Challenge to diller72

[Demosthenes]

Where ya' been Stevie?

[Quixote]

Of course the footnote is omitted....Look up all the State laws they use to support that statement and the cases involving them. ALL refer to taxing the privilege whether it be a license to pursue the occupation or a business license. In fact just two years prior the Washington State Supreme Court found that an excise income tax was unconstitutional because it did not involve a privilege Amazingly, not really, the SC cites the Washington law to support the statement made above.

Even if Steve were not confusing the concepts of privilege and license, even if Benjamin Cardozo's left nostril had not forgotten more law than Steve will ever know, the statement that "natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance" is still the law, because a majority of the Court agreed with it.

[LPC]

Look up all the State laws they use to support that statement and the cases involving them. ALL refer to taxing the privilege whether it be a license to pursue the occupation or a business license.

Oh yeah, the "privileges" argument.

Sybil, meet Submarine Veteran. Submarine Veteran, meet Sybil. You two have a delusion in common.

[LPC]

the statement that "natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance" is still the law, because a majority of the Court agreed with it.

Sybil disagrees, of course.

Sybil has concluded that the statutes cited by the court in a footnote do not, in Sybil's opinion, support the statement that was made by the court. Therefore, the court either did not mean what it said (which is hard to believe because the language used by the court could not have been clearer or more emphatic) or the court meant what it said but .... Well, I don't know what Sybil would put after the "but." Perhaps he thinks Cardozo should be disinterred and spanked.

[Dr. Caligari]

Steve:
Welcome back. Been a while.

[Cpt Banjo]

Since the CtC'ers aren't willing to address the matter, perhaps Stevie would care to explain why the Supreme Court has upheld the (excise) taxation of gifts and illegal income, neither of which involves the exercise of a privilege?

[Famspear]

Look up all the State laws they use to support that statement and the cases involving them. ALL refer to taxing the privilege whether it be a license to pursue the occupation or a business license.

Oh yeah, the "privileges" argument.

Sybil, meet Submarine Veteran. Submarine Veteran, meet Sybil. You two have a delusion in common.

Welcome back, Steve! And welcome to Quatloos, SubVet!

Why does the "privileges" argument keep coming up so much lately?

If we can just get SteveSy and SubVet to try to explain how the crime of extorting money (à la the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Rutkin case) or the crime of embezzling money (à la the Court's decision in the James case) could involve the exercise of a "privilege" by the wrongdoer -- and how the totally constitutional federal income tax on the wrongdoer who receives those ill-gotten gains (and who is even required to return the funds to their rightful owner) is somehow supposed to be a tax on the exercise of a "privilege" by the wrongdoer......

I need a few laughs.

[Quixote]

Since the CtC'ers aren't willing to address the matter, perhaps Stevie would care to explain why the Supreme Court has upheld the (excise) taxation of gifts and illegal income, neither of which involves the exercise of a privilege?

You mean the money I spent on an embezzlement license was a waste?

[LPC]

The whole "privileges" argument relies upon the classification of the income tax as an "excise" and not a "duty" or "impost." But is that true? And does it make a difference?

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a "duty" on the ownership of a carriage for personal use. What kind of a "federal privilege" is the ownership of a carriage?

In his opinion, Justice Paterson (who was a member of the Constitutional Convention) went on to express some uncertainty about the meanings of “duty” and “excise”:

“What is the natural and common, or technical and appropriate, meaning of the words, duty and excise, it is not easy to ascertain. They present no clear and precise idea to the mind. Different persons will annex different significations to the terms.”

Justice Paterson then suggested that there might be “indirect taxes” subject to the rule of uniformity that were not “duties, imposts, and excises”:

“There may, perhaps, be an indirect tax on a particular article, that cannot be comprehended within the description of duties, or imposts, or excises; in such case it will be comprised under the general denomination of taxes. For the term tax is the genus, and includes,
“1. Direct taxes.
“2. Duties, imposts, and excises.
“3. All other classes of an indirect kind, and not within any of the classifications enumerated under the preceding heads.
“The question occurs, how is such tax to be laid, uniformly or apportionately? The rule of uniformity will apply, because it is an indirect tax, and direct taxes only are to be apportioned.”

Similarly, Justice Chase considered the word “duty” to be extremely broad in scope, being almost synonymous with the word “tax”:

“The term duty, is the most comprehensive next to the generical term tax; and practically in Great Britain, (whence we take our general ideas of taxes, duties, imposts, excises, customs, etc.) embraces taxes on stamps, tolls for passage, etc. etc. and is not confined to taxes on importation only.”

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase).

It is therefore clear that the justices who decided the Hylton case did not think that the words “duties, imposts, or excises” had meanings that were sufficiently clear or definite to restrict the power of Congress to tax. And this has been the consistent position of the Supreme Court ever since.

Responding to a claim that Congress could not impose a stamp tax upon a document for the sale of corporate stock, the Supreme Court stated:

“There is no occasion to attempt to confine the words duties, imposts, and excises to the limits of precise definition. We think that they were used comprehensively to cover customs and excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.”

Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 371 (1904).

The Supreme Court has therefore rejected the argument that Congress is limited to those articles or activities that were taxed as “excises” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution:

“Doubtless there were many excises in colonial days and later that were associated, more or less intimately, with the enjoyment or use of property. This would not prove, even if no others were then known, that the forms then accepted were not subject to enlargement.”

Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 580 (1937).

In deciding whether Congress had the power to impose Social Security taxes as an “excise,” the Supreme Court then rejected the idea that the label “excise” had any real significance:

“Whether the tax is to be classified as an ‘excise’ is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an ’impost’ [citations omitted] or a ‘duty’ [citations omitted].”

Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937) (upholding the Social Security tax paid by employers as “a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment”).

The lower courts have likewise rejected the idea that the word “excise” limits the power of Congress to tax. For example:

“Turning first to their basic contention, indeed the one on which all the others rest, that the relation of domestic employment does not come within Art. 1, Section 8, and is therefore immune from the imposition of federal taxes and burdens, we find ourselves in no doubt that appellants are neither historically nor etymologically correct in their claim in substance that excises are limited to taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupation and upon corporate privileges only. It is true that taxes of the kind referred to are excise taxes but it is also true, as was held in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, that the excises which Congress has power to impose are not limited to vocations or activities which may be prohibited altogether or to those which are the outcome of a franchise, but extend to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. The term ‘excise’ is and was before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution a term of very wide meaning.”

Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836, 841 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. den. 346 U.S. 924 (1954).

And the 16th Amendment itself does not use the word "excise," but states that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect "taxes" on incomes.

[The Observer]

Since the CtC'ers aren't willing to address the matter, perhaps Stevie would care to explain why the Supreme Court has upheld the (excise) taxation of gifts and illegal income, neither of which involves the exercise of a privilege?

Oooh, ooh oooh! I know! I know! Call on me! Because the judges are aware of the fact that their salaries are paid by income taxes and they would never rule against an unfair system in which they have a vested interest!

Of course someone will point out that if the Supreme Court were to rule against the income tax system, they would still get paid through other means of taxation. I have yet to hear Stevesy explain that one away.

[grixit]

But the triumph of the faces was shortlived. Even as they celebrated in the ring, the lights suddenly went out.

Silence fell on the arena. And then, as the lights came up, standing at top of the ramp was the Submarine Veteran, a newcomer to this league but already known by reputation. And then, coming out to join was-- could it be? Yes! The crowd popped at the return of Thickheaded SteveSy!

The newly formed heel tagteam glared at the crowd, then headed for the ring with bad intentions.

[LOBO]

But the triumph of the faces was shortlived. Even as they celebrated in the ring, the lights suddenly went out.

Silence fell on the arena. And then, as the lights came up, standing at top of the ramp was the Submarine Veteran, a newcomer to this league but already known by reputation. And then, coming out to join was-- could it be? Yes! The crowd popped at the return of Thickheaded SteveSy!

The newly formed heel tagteam glared at the crowd, then headed for the ring with bad intentions.

Jim Ross: "What the.....THAT'S SUBVET and STEVESY'S MUSIC!"

("I Fought the Law and the Law Won" blares throughout the arena.)

[SteveSy]

("I Fought the Law and the Law Won" blares throughout the arena.)

I never claimed you would win using the argument. I have no doubt that if you get before a judge in a federal court its a 99.999% chance you're going to lose. Not because you are wrong or right but because you will not be given a chance to argue your side if you're trying to argue you don't owe the income tax because it's inapplicable, misapplied or whatever to you. You're evidence will be so limited that you will not be able to defend yourself. You will not get to show the jury how IRS agents have no clue concerning the law by showing letters or communication between you and them. You will not be able to even cite the law or have the jury see the law in the court. They'll keep that hidden from them and the judge will tell them, in his own words, what the law says and means. You won't have a chance in hell of getting the jury to see how you arrived at your position.

The federal judges couldn't care less if what the IRS is doing in unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will certainly deny cert regardless if none of the lower courts can agree on how the income tax actually operates on a constitutional basis, direct or indirect. You might as well be arguing the flaws of Islam in Iran.

[Famspear]

("I Fought the Law and the Law Won" blares throughout the arena.)

I never claimed you would win using the argument. I have no doubt that if you get before a judge in a federal court its a 99.999% chance you're going to lose. Not because you are wrong or right but because you will not be given a chance to argue your side if you're trying to argue you don't owe the income tax because it's inapplicable, misapplied or whatever to you. You're evidence will be so limited that you will not be able to defend yourself. You will not get to show the jury how IRS agents have no clue concerning the law by showing letters or communication between you and them. You will not be able to even cite the law or have the jury see the law in the court. They'll keep that hidden from them and the judge will tell them, in his own words, what the law says and means. You won't have a chance in hell of getting the jury to see how you arrived at your position.

The federal judges couldn't care less if what the IRS is doing in unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will certainly deny cert regardless if none of the lower courts can agree on how the income tax actually operates on a constitutional basis, direct or indirect. You might as well be arguing the flaws of Islam in Iran.

No, Steve, you will lose because you are wrong.

A court of law is not the proper place to play out and resolve infantile conflicts with your parents.

You might be permitted to present "evidence" that the income tax law is inapplicable, etc. -- but it's not generally going to be presented in the form of "evidence." It's going to be presented, if properly presented at all, in the form of arguments about questions of law. That means you argue with the other side in front of the judge. You do not argue to "the jury." Our legal system has always made that distinction -- and not just in tax cases. O.J. Simpson could not argue to the THE JURY that the "murder" law is not what it is, or that the murder law is being misapplied. Same concept for tax law.

I don't know what you mean when you say you "will not get to show the jury how IRS agents have no clue concerning the law by showing letters or communication between you and them". Sounds like a personal problem you may have had. I don't know. But, as a general rule, tax protester arguments about WHAT THE LAW IS AND HOW IT IS APPLIED have nothing to do with what a particular IRS agent knows or does not know about the law, or what an IRS agent said or did not say in some letter. The law is what it is (to use a tautology), and if under the facts you are liable for the income tax then your liability is based on the facts and the law applicable thereto, not on what some IRS agent knew or didn't know or said or didn't say.

"How you arrived at your position" -- as far as what the law is -- again is the proper subject of a brief to be filed with the judge. It is not a proper subject of an argument to the jury.

Yes, if you're presenting a Cheek defense in a criminal case, you may be allowed to present evidence to show that you had an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law (but not a belief based on an argument about constitutionality) as a way of showing lack of willfulness. But even there, it's not up to you as a defendant to decide your willfulness or lack thereof. In a jury trial, it's up to the jury.

Federal judges care very much about whether what the IRS is doing is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will grant cert in a case where enough justices agree that the case merits it. As far as lower courts agreeing or disagreeing, there is no disagreement among the lower courts about the substance of the validity of the federal income tax in any way that really matters. None. For example, no federal court in history has ever struck down a federal income tax on compensation for personal services (whether called wages, salaries, or whatever) on the ground that the tax is direct or indirect, or up or down or blue or red or anything else. And probably no court ever will -- for the simple reason that the argument that any federal income tax (assuming it's imposed with geographic uniformity, etc.) can be unconstitutional BECAUSE of its "directness" or "indirectness" is absolutely legally without merit and legally frivolous.

With all due respect to Muslims and Iranians in particular, the comparison to the laws of Islam in Iran merits the response I will now give it here: [ ]. Got it?

[notorial dissent]

("I Fought the Law and the Law Won" blares throughout the arena.)

I never claimed you would win using the argument. I have no doubt that if you get before a judge in a federal court its a 99.999% chance you're going to lose. Couldn’t possibly be because 99.99% of the nonsense you want to believe in, is just that now could it? And yes, you will lose, not because no wants to admit that you are right, but because you are 100% wrong!!!! That is why you will lose. Not because you are wrong or right but because you will not be given a chance to argue your side if you're trying to argue you don't owe the income tax because it's inapplicable, misapplied or whatever to you. You're evidence will be so limited that you will not be able to defend yourself. Get a grip Stevsie, this nonsense has been regularly trotted out and swatted down in glowing detail until the courts are tired of repeating themselves. So far, nothing has been presented that has not already been previously rehashed and represented numerous time, and still dismissed for the tripe that it is. And just because you want to whine that the material has not been allowed to be presented does not change the fact, that it has been, repeatedly, and that it is still tripe. You will not get to show the jury how IRS agents have no clue concerning the law by showing letters or communication between you and them. You will not be able to even cite the law or have the jury see the law in the court. No, Stevsie, you won’t get to cite your interpretation of the law, you can testify as to what you believe and why, but just because you believe something doesn’t make it right. You may be able to convince the jury that you are too stupid to be let out with out a keeper, but it doesn’t excuse you from following the law. And yes, Stevsie, that is what they judge will do, because that is what the judge gets to do, not only in tax cases, but every other kind of case. And as usual, you are wrong about this as well, since the section of the code that you have violated will be read as part of the trial process, so the actual law will be introduced into court. They'll keep that hidden from them and the judge will tell them, in his own words, what the law says and means. You won't have a chance in hell of getting the jury to see how you arrived at your position.

The federal judges couldn't care less if what the IRS is doing in unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will certainly deny cert regardless if none of the lower courts can agree on how the income tax actually operates on a constitutional basis, direct or indirect. More of the usual Stevesie whine. Judges slap the IRS down all the time, up to and including dismissing of cases altogether for improper behavior, so if they were doing something unconstitutional, as defined by the sane functioning portion of the universe as opposed to your humble self, they would slap them down there as well. You have provided no valid examples, and having experience with the length and breadth of you vast knowledge, I am uninclined to extend the benefit of the doubt here. And as all the lower courts are in agreement that the income tax is both constitutional, and legal, your argument again fails, since while they may not be able to agree whether it is an indirect or a direct tax, that argument is a nullity since the constitution gives the Congress authority to tax incomes from whatever source without restriction, period, so direct or indirect, other than as a philosophical exercise is irrelevant to the law-IT DOESN’T MATTER. You might as well be arguing the flaws of Islam in Iran. No, but you might do something novel like come up with a valid argument, instead of rehashing the same old, tired nonsense that has been doa for the last 90 some years. But then that would take some actual thought and ability, and that would be out of character for the TP movement, so I guess we’ll just have to be content with the repetition of the same tired old arguments and the same tired old excuses. And same old Stevsie whines of, "but if they would just listen to my sure fire argument based on my vast knowledge I'd win"-NOT.

[Paul]

Not because you are wrong or right but because you will not be given a chance to argue your side if you're trying to argue you don't owe the income tax because it's inapplicable, misapplied or whatever to you. You're evidence will be so limited that you will not be able to defend yourself.

As stevesy once again parades his ignorance in public. He's talking about how tax protestors are not allowed to argue the law to the jury. They always have the right to argue it before the judge in the trial court (including, especially, the drafting of jury instructions) and on appeal.

The federal judges couldn't care less if what the IRS is doing in unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will certainly deny cert regardless if none of the lower courts can agree on how the income tax actually operates on a constitutional basis, direct or indirect.

Since it's constitutional whether it's direct or indirect, who cares?

[LPC]

The federal judges couldn't care less if what the IRS is doing in unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will certainly deny cert regardless if none of the lower courts can agree on how the income tax actually operates on a constitutional basis, direct or indirect.

Translation:

By ignoring (a) more than 200 years of judicial decisions and (b) all constitutional and legislative history to the contrary and (c) the generally accepted meanings of common nouns and verbs, I have been able to reach a conclusion that is contrary to the opinions of every judge in the history of the United States, as well as the opinions of most academics and lawyers.

Therefore, by reaching conclusions that are different from my eccentric and idiosyncratic opinions, all judges have demonstrated that they really don't care about the meaning of the constitution, even though those same judges conform to the overwhelmingly prevailing views of other judges, academics, lawyers, and the general public.

I am therefore justified in my belief that I am the only human being in the universe capable of rational thought, and that every person who disagrees with me is a toad.

In response to Sybil, I would simply say that I will then be a toad.

(Cf. poems of Stephen Crane.)

[Ducky]

Hello,

To address the OP.

I formally challenge you and the rest of the LH members to explain the discrepancy between what Hendrickson says an excise is and what the Supreme Court says it is -- that is, if Hendrickson will let you. I doubt that he will, so if his muzzle feels too tight for you on LH you’re more than welcome to discuss it here. Unlike Hendrickson, the folks here aren’t so insecure as to censor people who post a theory they disagree with.

As long as he buys into the bogus premise that all excises must involve the exercise of federal privileges, it will be impossible for him to make any kind of rational response.

You have apparently made a flagrant error by assuming that somehow, PH's Book CTC, articulates the premise that "all excises must involve the exercise of federal privilege"

I am guessing that you haven't read CTC. If you have, may I ask you to cite or provide a brief synopsis of how you came to this erroneous conclusion.

I in no way intend this response to be offensive, just wanted to clarify the discrepancy you claimed existed. In fact, I was surprised that somebody else didn't point this out.

Just out of curiousity, was that straw man intended or was this erroneous claim just a simple misunderstanding due to an ignorant assumption?

For example, to help illustrate the "privilege" nature of an excise PH uses shopping. Let's use grocery shopping as an example; a tax on grocery shopping in general would be a direct tax as their is no "privilege" involved, the vast majority of people have to go grocery shopping. However, a tax on specific items (sales tax) is an excise, as you have the "privilege" to go buy a 12 pack of pepsi and pay the associated sales tax. This point is further illuminated by the fact that there exists a large list of non taxable food items, items which there is no privilege involved, necessities in other words. PH in no way tries to associate the federal excise "sales tax" with involving the exercise of a federal privilege.

"The Income tax is, therfore not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, Page 2580

[RyanMcC]

Ducky,

Click this link:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges

Scroll down to "Tax Protester Evidence".

Your citation is the first thing covered. Or simply search for "Morse" on that page.

Most citations on Pete's website are explained on that page as well, you may want to read it all.

[wserra]

I am guessing that you haven't read CTC.

And along comes yet another poster whose contribution to the dialogue consists of, "No, no, that's not what Petey says". Is this part of the indoctrination ritual into the cult - whenver the subject comes up, just tell people that they didn't get the gibberish exactly right?

OK, Ducky, here's your big chance - tell us why the salary of someone working for Microsoft isn't taxable. Try to avoid "Read the book". We've noticed previously how Pete's acolytes can't even explain what he says, let alone defend it.

One more thing, the question I ask of everyone who comes in here from LH: Assume that the Sixth Circuit rules against Hendrickson in his own case, and the Supreme Court denies cert. Will you then agree that he is wrong about the law?