Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

16th amendment

rated by 0 users
This post has 44 Replies | 11 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 32
Points 760
sam72 Posted: Thu, Dec 27 2007 4:03 AM

 I'm curious to know what people think about the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. There have been a lot of arguments put forth by people like Bill Benson as to how the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. On the other hand, no court has ever upheld any of the 16th amendent as unconstitutional arguments. So I'm just curious to see what people here think about that.

 Also, I'm curiois to know if Rothbard ever commented on the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. He dealt a lot with the banks, and its true that the banks obviously wanted the 16th amendment to pass, and allow the Federal Reserve to come into being, so I'm curious if Rothbard dealt with that questions.

 

Thanks! 

Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 481
Points 7,280
DBratton replied on Thu, Dec 27 2007 10:15 AM

It seems to me all of the Tax Protester Constitutional Arguments are specious except perhaps the one about self-incrimination when filing a return. Justice Holmes ruled that the fifth amendment protection did not mean you could refuse to file any return at all since you could note your objection on the form. I think that is also potentially incriminating.

Most of the rest of the arguments are just too stupid to consider - spelling errors, lack of the work "repeal", etc. 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 253
Points 4,535
Mark B. replied on Thu, Dec 27 2007 12:41 PM

The 16th amendment was, unfortunately, duly ratified.  Most of the arguments put forward against it are frivolous.

 The 14th amendment, however, was most definitely NOT duly ratified.  There are some tax arguments that COULD be made on the basis that the 14th amendment is invalid.

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,083
Points 17,700

sam72:

 I'm curious to know what people think about the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. There have been a lot of arguments put forth by people like Bill Benson as to how the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. On the other hand, no court has ever upheld any of the 16th amendent as unconstitutional arguments. So I'm just curious to see what people here think about that.

 Also, I'm curiois to know if Rothbard ever commented on the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. He dealt a lot with the banks, and its true that the banks obviously wanted the 16th amendment to pass, and allow the Federal Reserve to come into being, so I'm curious if Rothbard dealt with that questions.

 

Thanks! 



You know how you do that? You don't go to the 16th amendment. You don't fight the beast within its cave. You turn around and reject the premises first, like Lysander Spooner.

The Origins of Capitalism

And for more periodic bloggings by moi,

Leftlibertarian.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

sam72:
 I'm curious to know what people think about the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. There have been a lot of arguments put forth by people like Bill Benson as to how the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. On the other hand, no court has ever upheld any of the 16th amendent as unconstitutional arguments. So I'm just curious to see what people here think about that

 

I did a lot of research on this subject back in the late 70's to the mid 80's.  I saw the documents that are claimed to be inerror which ratified the amendment and saw that they are in fact in line with ratification, and thus I thinkthat the amendment was duly raified legally.  However, anyone who cares to read the decision by the Supreme court on it (240 US 1) will see that the 16th Amendment did nothing to change the Constitution except to require the Congress to tax income from all sources at the same rate.  I also read the congressional record of the debates in the Senate before and after the amendment was ratified, and found them extremely satisfying.  There was one senator who actually knew what they had done and proceeded to give an excellent dissertation on the taxing power.  The government does not have the power to tax everything as "Income" that they want.  They use the amendment as a cover for doing this though, convincing us that the amendment gives them the power to do anything to us.  I found 20 legitimate reasons why the income tax is invalid, but since no one cares I gave up trying to tell anyone.  The proof is that I was never indicted on anything by the government.

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 862
Points 15,105

Donald Lingerfelt:
They use the amendment as a cover for doing this though, convincing us that the amendment gives them the power to do anything to us.  I found 20 legitimate reasons why the income tax is invalid, but since no one cares I gave up trying to tell anyone.

I would venture to say you might have willing audience here...

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 65
maaku replied on Mon, Dec 31 2007 4:41 PM

Donald Lingerfelt:

sam72:
 I'm curious to know what people think about the constitutionality of the 16th amendment. There have been a lot of arguments put forth by people like Bill Benson as to how the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. On the other hand, no court has ever upheld any of the 16th amendent as unconstitutional arguments. So I'm just curious to see what people here think about that

 

I did a lot of research on this subject back in the late 70's to the mid 80's.  I saw the documents that are claimed to be inerror which ratified the amendment and saw that they are in fact in line with ratification, and thus I thinkthat the amendment was duly raified legally.  However, anyone who cares to read the decision by the Supreme court on it (240 US 1) will see that the 16th Amendment did nothing to change the Constitution except to require the Congress to tax income from all sources at the same rate.  I also read the congressional record of the debates in the Senate before and after the amendment was ratified, and found them extremely satisfying.  There was one senator who actually knew what they had done and proceeded to give an excellent dissertation on the taxing power.  The government does not have the power to tax everything as "Income" that they want.  They use the amendment as a cover for doing this though, convincing us that the amendment gives them the power to do anything to us.  I found 20 legitimate reasons why the income tax is invalid, but since no one cares I gave up trying to tell anyone.  The proof is that I was never indicted on anything by the government.

 

I have read the "The Law That Never Was" by Benson & Beckman. It seems to indicate numerous cases of (purposely?) "mistaken" application of proceedures and  skirting the rules of the various legislatures to pass the devil spawned creature. Surely such chicanery nullifies the ammendment, doesn't it?

 Indeed, any agorists, too would be very interested in what you may have to say on the topic.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

I would be happy to explain some of the main arguments that were used to fight the government on the income tax issue.  However, I recommend that these be used to educate yourself rather than the fight the government, as I realized that since they own the courts (which are totally corrupt), we could never win there.  The court system is supposed to be our relief against a corrupt legislature and/or Executive branch, but they have thrown in with them to opress the people (see the "Federalist Papers").  Only someone like Ron Paul who has read the Constitution can do anything to change things.

The basic arguement is that wages are not "income" within the meaning of the term.  The first income tax was written and passed in 1893, and was challenged and ws decided by the Supreme Court in 1894.  The court in this decision (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601) decided tht the law was unConstitutional because it taxed the total rents of a building without subtracting the capital portion of the rent.  They declared that "Income" was only the profit portion of gross recipts.  This is the crucial point, that only "Profit" is income to be taxed.  This definition has been held to this day.  The Pollock decision is a very important decision in US History.  It caused the  government to write the 16th Amendment in the first place. 

This begs the question as to whether or not the 16th changed anything.  According to the court in "Brushaber vs. Union Pacific" (240 US 1), no it didn't.  There was a bit of humor expressed by the court in their decision at the stupidity of the Congress for thinking that the Amendment changed their powers to tax everything as "Income", because they wrote in the amendment that an income tax no longer needed apportionment ( which direct taxes needed).  A tax on income being an indirect tax, never needed apportionment so this is really a stupid move on the part of Congress, which gave the impression that direct taxes no longer needed it.  Not the case.  The Court said that income taxes still needed uniformity, being an indirect tax.

There are two types of taxes, each needing a rule for applying.  According to the Constitution, article 1, sec. 8, clause 1, direct taxes need apportionment and Indirect taxes need uniformity.  A direct tax is one on the ownership of the thing being taxed and is not avoidable.  Congress, in laying a direct tax, must declare how much is sought to be raised beforehand, then each must collect the money and send it to the Ferderal government in proportion of the total population that reside in the state to the national population (this is one of the two reason for taking a census, and one of the big causes of the 3/5ths compromise).  For instance, if the state of New York had 10% of the national population, it was responsible to collect 10% of what the Feds wanted.  If cars were being taxed, then only people who owned cars would have to pay the tax, which would be divided between each car i the state.

Indirect taxes, on the other hand were totally avoidable, and on an act being taxed.  They are avoidable by merely not doing the thing being taxed.  For instance if gas was being taxed, one could avoid the tax by not buying gas.  Indirect taxes are to be uniform, that is, they are exactly the same geographically in the country.  A person buying gas in Florida or Main or California will pay exactly the same ammount of tax on a gallon regardless.  The tax on "excess profits" on oil in the 80's was declared unConstitutional because Alaska was excused from the tax, thus making it not uniform. 

The Pollack court decided that since congress failed to allow the taxpayer to subtract the return of capital portion of the rents before taxation, the income tax was unConstitutional.  To this day, companies are allowed to reduce from the "Gross Proceeds" the capital expended in the attempt to earn the gross proceeds.  From this we get "Gross Income", from which deductions (Conressional gifts) are deducted to arrive at "Net Income" which is taxed.  Another aspect is that somehow a government privilege is involved.

This all being said, are wages "profit", or "Income"? We don't think so, mainly for two reasons.  First it is not avoidable.  We have to work to get money to live. The court has repeatedly said that working is a basic right and the source of all individual property.  Rights cannot be taxed.  The internal Revenue Code defines Gross Income as "All Income from whatever source derived, including wages ...".  Not getting into the fact that this does not define "Income" for now, it appears to tell us that wages are income.  After looking at it for a while, it's telling us that we can somehow get profit "from" wages.  This appears to say that somehow we can get profit by recieving wages.  However, it kind of implies that we can deduct from our wages the capital return portion from our wages to get the profit portion, which is the income portion.  The IRS maintains that it is all profit because we have not paid any capital into the recieving of the wages.   But didn't we?  Have we not invested our time of life?  Have we not invested our skills and mental effort?  What portion of the wage is return of capital?  All of it!  There are many decisions of the Supreme Court to back this up, going back to 1795.  The court said working is a "right", so congress cannot tax "working" either.  Believe it or not, the commisioner of Internal revenue challenged this concept in court and was laughed out of the courtroom.  He didn't even appeal the decision. 

I would refer anyone who wishes a good education in taxation to read the Pollock, Brushaber, and Eisner vs. Moccomber (252 US 189) decisions.  There are many other very good decisions one can refer to as well.  I just can't list them all here.  I someone wants to find out something, let me know an I will go into my archives and find it if I have it.  This is only one of the very good things we found out.  I will write others soon.  For instance, why do we call it a "return"?  What are you returning?  How about the 5th amendment?  Or the Paperwork Reduction Act? 

It is my opinion that Congress deliberately avoided writing a tax that complied with any law, Constitutional provision or moral judgement.  Nothing about the tax is just in any way.  Can we win in Court using any arguement?  I don't think so.  Some of our compatriots were killed by the IRS in the early 80's fro standing up against them, so I don't recommend failing to pay them. 

Not Ranked
Posts 5
Points 65
maaku replied on Wed, Jan 2 2008 12:13 PM

Donald Lingerfelt:

...

It is my opinion that Congress deliberately avoided writing a tax that complied with any law, Constitutional provision or moral judgement.  Nothing about the tax is just in any way.  Can we win in Court using any arguement?  I don't think so.  Some of our compatriots were killed by the IRS in the early 80's fro standing up against them, so I don't recommend failing to pay them. 

 

I understand what you are saying about our compatriots being picked off by the government. I don't think that outcome can be avoided because of their extreme bloodthirstiness and desire to form (force) the people into a unified mass of support for their bads (opposite of goods). I would think, though, that there could be some method for flying under their radar. What may that be?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

Unfortnately, I think that one may play the game, which has a few loopholes in it, at least so far and to some extent.  Going offshore is one way to avoid the tax.  That route is closing up lately but still exists. 

Another way is to go independant, that is, stay out of the 'system', ie.: don't use banks, work under the table, no credit cards, etc.  As the government gets more and more technologicaly advanced, there will be less and less freedom, but for now this can be done to some extent. 

Offshore is probably the best way.  there are a lot of countries that sell themselves as tax havens.  The info is out there on the net all over the place.  You can spend you money by using an American Express Gold card from the offshore bank.

I think that Ron Paul and those like him in the future may be the only real method to reverse the trend, except for outright political revolution of course.  Freedom is quickly eroding and most americans unfortunately are all for dominant government.  I am amazed at how often I hear things like "We need more laws!' or "someone should do something about that.".  People want total government control today and think that we are a "free" country at the same time.  Right now I don't see a change in trend.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 40
Jeff replied on Fri, May 1 2009 2:51 PM

DBratton and Mar B., I respectivaly disagree with you both.  The arguments against the 16th amendment are neither specious nor frivolous.  It doesn't matter if it was duly ratified, the 16th amendment violates the 5th amendment: "nor shall any person be deprived of live, liberty, and property without due process of law." 

The Bill of Rights should never be amended or violated, even if the majority claims otherwise.  This "majority rules" argument (3/4 states ratification) is such a cop out for those who need strength in numbers. 

Libertarians need to stop acting like it doesn't matter anymore.  It's really sad how so many focus all their attention on the 14th amendment rather than the 16th.  Yes, the 14th amendment was not duly ratified and it unfortunately does give Congress more power over the states.  But so does the 16th amendment, so let's focus on that a bit more instead of saying, "Most of the arguments put forward against it are frivolous."

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

Jeff,

I am on your side but you made some errors in your statement.  The purpose of the amendments to the Constitution is to change it.  the 16th can change the 5th if the states/congress/people want it to.  This is not the case however.  As I previously wrote, the 16th did not change the Constitution except to forbid Congress from laying an income tax differently on various sources.  Read Brushaber vs. Union Pacific R.R., 240 US 1.   To my knowledge, the 16th was legally enacted (I saw the ratification docs), however the same arguments raised against the 14th may apply. 

I agree that the Constitution needs to be supported still.  It is all we have at the moment until public opinion changes more to our point of view.  People can relate to it, and most still think we are supposed to be under it.  It is an argument we can use toward re-establishing some freedom, at least for now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

Donald, I agree with you 100% - the issue revolves around the definition of 'income.' The historical context of the 16th and the Supreme Court decisions were clear that 'income' was not considered wages, salaries, ect.  but that which derived from them (also infered in the IRC). The Pollock case pretty much made a certain 'income' of Pollock a direct tax that needed to be apportioned according to the constitution and therefor it was considered unconstitutioonal to tax it without this apportionment. Reading the 16th in this light; it was trying to end the confusion once and for all by taking the income that the Pollock case heard or for that matter any furture attempt to do likewise and put it back under the category of an indirect tax - which of course does not pertain to wages, salaries, ect. which are exchanges for labor. This is why when you read the 16th it talks about Congress being able to lay a tax on 'income' from whatever source derived without apportionment - the Pollock case made a certain income that was derived from some capital investment as a direct tax and therefore needed to be apportioned. Income cannot derive from labor it must be derived from the wages, salaries, ect. that are derived from labor. That is the link that is missing in the public consciouness and which is exploited by the State. The 16th makes so much sense in this light. And as you pointed out it is even more clear when we consider that it never got rid of the apportionment clauses in the Constitution. Many people assume that the 16th allows direct taxes to unapportioned - that was not its intent as is seen in the fact that the words 'direct' or 'indirect' are not in the 16th - but the word income.

I was wondering your thoughts on trying to get the 'employers' educated on that fact that everyone who works for them (unless they are part of the Fed's arm) are not 'employees' that are subject to the tax and therefore the 'employer' is not obligated to send in a W-2 which creates prima facia evidence and a presumtion of liabiltiy permissable in a court of law. Also when you fill out that W-4 you do the same thing. The IRS has made the businesses the tax collecters. If you try to get hired and refuse to sign that W-4 they think they can't hire you - but how can we convince them otherwise not to send in the W-2 because we do not have to be categorized as an 'employee' subject to the tax -  it is so entrenched.

Anyway, the 16th is contitutional and if anyone has signed that W-4 and a W-2 is sent to the IRS you are presumed to be liable for the tax even if you are not. You were tricked into creating that liability.  

Oh yeah I am interested in the other reasons you have - any links, books, ect. you recommend.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

You bring up some of the arguments that were used back in the day (1978-1988). the problems we had were the employers were told by the IRS that they were to "withhold as if the employee had filled out the W-4 claiming 0 allowances", and the employers did for fear of the IRS looking into their books.  The IRS uses the fear for their enforcement kind of like Genghis Khan did.  They don't usually need to take anyone into court as that would use up resources.  They rely on fear to ensure compliance.  I brought up the "derived from" argument up at my "audit" with some good effect, so this is one of the good arguments.  It is found in the code itself which is good.  The definition in the code of "gross income" is definitive in this respect (this clause defines "gross" rather than "income").  The IRS just does not know how to read very well.

The case of Brushaber vs. Union Pacific, 240 US 1 is the main case on the 16th Amendment. It's very good showing what was intended by it.  The kicker is that the 16th did not do what the congress intended, and the court seems to be laughing at them for the mistake.  Another good passage to read is the House debate on this both in 1913 and 1916. One representative had it down pat and gave an excellent dissertation of US taxing powers.  This is the best one since Pollock.  Other cases worth reading are Boyd (1978 I think), Merchant's Loan vs. Smitanka, Adkins vs. Children's Hospital, Miller vs. US, and a few more that I can't recall at the moment ( I do not have my notes with me).  The bottom line is that there is no shade of the current tax that is constitutional, ethical, or legal.  It even violates the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act.  The Consitution demands that Congress lay and collect the tax. We lay it on ourselves and the President collects it. I have been unable to find one aspect of it that is legal. Yet they still tax us.  The only remedy I think is disbanding the Federal Government.

I hope this helps.  As I said, I don't have my notes with me at the moment and I'm going by memory. I'll be back home in October and can do more then if you like.  Let me know.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 178
Points 2,260
BioTube replied on Tue, Sep 8 2009 12:03 PM

The income tax was a "Progressive" idea(I shouldn't have to say anything more).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Tue, Sep 8 2009 12:30 PM

Donald Lingerfelt:
Freedom is quickly eroding and most americans unfortunately are all for dominant government.  I am amazed at how often I hear things like "We need more laws!' or "someone should do something about that.".  People want total government control today and think that we are a "free" country at the same time.  Right now I don't see a change in trend.

In my debates I routinely ask people to define the limits of government's power.  They never do in any systemic way, they just have an ad hoc list of things they think the government should stay out of, or supposedly.  I usually end up making a bet with them of some kind that they want a tyranical government.  They balk, of course.  Then I present them with the typical hard luck cases and extreme but real examples of situations where people often demand the government Do Something!, and they almost always follow suit.  The end result is they have just approved government intervention to varying extents into every portion of their and everyone else's lives in all the areas they supposedly thought the government should stay out of.

You get two reactions to this.  One, thoughtful and if not epiphany level, at least some acknowledgement that their views need more careful thinking; two, outright hostility that you dared show they are inconsistent in the extreme and in fact do support a near limitless government.  It's the latter reaction I get most of the time, and have yet to understand it.

"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390

The Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

 There.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

"But all direct taxes shall be apportioned and all indirect taxes shall be uniform."

 

Pickey rules never obeyed.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390

Donald Lingerfelt:
But all direct taxes shall be apportioned

16th abolished this. End.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

There.

I do not know how anyone can say that a tax on my labor is not a direct tax. As if it is a privilaged event or activity that is avoidable and sanctioned by the State and not a right. I know that certain court decisions as of late have said otherwise but there just lying @*#%%$ who dictate from the bench.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

The 16th does not say anything about direct taxes - but 'income' taxes which have always been indirect taxes. The Pollock case took a certain type of 'income' derived from capital (dividends) and made it direct - the 16th put it back into the category of indirect and any other income from whatever source derived to avoid further confusion. Read the historical development of the issues not some 1980's, 90's or 00's lower courts decisions which are ignorant or deceptive - most likely the latter.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

If one reads the Brushaber case, the Supreme court said that a tax on property as such (which labor is) is a direct tax.  there are many cases like the Pollock case which agree.  An indirect tax is a  tax on the doing of something.  Another requirement for indirect taxes is that it must be something which is avoidable while a direct tax is on something because of its ownership.  An indirect tax cannot be laid on a right either because the exercise of a right could be taxed out of existance.  Labor is a right.  the supreme court said so when the commissioner of Internal Revenue brought suit claiming it wasn't.

The 16th Amendment did not change the required rules of apportionment or uniformity regardless of what the textbooks say.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

So the federal taxes are to be uniform too?  Meaning there are not to be different tax brackets based on income/labor revenues?  Which of course this latter, the tax on labor itself, is what has been stipulated as unConstitutional and in general against natural rights (due to the consequential event that erodes such rights of property/labor).  So what I'm wondering is, is there another stage of action happening - not only now are incomes being taxed but is the non-uniformity a furthering of such arbitrariness?  So the question is about uniformity.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

All Fedral Taxes are supposed tobe uniform.  Uniformity means geographical uniformity.  In other words, whenever the tax is laid, everyone who does the thing being taxed, must pay the exact amount.  For example, the tax on gas is exactly the same no matter where in the country you buy gas.  The "Excess Profits tax" under Carter was declared invalid because Alaska was immune from the tax.  The cigarette tax is exactly the same in all states and territories of the United States.  The lack of Federal Tax on cigarettes on Indian reservations is because these are not US territories.  I remember some case which declared that a tiered income tax is not unconstitutional for some reason, but I don't remember why at the moment. 

Also, don't forget that in order to fill out the form and pay the tax, you must waive you 4th and 5th amendment rights not to witness against yourself.  The Sullivan case tells you that you don't have to waive these rights.  I recommend reading it.  However in practice the IRS will go after you anyway.  There are no rights when it comes to the Government.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Thu, Sep 10 2009 1:01 PM

Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada the Income Tax Act doesn't say who you have to pay the tax to or that you have to submit any forms.  Everyone is essentially just duped into reporting their own finances and paying money to the government.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

scineram:

Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.

Very interesting.  What is "Income"?  What is "from any source"?  Is it 'Congress' that lays the tax?  Is it "Congress" that collects the tax?

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

scineram:

Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.

Look I understand what your thinking - but you cannot be more confused.

'Income' is derived from wages, salaries, compensation, ect. not labor. Wages, salaries, ect. are derived from labor. The Pollock case took a dividend income, that derived from bonds, and made that unconstitutional because it treated the bonds as property and therefore it was in the category of a direct tax. Since the Constitution says that any direct tax must be apportioned they made the tax on the profit from the bonds unconstitutional because it was without apportionment. The 16th, wanting to avoid such confusions, once and for all took this type of income (the Pollock case) and any income from whatever source derived not subject to apportionment. It did not over turn the apportionment clause in the Constitution but put back the 'income' from bonds or any other source in its proper category - an indirect tax.  

‘It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in ‘gross income.’ That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.’ Lower Court ruling – Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930)

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

GoldenGoose:

scineram:

Congress can tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration. I cannot be more clear.

Look I understand what your thinking - but you cannot be more confused.

'Income' is derived from wages, salaries, compensation, ect. not labor. Wages, salaries, ect. are derived from labor. The Pollock case took a dividend income, that derived from bonds, and made that unconstitutional because it treated the bonds as property and therefore it was in the category of a direct tax. Since the Constitution says that any direct tax must be apportioned they made the tax on the profit from the bonds unconstitutional because it was without apportionment. The 16th, wanting to avoid such confusions, once and for all took this type of income (the Pollock case) and any income from whatever source derived not subject to apportionment. It did not over turn the apportionment clause in the Constitution but put back the 'income' from bonds or any other source in its proper category - an indirect tax.  

‘It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in ‘gross income.’ That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.’ Lower Court ruling – Lucas v Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 50 S. Ct. 241, 74 L. Ed. 731 (1930)

I am not confused at all, but you seem to be.  The Pollack case was about a guy who complained that the congress inappropriatly taxed the rent he recieved from an building.  The case was about taxing both the income and the return of capital which was included in the rent he recieved.  He did not complain about the income but about that part which was return of capital.  That part required apportionment whereas the income part was taxable using the rule of uniformity.

Another problem you seem to have is the work "from".  This word is meant to separate the income from the other words "Wages, etc".  This is required by the Constitution in Article 1 sec.1.  A person can have income from rents, buildings, wages, or dogs.  The income however is not the wages, rents, buildings or dogs.  The income is only the profits from these things.  The original capital must be subtracted from the gross proceeds to arrive at gross income.  Wages are capital, not income.  Income from wages means that if one takes wages and invests in something, income can be obtained (maybe).  You are falling into the trap of assuming that the definition of "gross income" defines income, like most people do.  Of course income can be derived from wages, salaries, etc, just like it can be abtained from buildings and camels.  But a camel is not income.

In the case of Merchants' Loan & Trust V. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) ,we read:

"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 252 U. S. 206-207. Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded" and was "severed" or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra."  (Underlining is mine)

As you can see, the Income is not the principal.  Income never was to be apportioned, it required uniformity.  The 16th was intentionally written to be confusing.  The income from any source never required apportionment.  For the meaning of the 16th Amendment see: http://supreme.justia.com/us/255/509/case.html  Which is the Brushaber case.

This does not preclude the reality that all taxes are theft.  I'm just relating what the law currently says.  I never said that Congress could not tax income from any source without apportionment or enumeration.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

Donald,

I was not refering to you but to 'scineram' - that should have been clear in that I quoted him.

As to the Pollock case yes I agree but there were bonds in question in the case if I am not mistaken - which I might be - anyway my point still stands regarding income.

As to income I agree with you - I am not sure what the problem is here. I did not mean to confuse gross income with income. The quote I posted says that 'income' is included in gross income. I was not trying to equate the two.

'That which is to be included [in gross income] is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services.'

I never said that income had to apportioned.

I never said that you said Congress canot tax income from whatever source without apportionment or enumeration - that was scineram.

I think you might be confusing me with scineram as well as arguing some points that I made??? I am not sure.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630
wilderness replied on Fri, Sep 11 2009 12:26 PM

GoldenGoose:

..confusing me with scineram...

scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort.  it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.Big Smile

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

I apologise for misunderstanding.  I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment.  I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it.  Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income. 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

Donald Lingerfelt:

I apologise for misunderstanding.  I reread your letter after I wrote the answer and realized that I had answered the wrong comment.  I'm just rying to be accurate in relating the law as I see it.  Many people assume that income from wages isthe same as income. 

No problem, I think your right on and much more informative than I am. That issue did confuse me, as I am sure that is the way it is meant to be with some of these regulations. It is amazing how clear they can be when they want to be in other parts of the code.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Sat, Sep 12 2009 12:21 PM

wilderness:

GoldenGoose:

..confusing me with scineram...

scineram has a way of distorting discussions without providing any pursuit of truth and knowledge out of his/her (scineram's) own dialogical making and effort.  it's a trend that i'd overlook so please continue on with this excellent pursuit of clarity.Big Smile

 Maybe you can enlighten me what their point is. That income tax is unconstitutional? Or what?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 57
Points 930

Based on my research, I think it is Constitutional.  It didn't change much anyway, only caused enough confusion that most people think it gave the government the right to lay an income tax on anything.  Currently there are no rules by which the government taxes us, except the ones that they themselves write.  They don't have to have rules any more though if they do not want to.  They think we ought to be grateful that they don't take it all.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

I personally know people who never file and nothing happens to them.  The IRS seems to only harass people who become activists.  It's the Gestapo by any other name.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 65
Points 1,340

Through a series of misunderstandings with a tax guy that I used the IRS never got a return from me. Only about 3 years later did I start to hear from them. They have a 'priority' list according to the amount presumably owed. If you presumptively owe for example $1,500 as oppossed to $75,000 the person with the largest amount will be dealt with first. They may send out a letter of notice or something like that at first but as far as seeking to get the payment by actually spending some energy it will usually come later.

Also, it really depends on if the 'employer' sends in an information return (W-2, ect.). If the IRS does not have the info on someones pay they don't bother with you unless your very noticable or involved in suspcious activities. If you signed the W-4 and W-9 you are subjecting yourself (voluntarily) to liability of the tax. You are saying that you are a 'taxpayer' 'employed' by an 'employer' (and therefore an 'employee') earning 'wages' within the juristiction of the 'United States' according to the IRC and are therefor subject to the income tax. Those documents are considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. You are obligated to file a tax return form.  I hope your friends did not fill those forms out or that their employer did not send in the info return about their work-pay scenerio.   

All the Bold words are legally defined in the IRC. Most Americans do not fall under those definitions.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Nm.  Don't want to leave clues.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Watch this instroduction to your rights.  Very long, but worth it.  It's Canadian, but it's virtually the same in the U.S.  I can't find the U.S version- there is one somewhere.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Thu, Sep 17 2009 12:11 PM

Most americans are employed by an employer, and therefore an employee, earning wages under Unired States jurisdiction.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (45 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS