There are no restrictions of this kind -- in section 6201 or anywhere else in the current Internal Revenue Code. In fact, subsection (e) of section 6201 specficially refers to the deficiency procedures under Subchapter B of Chapter 63. Subchapter B (consisting of sections 6211 through 6216) deals with (among other things) deficiencies in federal income tax.
Perhaps you should apply your reading skills a tad more than your pontificating skills. That is exactly what 6201(a)(1) does state. BTW, it is “specifically”. (selfEmpowermentTrip++);
“(1) Taxes shown on return
The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists are made under this title.”
* BTW, where is the return for the 1040 made at within this title? No finde dat' statute anywherez, oh k'pasa?
Obviously, there would be no need for the Subchapter B deficiency procedures (relating to the excess of the correct tax -- the tax imposed by Subtitle A -- over the amount shown by the taxpayer on his return) if the IRS were bound by the taxpayer's "testimony" on the return and could not, at some point, assess the deficiency. And other sections of the Code provide the procedures whereby the IRS can indeed "assess" the deficiency.
Yes there would, because the self-assessment process is to performed honesty by the “taxpayer” (Pssttt... That is sort of what that idea of including that whole "jurat" thing is all about.). Therefore, such a procedure would still have application. As in such a case during the self-assessment the “taxpayer” finds that not enough tax was withheld or in such cases that no tax was withheld at all.
Not only does Pete not understand these rules (or he understands them but he's willfully telling his followers falsehoods), he also does not understand what a deficiency is. On his web site, he makes the mistake of assuming that the "deficiency" is the UNPAID tax. As I noted in a recent thread, the "deficiency" (for purposes of Subchapter B) is not the "unpaid" tax -- it's the excess of the amount the IRS contends is the correct tax over the amount the taxpayer showed on the tax return.
True, but this is like making an issue out of the distinctions between raisins and grapes. The fact is that most likely the tax has yet to have been paid, this would be especially true in cases where withholding does not take place, and even when withholding does take place those withheld monies are in escrow pending the filing of a valid tax return listing the official amounts to be processed.
Oh and I see you conveniently forget about that whole "assessment" thing. Seriously, you do not wonder why the IRS does not simply issue any CtCer a copy of their assessment as prescribed within the Regulations? It is because legally they cannot... Actually that is not entirely true, I have seen two CtCers signed assessments and they were Pete Hendrickson’s own, showing his full refund claim, he has it posted someplace on his website.
Hendrickson's Cracking the Code is full of silly stuff, and the fact that Hendrickson's Heroes enthusiastically swallow this particular bowl of bilge water -- that many of them seem to "honestly" believe that a psychologically normal person would actually fall for this -- is a ready illustration that his followers are, bluntly, Corn Flakes. The Internal Revenue Service is not legally bound by the tax return filer's "testimony" with respect to income, or deductions, or credits, or tax, or anything else, on the tax return.
"The accuracy of that research and analysis is then incontrovertibly confirmed by an unending series of real-world, actual events, starting with my series of historic accomplishments..." Peter E. (Blowhard) Hendrickson
Yea, sort of like you attempting to push the illogical notation that by POLLOCK contemplating the exact meaning of the ‘direct tax’ has some sort of relevance in consideration of the ‘capitation tax’. Your claim is frivolous and absurd.
What you appear to being doing is lumping everything into one single ‘direct tax’ class, however, only with respect to ‘direct taxes’ as a distinct category, how convenient. That would be like me saying that there is no difference between an import and an excise, they are the same thing, just because they are both within the category of indirect taxation… clearly they are not, (even though they do exist within the same category of indirect taxes). Ergo, there is a very specific distinction between a ‘direct tax’ and ‘direct taxation’.
If you read through the case you will note that ‘direct taxes’ was basically a nice way of saying a tax upon slaves, realty, personal stock of many kinds, and that for the consideration slaves were taxed as if they were themselves realty; also to note the theory of taxing slaves as a class of persons would follow in accordance with what a poll-tax is. So that leaves the remaining question of what are ‘capitations taxes’, they are that which has been thoroughly discussed by Dr. Adam Smith, taxes inconsideration of ones labor; for there is nothing else remaining that such taxes could be.
It was also stated in quotations included within POLLOCK that to identify the distinctions between the two categories of taxes, ‘direct taxation’ would be those taxes levied directly upon the person or object itself, while ‘indirect taxation’ would be those taxes levied upon and reimbursed during the sale, transfer, or exchange of merchandise, produce, commerce, property, etc..
“Mr. Dexter observed that his colleague
"had stated the meaning of direct taxes to be a capitation tax, or a general tax on all the taxable property of the citizens, and that a gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas) thought the meaning was that all taxes are direct which are paid by the citizen without being recompensed by the consumer; but that, where the tax was only advanced and repaid by the consumer, the tax was indirect. He thought that both opinions were just, and not inconsistent, though the gentlemen had differed about them. He thought that a general tax on all taxable property was a direct tax, because it was paid without being recompensed by the consumer."”
And…
“But Albert Gallatin, in his "Sketch of the Finances of the United States," published in November, 1796, said:
"The most generally received opinion, however, is that, by direct taxes in the Constitution, those are meant which are raised on the capital or revenue of the people; by indirect, such as are raised on their expense. As that opinion is, in itself, rational and conformable to the decision which has taken place on the subject of the carriage tax, and as it appears important, for the sake of preventing future controversies, which may be not more fatal to the revenue than to the tranquility of the Union, that a fixed interpretation should be generally adopted, it will not be improper to corroborate it by quoting the author from whom the idea seems to have been borrowed."
He then quotes from Smith's Wealth of Nations, and continues:
"The remarkable coincidence of the clause of the Constitution with this passage in using the word 'capitation' as a generic expression, including the different species of direct taxes, an acceptation of the word peculiar, it is believed, to Dr. Smith, leaves little doubt that the framers of the one had the other in view at the time, and that they, as well as he, by direct taxes, meant those paid directly from, and falling immediately on, the revenue, and, by indirect, those which are paid indirectly out of the revenue by falling immediately upon the expense."”
To further note, I recall an argument where some claim that the tax is not upon the act of labor, but the income produced by the labor. I find that argument without merit for many reasons, to point out the most obvious:
1. A tax upon labor is by definition a ‘capitation tax’.
2. Taxing the result of the labor has the same virulent effect as taxing the labor itself.
3. If Congress intended to actually tax the result of labor it would still be a direct tax, in the form of a ‘poll-tax’, by levying a poll-tax on all classes of ‘employees’ or ‘laborers’ or on all 'middle class', 'common persons', 'wealthy', 'poor', etc., or on only certain occupational classes such as ‘CPA’, ‘JD’, ‘captains’, ‘engineers’, ‘farmers’, etc.
4. The only way to avoid such as tax would be to work for free and that would obviously defeat the purpose of working or laboring.
And the crux of POLLOCK, ergo, this is what is meant by “within the meaning of XVI Amendment ‘incomes’!”:
“"I. Whether
a tax on incomes generally,
inclusive of rents and interest or dividends from investments of all kinds, is or is not a direct tax within the meaning of the Federal Constitution is a matter upon which, as an original question, the government has really never been heard."”
Iterating point 2 (quoting POLLOCK):
…
If it be true that, by varying the form, the substance may be changed, it is not easy to see that anything would remain of the limitations of the Constitution, or of the rule of taxation and representation, so carefully recognized and guarded in favor of the citizens of each State. But constitutional provisions cannot be thus evaded. It is the substance, and not the form, which controls, as has indeed been established by repeated decisions of this court. Thus, in @ 25 U. S. 444, it was held that the tax on the occupation of an importer was the same as a tax on imports, and therefore void. And Chief Justice Marshall said:
"It is impossible to conceal from ourselves that this is varying the form without varying the substance. It is treating a prohibition which is general as if it were confined to a particular mode of doing the forbidden thing. All must perceive that a tax on the sale of an article imported only for sale is a tax on the article itself."
In Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449, it was held that a tax on the income of United States securities was a tax on the securities themselves, and equally inadmissible. The ordinance of the city of Charleston involved in that case was exceedingly obscure; but the opinions of Mr. Justice Thompson and Mr. Justice Johnson, who dissented, make it clear that the levy was upon the interest of the bonds, and not upon the bonds, and they held that it was an income tax, and, as such, sustainable; but the majority of the court, Chief Justice Marshall delivering the opinion, overruled that contention.
So, in Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435, it was decided that the income from an official position could not be taxed if the office itself was exempt.
In Almy v. California, 24 How. 169, it was held that a duty on a bill of lading was the same thing as a duty on the article which it represented; in Railroad v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262, that a tax upon the interest payable on bonds was a tax not upon the debtor, but upon the security, and in Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566, that a tax upon the amount of sales of goods made by an auctioneer was a tax upon the goods sold.
In Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326, and Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640, it was held that a tax on income received from interstate commerce was a tax upon the commerce itself, and therefore unauthorized. And so, although it is thoroughly settled that, where by way of duties laid on the transportation of the subjects of interstate commerce, and on the receipts derived therefrom, or on the occupation or business of carrying it on.a tax is levied by a State on interstate commerce, such taxation amounts to a regulation of such commerce, and cannot be sustained, yet the property in a State belonging to a corporation, whether foreign or domestic, engaged in foreign or domestic commerce, may be taxed, and when the tax is substantially a mere tax on property, and not one imposed on the privilege of doing interstate commerce, the exaction may be sustained.
"The substance, and not the shadow, determines the validity of the exercise of the power." Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 155 U. S. 698.
Nothing can be clearer than that what the Constitution intended to guard against was the exercise by the general government of the power of directly taxing persons and property within any State through a majority made up from the other States. It is true that the effect of requiring direct taxes to be apportioned among the States in proportion to their population is necessarily that the amount of taxes on the individual taxpayer in a State having the taxable subject matter to a larger extent in proportion to its population than another State has would be less than in such other State, but this inequality must be held to have been contemplated, and was manifestly designed to operate to restrain the exercise of the power of direct taxation to extraordinary emergencies, and to prevent an attack upon accumulated property by mere force of numbers.
It is not doubted that property owners ought to contribute in just measure to the expenses of the government. As to the States and their municipalities, this is reached largely through the imposition of direct taxes. As to the Federal government, it is attained in part through excises and indirect taxes upon luxuries and consumption generally, to which direct taxation may be added to the extent the rule of apportionment allows. And, through one mode or the other, the entire wealth of the country, real and personal, may be made, as it should be, to contribute to the common defence and general welfare.
But the acceptance of the rule of apportionment was one of the compromises which made the adoption of the Constitution possible, and secured the creation of that dual form of government, so elastic and so strong, which has thus far survived in unabated vigor. If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the Nation and the States of which it is composed would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.
We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the Constitution, and is invalid.
…
