I know how to revolutionize our income tax system.

[Jameson3171]

Famspear Let's take this argument to kickingenetertainment.us where it is more structured. Everyone who is reading this post I welcome you to join the argument. Register at kickingenetertainment.us And go to the controversial issues of the 16th, the link is in the categories. Logically dispute the issues! I will see you there.

This is just a in theory discussion! Before you start insinuating that I'm not reading the case law correctly. Watch this before you make any comments about I got it wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCPLOGftFuw


The Truth Comes Out: Former IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNICz9CZOgw
http://www.occupycorporatism.com/home/t ... /#comments

First and foremost you have take a look at Supreme Court case law to determine what the 16th amendment did and did not do.

In the Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18 -19 (1916) case Here a a clip from that case.
Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] What does that say? "only applies to taxes which are not direct"
Read full case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... invol=1#18

The Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916) case. Here is a clip from that case.
Class B. Under this class these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 103, 112] (1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.

(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment. The court also cited: "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103," Read full case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=103#112

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted. Read full case here. http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html

TYEE REALTY CO. v. ANDERSON, 240 U.S. 115 (1916) case. Here is a clip from that case:Every contention relied upon for reversal in the two cases is embraced within the following propositions: (a) that the tax imposed by the statute was not sanctioned by the 16th Amendment because the statute exceeded the exceptional and limited power of direct income taxation for the first time conferred upon Congress by that Amendment, and, being outside of the Amendment, and governed solely, therefore, by the general taxing authority conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, the tax was void as an attempt to levy a direct tax without apportionment under the rule established by Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912; (b) that the statute is, moreover, repugnant to the Constitution because of the provision therein contained for its retroactive operation for a designated time, and because of the illegal discriminations and inequalities which it creates, including the provision for a progressive tax on the income of individuals and the method provided in the statute for computing the taxable income of corporations. Read full case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=115

No one has presented physical evidence that is clearly and specifically to the argument about direct taxation. Supreme Court decisions are in fact binding case law. If you are going to question your tax liability, you have to do it will specific and clear evidence that supports your argument. If you don't then the courts or the IRS would just declare it frivolous. Your word is just not good enough but the Supreme Court case law is.

Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses)


Law professor Erik M. Jensen
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 21, p. 355, 2004
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-29

Abstract:
The Sixteenth Amendment and the direct-tax clauses have become subjects of interest in the legal academy and, as proposals for new forms of national taxation emerge on a seemingly daily basis, they could become subjects of more general interest as well. Under the direct-tax clauses, a direct tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, making such a tax difficult, although not impossible, to implement. Following the Supreme Court decisions in the 1895 Income Tax Cases, which held that an 1894 income tax was a direct tax that had not been properly apportioned, the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, exempted "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment requirement. The Amendment made the modern, unapportioned income tax become possible.

This article, part of the author's ongoing debate with Professor Calvin Johnson, defends the following propositions, among others: The direct-tax clauses were understood from the founding to have real effect, such as deterring enactment of taxes with decidedly sectional impact; the Supreme Court's decisions in the Income Tax Cases were defensible interpretations of the clauses; and, if the U.S. was going to have a national (yet unapportioned) income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment was an essential modification of the clauses. However, the Amendment, which removes only "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment rule, was not intended to repeal the direct-tax clauses: not all direct taxes were understood by proponents and ratifiers of the Amendment as "taxes on incomes." The article examines the meaning of these key terms and concludes that it is still possible for a tax to be direct but not a tax on incomes. If Congress were to enact such a tax (a wealth tax is a good example), the tax would have to be apportioned.

Along the way, the article also discusses related points, including how the direct-tax clauses' connection with slavery should affect our interpretation of the clauses; whether the Supreme Court's 1796 decision in Hylton v. United States accurately reflected the original understanding of the clauses; and, more generally, whether actions of Federalists-in-power provide us with incontrovertible evidence of original understanding. On the last point, the article discusses a 1797 revenue act to demonstrate that founders-in-power could act in decidedly unconstitutional ways.

Number of Pages in PDF File:47 Download here @ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546


Don't get stonewalled by the IRS! If you want to know the truth about your tax liability. You do it by Submitting Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to IRS Disclosure Offices. Here is the link: http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Disclosure-Offices When you submit your request for your tax liability laws, simmit actual supreme court case law. If you can get enough people to do this, you will help to revolutionize our tax and system.

[Famspear]

No, you don't know how to "revolutionize our income tax system." And you're not going to do it with the cases you cited.

We've seen all this before. You haven't discovered anything.

Neither you nor anyone else will ever use any of the cases you cited to "prove" that you aren't liable for U.S. Federal income tax.

[Famspear]

Don't get stonewalled by the IRS! If you want to know the truth about your tax liability. You do it by Submitting Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to IRS Disclosure Offices. Here is the link: http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Disclosure-Offices When you submit your request for your tax liability laws, simmit [sic] actual supreme court case law. If you can get enough people to do this, you will help to revolutionize our tax and system.

No. None of this will help anyone "revolutionize our tax and system."

Again, many tax protesters are hung up on the idea that by submitting an FOIA request, they can someone beat the tax. They are delusional.

"Actual supreme court case law" -- including the case law you cited -- will not help you find a legal way to avoid federal income tax.

[wserra]

Although I admit I began the process, there really is no point in trying to explain the copernican universe to a dedicated student of Ptolemy - especially one who proves repeatedly that his reading comprehension is close to zero. A better approach:

Oh, really, Jamie? Since you are so obviously right, I assume you've told the IRS to shove it. I further assume that you've been successful in not paying all of those obviously illegally-imposed taxes.

Prove it.

[AndyK]

<Snip irrelevant blather>

Don't get stonewalled by the IRS! If you want to know the truth about your tax liability. You do it by Submitting Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to IRS Disclosure Offices. Here is the link: http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Disclosure-Offices When you submit your request for your tax liability laws, simmit actual supreme court case law. If you can get enough people to do this, you will help to revolutionize our tax and system.

Here lies a total ignorance of FOIA laws.

No agency of the Federal government is obligated, under FOIA, to provide copies of laws to anyone. If someone makes such a request, the agency will refer the requestor to their local public library where a current copy of the many volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Statutes at Large, and the United States Code can be found.

If, as the troll du jour suggests, 'enough' people submit such a request, the IRS will simply prepare a form letter response instead of personalized replies.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... When you submit your request for your tax liability laws, simmit actual supreme court case law. If you can get enough people to do this, you will help to revolutionize our tax and system.

No, you'll just waste time simmitting.

Whatever that is.

[Jeffrey]

Out of curiousity, since the goal here is to eliminate the income tax, what exactly is it Tax Protesters want to replace it with?

National 39.6% sales tax? National property tax? An apportioned income tax?

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

[The Observer]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

I would say that would be an excellent decision. Jameson3171 has already shown that he does not understand the rulings from Brushaber, Pollock and other cases regarding income tax. He has shown he does not even understand what he is entitled to receive from a FOIA request. And he has shown he is going down the same path that hundreds of tax protesters have gone down already - a path that ends in defeat. But no matter what anyone says to him, he will ignore it in his pursuit of the proverbial pony hiding in the manure pile.

So why waste your time on him?

[LPC]

First and foremost you have take a look at Supreme Court case law to determine what the 16th amendment did and did not do.

In the Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18 -19 (1916) case Here a a clip from that case.

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19]

What does that say? "only applies to taxes which are not direct"

No, that's not what the court was saying. (And the above quote has been reformatted for clarity.)

What you "quoted" is incomplete (and ungrammatical), because you left off the words "forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”

This is more explicit elsewhere in the opinion, in which the court stated that "[T]there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided....”

So, after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the rule of the Pollock case no longer applies to a tax on income, which means an income tax must be geographically uniform throughout the United States, and is not apportioned.

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid.

Which means that a tax on wages is constitutional.

You don't seem to understand that you're quoting from Supreme Court decisions that held that the federal income tax is constitutional.

[LPC]

Jameson3171 combines vehemence, incoherence, ignorance, and verbosity in ways that I don't think we've ever quite seen before.

[Jameson3171]

No, you don't know how to "revolutionize our income tax system." And you're not going to do it with the cases you cited.

We've seen all this before. You haven't discovered anything.

Neither you nor anyone else will ever use any of the cases you cited to "prove" that you aren't liable for U.S. Federal income tax.

I didn't say that I would revolutionize the income tax system. You would need a very high volume of people to do it. If you actually took the time to read the full actual supreme court cases you would come to the same conclusion that not all income tax can be taxed as a direct tax. Show me were it is cited in any supreme court decision that the income tax can be levied as a direct tax.

[Jameson3171]

First and foremost you have take a look at Supreme Court case law to determine what the 16th amendment did and did not do.

In the Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18 -19 (1916) case Here a a clip from that case.

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19]

What does that say? "only applies to taxes which are not direct"

No, that's not what the court was saying. (And the above quote has been reformatted for clarity.)



What you "quoted" is incomplete (and ungrammatical), because you left off the words "forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class.”

This is more explicit elsewhere in the opinion, in which the court stated that "[T]there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided....”

So, after the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the rule of the Pollock case no longer applies to a tax on income, which means an income tax must be geographically uniform throughout the United States, and is not apportioned.

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid.

Which means that a tax on wages is constitutional.

You don't seem to understand that you're quoting from Supreme Court decisions that held that the federal income tax is constitutional.

"thus destroying the two great classifications" Is referring to the 16th amendment and Article. I. Section. 8., clause 1: The 16th amendment did not repeal, revoke, or change Article. I. Section. 8 Show me where it is cited in any Supreme Court decision that it did.

[Jameson3171]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

I would say that would be an excellent decision. Jameson3171 has already shown that he does not understand the rulings from Brushaber, Pollock and other cases regarding income tax. He has shown he does not even understand what he is entitled to receive from a FOIA request. And he has shown he is going down the same path that hundreds of tax protesters have gone down already - a path that ends in defeat. But no matter what anyone says to him, he will ignore it in his pursuit of the proverbial pony hiding in the manure pile.

So why waste your time on him?

Annotation 26 - Article I
Section 8. Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Kinds of Taxes Permitted

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it ''reaches every subject,'' 469 that it is ''exhaustive'' 470 or that it ''embraces every conceivable power of taxation.'' 471 Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied. http://constitution.findlaw.com/article ... ion26.html

That is pretty much simple language!

[notorial dissent]

The cases you keep attempting to cite do not say what you seem to think or want them to. They all unequivocally say that the the 16th changed the status of a tax on incomes, such that it no longer mattered what the source of the income was, and that it needed to be neither apportioned or uniform. So your argument is thus flawed. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Quite true about 1 8 1, except that the very simple and clear language of the 16th places "Income" taxes in a separate category and exempts them from the other conditions of 1 8 1. That incidentally is why it is called an amendment.

[Jameson3171]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

I would say that would be an excellent decision. Jameson3171 has already shown that he does not understand the rulings from Brushaber, Pollock and other cases regarding income tax. He has shown he does not even understand what he is entitled to receive from a FOIA request. And he has shown he is going down the same path that hundreds of tax protesters have gone down already - a path that ends in defeat. But no matter what anyone says to him, he will ignore it in his pursuit of the proverbial pony hiding in the manure pile.

So why waste your time on him?

The Sixteenth Amendment and the direct-tax clauses have become subjects of interest in the legal academy and, as proposals for new forms of national taxation emerge on a seemingly daily basis, they could become subjects of more general interest as well. Under the direct-tax clauses, a direct tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, making such a tax difficult, although not impossible, to implement. Following the Supreme Court decisions in the 1895 Income Tax Cases, which held that an 1894 income tax was a direct tax that had not been properly apportioned, the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, exempted "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment requirement. The Amendment made the modern, unapportioned income tax became possible.
This article, part of the author's ongoing debate with Professor Calvin Johnson, defends the following propositions, among others: The direct-tax clauses were understood from the founding to have real effect, such as deterring enactment of taxes with decidedly sectional impact; the Supreme Court's decisions in the Income Tax Cases were defensible interpretations of the clauses; and, if the U.S. was going to have a national (yet unapportioned) income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment was an essential modification of the clauses. However, the Amendment, which removes only "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment rule, was not intended to repeal the direct-tax clauses: not all direct taxes were understood by proponents and ratifiers of the Amendment as "taxes on incomes." The article examines the meaning of these key terms and concludes that it is still possible for a tax to be direct but not a tax on incomes. If Congress were to enact such a tax (a wealth tax is a good example), the tax would have to be apportioned.
Along the way, the article also discusses related points, including how the direct-tax clauses' connection with slavery should affect our interpretation of the clauses; whether the Supreme Court's 1796 decision in Hylton v. United States accurately reflected the original understanding of the clauses; and, more generally, whether actions of Federalists-in-power provide us with incontrovertible evidence of original understanding. On the last point, the article discusses a 1797 revenue act to demonstrate that founders-in-power could act in decidedly unconstitutional ways. Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546


Erik M. Jensen
Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Annotation 26 - Article I
Section 8. Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Kinds of Taxes Permitted

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it ''reaches every subject,'' 469 that it is ''exhaustive'' 470 or that it ''embraces every conceivable power of taxation.'' 471 Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied. http://constitution.findlaw.com/article ... ion26.html

That is pretty much simple language!

[Famspear]

Dear Jamie:

You're not reading the very materials you're citing. The 16th Amendment does not "need" to change Article I. Under Article I, a federal income tax is constitutional. The only thing the 16th Amendment "needed" to do was to overrule the Pollock decision -- which is what it did. Under Pollock, certain income taxes were TREATED as direct taxes. Under the Amendment, it matters not whether a particular income tax is "direct" or "indirect." If it's an income tax, then it is not required to be apportioned.

Now, go look for any federal court case (Supreme Court or otherwise) since 1913 that supports your implied argument that the current federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Fool's errand....

[Famspear]

Jamie, here's an example of some of the language you're quoting, but apparently not understanding:

However, the Amendment, which removes only "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment rule, was not intended to repeal the direct-tax clauses: not all direct taxes were understood by proponents and ratifiers of the Amendment as "taxes on incomes." The article examines the meaning of these key terms and concludes that it is still possible for a tax to be direct but not a tax on incomes.

You and countless other tax protesters over the years keep missing the point: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER A GIVEN INCOME TAX IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT. POLLOCK WAS OVERRULED BY THE 16TH AMENDMENT.

[Jameson3171]

Although I admit I began the process, there really is no point in trying to explain the copernican universe to a dedicated student of Ptolemy - especially one who proves repeatedly that his reading comprehension is close to zero. A better approach:

Oh, really, Jamie? Since you are so obviously right, I assume you've told the IRS to shove it. I further assume that you've been successful in not paying all of those obviously illegally-imposed taxes.

Prove it.

I have already stopped the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue and the IRS from wage garnishment Levy's by appealing the Levy notices with those cases. If you presented physical evidence, then the burden of proof shifts on them. 26 U.S.C. § 7491 : US Code - Section 7491: Burden of proof - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26/F ... q2XPe.dpuf

[Jameson3171]

Jamie, here's an example of some of the language you're quoting, but apparently not understanding:

However, the Amendment, which removes only "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment rule, was not intended to repeal the direct-tax clauses: not all direct taxes were understood by proponents and ratifiers of the Amendment as "taxes on incomes." The article examines the meaning of these key terms and concludes that it is still possible for a tax to be direct but not a tax on incomes.

You and countless other tax protesters over the years keep missing the point: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER A GIVEN INCOME TAX IS DIRECT OR INDIRECT. POLLOCK WAS OVERRULED BY THE 16TH AMENDMENT.

No! Apparently you are not understanding! Don't take my word for it take, take law professor Erik M. Jensen word for it! http://law.case.edu/OurSchool/FacultySt ... spx?id=118
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546