One P.O.V. on how the Income Tax is illegal

JumpInTheFire · #1 (**permalink**) 11-11-2007, 03:32 PM

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax - By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty -

In order to understand this issue, it is important to review the taxing clauses of the Constitution and the events that led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution divides all taxes into two classes: direct and indirect. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

The above section is limited by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States….

And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration….

As contemplated by the Founders, direct taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of apportionment while indirect taxes were required to be levied according to the rule of uniformity. Thus, anytime Congress attempted to impose a direct tax; it was required to apportion the tax among the States according to the rule of apportionment.

In 1895, a legal controversy arose concerning a federal income tax statute. In that year, the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional, the federal Income Tax Act of 1894. The Court concluded the tax imposed by the Act on “rents or income of real estate” was not significantly distinct from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, the Court classified the tax as a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.

Following this ruling, even though the Court did not hold that all income taxes were direct taxes, there was uncertainty as to whether the income tax was a direct or indirect tax. As a result, Congress sought to remove any confusion by passing an amendment to the Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment, which was “allegedly” adopted in 1913, states:

The Congress shall have the 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.

Immediately after the Amendment was ratified, Congress enacted another income tax act similar to the 1894 Act. The new law was immediately challenged as unconstitutional. In 1916, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the scope of the Amendment. These decisions were analyzed in a 1980 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. The report, prepared by an agency of Congress, discussed the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment on the federal government’s power to tax:

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… Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity.

As stated by CRS, the Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax or repeal or revoke the existing clauses. Indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity and direct taxes were still required to be apportioned among the several States.

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states that income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment.

The 1980 CRS report also made the following statement concerning the nature of the income tax:

Therefore, it can be clearly determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the nature of an excise tax.

In 1989, the Congressional Research Service revised and updated its report and discussed the nature of an excise tax:

What does the court mean when it states that
the income tax is in the nature of an excise tax?

An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.

When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal income tax is not a tax on income. It is a privilege tax measured by income. In other words, Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere in this report does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the tax.

If the income tax is an excise or privilege tax, then what’s the privilege? The nature of this “privilege” has been one of the most closely guarded secrets in American history. Neither the Internal Revenue Service nor members of Congress will identify the privilege. Instead, in letters and publications they have asserted that the Sixteenth Amendment granted the federal government a new power to impose a non-apportioned direct income tax on the people of the several States. As shown above, this position is contrary to the Sixteenth Amendment that limited, not expanded, the taxing power of the federal government. If Congress is imposing federal income taxes on the erroneous assumption that the Sixteenth Amendment granted it the power to tax income directly without apportionment among the several States, then the tax is being unconstitutionally applied because it violates the restriction placed on the taxing powers of the federal government by the Amendment.

There are two irrefutable facts, however, that foreclose any possibility that the income tax is a direct tax. In 1943, an analysis of the federal income tax was published in the Congressional Record. This compilation of information was written by a former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department and entitled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount.” This commentary stated in part:

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

Footnote: If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax.

In other words, if Congress was imposing a direct tax on income, then the tax liability would be based on the amount of income still in the individual’s possession on April 15th of the following year. If all of the individual’s income from the previous year had been spent as of the assessment date of April 15th, then, as stated above, there would be no tax liability. The analysis went on to state:

Hitherto the previous year’s income has been used as the basis. But the basis, as well as the rates, may be changed at any time.

Footnote: If income is merely the measure of the tax, it is clearly quite immaterial whether the income that is adopted as a measure is that of the past, or the present, or of the future, provided only that it is practically ascertainable.

The retroactive feature of the income tax further verifies that the tax being imposed on the American people is not a direct tax. Since the tax is an indirect privilege tax and income is merely the measure of the tax, Congress can change the value of the privilege at any time and make it retroactive to the beginning of the tax year.

Since the Sixteenth Amendment is not the source of the federal government’s power to impose income taxes and did not authorize any new type of tax, those groups and individuals who claim the Amendment was not properly ratified are beating a dead horse. Producing historical documents that show the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified 91 years ago simply proves that politicians in 1913 were as corrupt as the scoundrels we have in office today.

yossarian · 11-11-2007, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpInTheFire

Since the Sixteenth Amendment is not the source of the federal government’s power to impose income taxes and did not authorize any new type of tax, those groups and individuals who claim the Amendment was not properly ratified are beating a dead horse. Producing historical documents that show the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified 91 years ago simply proves that politicians in 1913 were as corrupt as the scoundrels we have in office today.

that was a headache to read... but damn, very interesting!!

**Ristaron** · 11-11-2007, 05:05 PM

We should really make a glossary of terms and terminology for these tricky legal things.

JumpInTheFire · 11-11-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ristaron

We should really make a glossary of terms and terminology for these tricky legal things.

Yes we should

I'm quite studied on tax related issues and terms, and would be glad to do so or answer any questions

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-11-2007, 06:09 PM

As unethical as I think the income tax and the IRS are, the bottom line is they have all the guns, and you can refuse to pay, but they'll just lock you up.

I'm not saying don't do that, but just that we can argue as logically as we want and they'll still do it.

Besides, money from the fed is symbolic of nothing but debt. Let them have their debt back.

Estefanina · 11-11-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpInTheFire

The 16th Amendment is not the Source of the Federal Income Tax - By Robert Greenslade - Price of Liberty -

Since the Sixteenth Amendment is not the source of the federal government’s power to impose income taxes and did not authorize any new type of tax, those groups and individuals who claim the Amendment was not properly ratified are beating a dead horse. Producing historical documents that show the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified 91 years ago simply proves that politicians in 1913 were as corrupt as the scoundrels we have in office today.

I thought that had already been proven

But to be clear, who are the people that want the federal income tax to go away? People who have to pay the most, or people from all income brackets? (I really don't know how this works)

I have no problem paying income tax to support federally funded social programs (such as heathcare, education, and the like) as long as i'm paying a smaller percentage of my income than Mr. Man-with-all-the-money.

Sadly, I'm also pretty sure that most of my money goes to supporting war and Mr. Moneyman hurts less for paying out than I do.

WillyBubba · 11-11-2007, 07:37 PM

BoY, I think a peaceful protest would be interesting. Not underhanded sneaking and 'criminal' behavior, but state something quite similar to the first post, and send it to the IRS, maybe Congress and the president, as well as some prominent media outlets, stating your intent not to pay (I think filing would be fine, just to show that you really aren't trying to hide or get out of doing something) the taxes. One person or family would get the same treatment as many others, but if we could gain support and perhaps get a well-known individual to 'poster boy' for the movement, who knows. I certainly think it would look better for us tax protesters than all the gun-wielding shut-ins that end up in a shootout with the Feds. Your everyday citizen thinks they're crazy vigilantes and revolutionaries.

Most Americans would love to see the tax go away, they just don't voice their opinion too much because they don't know that it is an illegal tax. It's just how things are for them. After all, your only certainties in life are death and taxes. And I'll just stop there since this isn't a discussion or debate about the role of the federal government...

**Brother of Yeshua** · 11-11-2007, 07:46 PM

It would be interesting, but that battle is not my main concern. I could care less about money. I'll survive one way or another.

Money is nothing but debt to me. I only collect just enough debt to pass it on to someone else that wants it.

yossarian · 11-11-2007, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother of Yeshua

It would be interesting, but that battle is not my main concern. I could care less about money. I'll survive one way or another.

Money is nothing but debt to me. I only collect just enough debt to pass it on to someone else that wants it.

i dont want the debt, but i sure could use some of that money!!

JumpInTheFire · 11-11-2007, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Estefanina

I thought that had already been proven

But to be clear, who are the people that want the federal income tax to go away? People who have to pay the most, or people from all income brackets? (I really don't know how this works)

I have no problem paying income tax to support federally funded social programs (such as heathcare, education, and the like) as long as i'm paying a smaller percentage of my income than Mr. Man-with-all-the-money.

Sadly, I'm also pretty sure that most of my money goes to supporting war and Mr. Moneyman hurts less for paying out than I do.

I appreciate your post but i don't believe you completely understand,
although the 16th amendment gave no new taxing power,
the income tax is ILLEGAL, not to mention the IRS and others won't even show the law that says an ordinary citizen must pay or file a 1040

Also,
in 1984 Reagan's "Grace commission" found that 100% of all the income tax was NOT spent on federal/government programs,
so you aren't paying for schools, etc

Those are paid through local and other taxes..

1. Gasoline Tax = highways, roads, etc
2. Local property taxes, etc = Schools, libraries
and so forth