The logic of Brushaber

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 7502
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 11:48 pm
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by The Observer »

Famspear wrote:First, you quote from the text of the case. He's done that.

Second, you carefully explain what the case really means. (This is the part he's left out.)

Third, you state your conclusion (he's done that).

It's step two that is missing.
He has modeled his approach on the Underwear Gnomes business plan from "South Park":
1.Collect Underpants
2. ?
3.Profit
In his situation, it resembles this:
1:Make outlandish claim about income taxation
2: Cut and paste selections from court cases
3. ?
4. Declare victory
This is the best that Jameson can do. He cannot demonstrate critical thinking, apply logic, provide reaonable explanations, and draw supportable conclusions. So he resorts to throwing everything at a wall and hopes something sticks.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff
nattyb
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:21 am

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by nattyb »

Micheal360 wrote: You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET has tried to point this out in his past postings.

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty. (gibberish removed)

Some where in all of this is a disconnect. You state that I drew the wrong conclusion, yet later you agree with my conclusion.

I concluded that the INCOME TAX IS AN INDIRECT TAX. We agree.
That is also what the court in Bruhaber said.
Now how do you get to the point that you are exempt from income taxation?
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by LPC »

Famspear wrote:
Hyrion wrote:I just realized something. Jameson/Michael has never actually "connected the dots". In other words, he's never explained how the rulings he's quoting leads to the conclusions he's formed. Not once, ever....
Yes, and he does not seem to be aware of this fact.
Yep, and that's why I've described his argument as "incoherent." He quotes a couple of pages from Brushaber, and then states a conclusion, and doesn't seem to realize that there's no logical connection between what he's quoted and what he's claiming.

I think that the problem relates to the issue we discussed in the original thread, starting around here, which is that a "direct" tax under the Constitution does not mean "a tax imposed directly."

So he doesn't understand that the word doesn't mean what he thinks it means.

(Reminds me of a cartoon I saw during the Vietnam War, showing a general bellowing something like, "What? All this time I've been talking about pacification, and you thought I was talking about peace!")
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1811
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Dr. Caligari »

your belief that your dog is not a dog.
My dogs prefer the term "canine-American."
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1753
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Brea, CA

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Arthur Rubin »

your belief that your dog is not a dog.
...or that his tail is a leg? :brickwall:
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Hyrion »

LPC wrote:I think that the problem relates to the issue we discussed in the original thread, starting around here, which is that a "direct" tax under the Constitution does not mean "a tax imposed directly."
In his letter to the IRS, he states:
Jameson/Michael wrote:I believe that my income should be exempted because it is not taxable income in the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it in the meaning of the Constitution.
Assuming what he posted is the complete letter he sent to the IRS, Jameson/Michael did not bother to identify why his income is not taxable. For example he could have stated:
  • The tax on my income is a direct tax therefore it's invalid as the Constitution clearly says direct taxes on income are not allowed
or
  • The tax on my income is an indirect tax therefore it's invalid as the Constitution clearly says indirect taxes on income are not allowed
Until he clearly identifies the complete why of his belief that his income is exempt from taxes - discussing anything else only muddies the waters.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by notorial dissent »

I have a question for the tax professionals. If I understand the holding in Pollock, their objection to the income tax was that, in their 5-4 view, income from rents had to be treated differently than income from working or selling or whatever. At which point if left standing, rental/land income could not have been taxed uniformly where as regular income could. Which means that most if not all of those arguing about this would still be liable for income tax since their income did not come from rents or property. Is this correct?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Hyrion »

notorial dissent wrote:Which means that most if not all of those arguing about this would still be liable for income tax since their income did not come from rents or property. Is this correct?
I'm not a tax professional (or even a member of the Legal community) but that's exactly the problem:
  • you've just asked us to opine on a logical reasoning that the tax protestors have not actually argued
For example, while Jameson/Michael claims his income is exempt from taxes, he's never said:
  • it's exempt because my income is strictly from rents
He's only stated that it's his belief his income is exempt without identifying any part of the why.
  • What is the source of the income?
  • Is the tax that is being applied a direct tax or an indirect tax? (for where it matters)
  • If it's direct, why is that wrong?
  • If it's indirect, why is that wrong?
To sum up all those questions (which Jameson/Michael have not touched on at all):
  • Why is his income exempt?
If he doesn't identify the why's - he can point to the text in dozens of cases handling hundreds of different situations and leave it up to the reader as an exercise to try and figure out what the connection is.

While we might attempt to indulge him on that (at least till we figure out that's what he's doing) I seriously doubt any Judges will. They'll simply look at his conclusion, look for the "why", notice he's never given a "why", look at basic Tax Law principal of "all income is taxable" - case closed, verdict entirely predictable.

Sentencing - with the exception that all unpaid taxes are to be paid - are not quite so predictable.
User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 4287
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02 am

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by grixit »

Hyrion wrote:
Famspear wrote:
Jameson3171/Micheal360 wrote:I believe ...
I believe ....
Hmm.... if this is about belief as Jameson/Micheal seem to believe..... does it become a reality if more people hold the same belief?

I believe I'll test that belief...... lesseeee.... we need something good......

I believe that Jameson/Micheal will be involved in a freak accident with the LHC and find himself aboard the Star Trek Enterprise D in an alternate reality. Come on folks, help the belief come true.
Only believe-- and clap.
Three cheers for the Lesser Evil!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by notorial dissent »

Hyperion, that is exactly and precisely my point, they are arguing from a false premise to a false assumption, ignoring all the little inconvenient facts in between.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by LPC »

notorial dissent wrote:I have a question for the tax professionals. If I understand the holding in Pollock, their objection to the income tax was that, in their 5-4 view, income from rents had to be treated differently than income from working or selling or whatever. At which point if left standing, rental/land income could not have been taxed uniformly where as regular income could. Which means that most if not all of those arguing about this would still be liable for income tax since their income did not come from rents or property. Is this correct?
Yep.

The Pollock decision was based on the "logic" that:

1. A "direct tax" is a tax on the ownership of property;

2. One of the rights of owners of property is the right to receive income from the property;

3. Therefore, a tax on income from property is the same as tax on the ownership of property; and

4. Therefore, a tax on incomes from property is a "direct tax" that must be apportioned.

Now, step # 3 was later repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937).

But regardless of later decisions, earlier decisions of the Supreme Court also confirmed that taxes on incomes from labor could be taxed as "indirect taxes," without apportionment. As the Supreme Court stated in 1869:

“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.” Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869).

The income tax that was contested in the Springer decision in 1880 was a tax on “the annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, or any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interests, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever....” Act of June 30, 1864, ch. 173, Sec. 116, 18 Stat. 223, 281. The statute therefore taxed all forms of earned income, specifically including references to both “salaries” and incomes from “employment.” The constitutionality of the statute was challenged by a lawyer with income from his legal practice (i.e., his labor), and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the tax, holding that it was a “duty or excise” that did not need to be apportioned. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

The income tax that was challenged in the Pollock decision was similar, and the majority opinion first struck down the tax on incomes from property (i.e., rents, interests, and dividends), but then went on to state that, if only the tax on interest, rents, dividends, and other income from property were ruled unconstitutional, “this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor.” Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 637 (1895). The majority opinion therefore held that the entire tax act was unconstitutional, believing that Congress would invalidate the entire tax act rather than tax only “occupations and labor.” (The minority opinion in Pollock believed that the entire tax was constitutional, and so did not need to distinguish between income from property and income from employment.)

That a tax on wages and other compensation for labor would have been constitutional even before the adoption of the 16th Amendment was confirmed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in Brushaber, in which the court stated:

“Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from ‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations,’ (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

In upholding the constitutionality of the Social Security tax paid by employers on wages, the Supreme Court stated that:

“But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

In other words, taxes on employment have always been considered "excises," and so constitutional with or without the 16th Amendment.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by notorial dissent »

LPC thank you, clear and concise. Not something the TP crowd would really want to hear either.

Now for second part of the question, since I couldn't parse out of Pollock, did they say the ENTIRE Income Tax was unconstitutional, or just the part of it on rents and property?
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Famspear »

notorial dissent wrote:LPC thank you, clear and concise. Not something the TP crowd would really want to hear either.

Now for second part of the question, since I couldn't parse out of Pollock, did they say the ENTIRE Income Tax was unconstitutional, or just the part of it on rents and property?
In Pollock, the Court indicated that the only part of the 1894 income tax that was unconstitutional was the part that imposed an unapportioned tax on income from property (rent income, dividend income, and interest income). The Court threw out the entire 1894 statute only because the Court was concerned that Congress had not anticipated that the Court would rule part of the 1894 statute to be unconstitutional.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Micheal360
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:14 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Micheal360 »

nattyb wrote:
Micheal360 wrote: You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET has tried to point this out in his past postings.

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty. (gibberish removed)

Some where in all of this is a disconnect. You state that I drew the wrong conclusion, yet later you agree with my conclusion.

I concluded that the INCOME TAX IS AN INDIRECT TAX. We agree.
That is also what the court in Bruhaber said.
Now how do you get to the point that you are exempt from income taxation?
Why are you such a tool? Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 602 (1880). Thus, only capitation taxes and real property taxes are "direct" taxes. An income tax is an excise or duty. (A "capitation" tax is a fixed tax imposed on every person regardless of income or wealth.)
Micheal360
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:14 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Micheal360 »

Micheal360 wrote:
nattyb wrote:
Micheal360 wrote: You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET has tried to point this out in his past postings.

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty. (gibberish removed)

Some where in all of this is a disconnect. You state that I drew the wrong conclusion, yet later you agree with my conclusion.

I concluded that the INCOME TAX IS AN INDIRECT TAX. We agree.
That is also what the court in Bruhaber said.
Now how do you get to the point that you are exempt from income taxation?
Why are you such a tool? Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 602 (1880). Thus, only capitation taxes and real property taxes are "direct" taxes. An income tax is an excise or duty. (A "capitation" tax is a fixed tax imposed on every person regardless of income or wealth.)
Because my personal income is not taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it within the meaning of our Constitution. My income is not being taxed indirectly. It is being taxed directly. The IRS is misusing the 16th amendment by interpreting it their own way. The only interpretation of the 16th amendment matters, is Chief Justice Whites.

My income should be exempted, not me. Can't exempt a person. If I was personally exempted from paying a income tax. That would mean that I can go out and buy apartment buildings and not pay income tax on the rents received as income.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Famspear »

Micheal360 wrote:Because my personal income is not taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it within the meaning of our Constitution.
Yes, it is.
My income is not being taxed indirectly. It is being taxed directly. The IRS is misusing the 16th amendment by interpreting it their own way.
No.

Neither the Sixteenth Amendment nor any other part of the U.S. Constitution provides any limitation on how your income can be taxed, whether "directly" or "indirectly." And nothing in the Brushaber decision says otherwise.
The only interpretation of the 16th amendment matters, is Chief Justice Whites [sic].
Unfortunately for you, you still have no clue as to what Justice White's rulings were in the case you are citing.
My income should be exempted, not me. Can't exempt a person. If I was personally exempted from paying a income tax. That would mean that I can go out and buy apartment buildings and not pay income tax on the rents received as income.
I'm sorry, but that's gibberish.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Micheal360
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:14 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Micheal360 »

Hyrion wrote:
notorial dissent wrote:Which means that most if not all of those arguing about this would still be liable for income tax since their income did not come from rents or property. Is this correct?
I'm not a tax professional (or even a member of the Legal community) but that's exactly the problem:
  • you've just asked us to opine on a logical reasoning that the tax protestors have not actually argued
For example, while Jameson/Michael claims his income is exempt from taxes, he's never said:
  • it's exempt because my income is strictly from rents
He's only stated that it's his belief his income is exempt without identifying any part of the why.
  • What is the source of the income?
  • Is the tax that is being applied a direct tax or an indirect tax? (for where it matters)
  • If it's direct, why is that wrong?
  • If it's indirect, why is that wrong?
To sum up all those questions (which Jameson/Michael have not touched on at all):
  • Why is his income exempt?
If he doesn't identify the why's - he can point to the text in dozens of cases handling hundreds of different situations and leave it up to the reader as an exercise to try and figure out what the connection is.

While we might attempt to indulge him on that (at least till we figure out that's what he's doing) I seriously doubt any Judges will. They'll simply look at his conclusion, look for the "why", notice he's never given a "why", look at basic Tax Law principal of "all income is taxable" - case closed, verdict entirely predictable.

Sentencing - with the exception that all unpaid taxes are to be paid - are not quite so predictable.
I believe that my income should be exempted because I believe that the IRS it is misinterpreting the 16th amendment. I have said this before and I'll say this again the only interpretation of the 16th amendment that matters is Chief Justice whites interpretation.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees you the right to due process. By making the claim that I believe the IRS is misusing the 16th amendment by misinterpretation. I provided them with justice whites interpretation, which is law-abiding. Through due process, the IRS has to refute my claims.
Micheal360
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 10:14 pm

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Micheal360 »

Famspear wrote:
Micheal360 wrote:Because my personal income is not taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it within the meaning of our Constitution.
Yes, it is.
My income is not being taxed indirectly. It is being taxed directly. The IRS is misusing the 16th amendment by interpreting it their own way.
No.

Neither the Sixteenth Amendment nor any other part of the U.S. Constitution provides any limitation on how your income can be taxed, whether "directly" or "indirectly." And nothing in the Brushaber decision says otherwise.
The only interpretation of the 16th amendment matters, is Chief Justice Whites [sic].
Unfortunately for you, you still have no clue as to what Justice White's rulings were in the case you are citing.
My income should be exempted, not me. Can't exempt a person. If I was personally exempted from paying a income tax. That would mean that I can go out and buy apartment buildings and not pay income tax on the rents received as income.
I'm sorry, but that's gibberish.
Once again you are making moronic statements. Why are you the only person that cannot understand Chief Justice Whites interpretation of the 16th amendment?
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Famspear »

Micheal360 wrote:Once again you are making moronic statements. Why are you the only person that cannot understand Chief Justice Whites [sic] interpretation of the 16th amendment?
No, I am not making "moronic" statements. And I have correctly summarized what the Supreme Court held in the Brushaber case (in the opinion by Justice White).

YOU are the only person in this thread who does not understand Justice White's opinion.

Again, nothing is going to change.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: The logic of Brushaber

Post by Famspear »

Micheal360 wrote:The Fifth Amendment guarantees you the right to due process. By making the claim that I believe the IRS is misusing the 16th amendment by misinterpretation. I provided them with justice whites interpretation, which is law-abiding. Through due process, the IRS has to refute my claims.
No.

The concept of due process does not mean that the IRS has to "refute your claims."
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet