges as far as the "income" meaning at that time.
From the TC Memo 2014-35 "Upon the death of her husband in 1932, Crane (plaintiff) became the beneficiary of an apartment building and lot." Again that "income" was talking about property. AND the taxable gain and the taxes paid to the IRS due to that issue.
https://casetext.com/case/craig-v-commr-of-internal-revenue-1
There are different types of income. I never said there wasn’t. If you read my post on Pollock, I discuss that.
The argument is irrelevant though for the purposes of whether it’s taxable or not. It’s all taxable. Brushaber makes that perfectly clear to anyone with English reading comprehension skills. Y’all quoting Brushaber and acting like it’s saying something it simply isn’t saying. You’re proving my point when quoting it, but apparently don’t grasp that fact. Go find an attorney that agrees with your reading of Brushaber and that will go to court with you. You probably won’t find one.
Absolutely ridiculous.
See also: IRC 61 and Reg sec 1.61-1.
you keep coming back to definitions in the code, as if that matters.
none of my arguments hinge on any definitions in the code:
1. the income tax is an excise. the supreme court says so. multiple times. in order to refute the indirect nature of the tax [you and] the irs has to lie about what the supreme court actually says.
2. an excise is a tax on privileged activities. this is not disputed.
3. literally anyone can engage in federally privileged activities and can therefore be liable for an excise. residents, citizens, nonresident aliens, government workers, private sector workers, anyone. being an “employee” under 3401 just subjects you to withholding under chapter 24.
4. i did not engage in any privileged activities and am therefore not liable for any excise tax. i’m therefore also not an “employee” under 3401 so am not subject to withholding under chapter 24.
5. gains, profits, and income are the results of excisable activities. but it is the activities that make you liable for the tax. the amount of the tax is calculated from the amount of the gains, profits, and income.
6. the pollock case opened a weird loophole where an excise tax was treated as a direct tax because the source of the income was rent and dividends from property. the 16th amendment closed the loophole.
7. now, gains, profits, and income from the exercise of federal privilege are taxed as such, regardless of the source of the income, without appointment, as they had been since the first income tax during the civil war.
“The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope.”
Good Sunday morning, my favorite cafeteria constitutionalist. It’s raining here today and I’m quite bored.
The employee thing tickles me to no end. You have no idea how entertaining this all is to me. I’m in absolute hysterics over that one. Rolling on the proverbial floor.
Have a good rest of your weekend!
But you didn’t read the actual case did you? It’s quite long. Took me several hours. You might consider reading it. Traditionally, under English Common Law, income taxes were considered direct taxes. The court ruled in Pollock that was the case for income derived from land rents, they found those to be direct taxes, but that they considered service income from jobs indirect, and they said that *was* constitutional because indirect taxes only required uniformity. However the appointment rule is gone with the wind because of the 16th Amendment. So now it doesn’t matter as far as whether it’s direct or indirect- neither requires appointment, and indirect taxes must be uniform. And the income tax is uniform.
So, thanks for playing guys. This has been super entertaining watching people with no basic understanding of taxation in general, and definitely no understanding of tax law, meander through stuff they don’t comprehend and then telling someone who does understand it and works in it for a living that they don’t understand it. What a time to be alive! It’s a bit like watching a train wreck to be honest. See also: bemused.
I’m seriously hoping that OP goes to tax court with this. I cannot wait.
Not me saying this...
Taxation
Uniformity
The principle of uniformity of taxation bears a close relation to the concept of equality because similar items are taxed equally only if the mode of assessment is the same or uniform.
A tax that is levied upon property must be in proportion or according to its value, ordinarily determined as its fair cash or fair market value. This requirement protects equality and uniformity of taxation by preventing ARBITRARY or inconsistent methods of determining how much tax is due. This requirement applies only to property taxes, not to excise taxes.
https://law.jrank.org/pages/10699/Taxation-Uniformity.html
Yeah, I’ve tried talking to these people. Exercise in futility. I filed a petition with the tax court. It’s working it’s way through now.