My Challenge to truthseeker 67

[Dr. Caligari]

On another thread, wserra posted the following to truthseeker67:

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

To which truthseeker67 responded:

Yeah, Government Employees

On that thread, I asked truthseeker67 the following:

Where does the Constitution limit the power to tax to government employees? Please be specific.

I didn't get an answer, although truthseeker did post the following:

I will never leave.....I will pound the TRUTH into you and you will see the real light

Since my question may have been lost in that long thread, I will start a new one to make sure truthseeker sees it.

So, truthseeker, just where does the Constitution limit the power to tax to government employees?

Bonus question: has any court in the history of the U.S. ever held that the Constitution limits the federal government's power to tax to government employees?

[LPC]

On another thread, wserra posted the following to truthseeker67:

Of course, as Prof notes, the Constitution itself contains a sweeping power to tax.

To which truthseeker67 responded:

Yeah, Government Employees

Of course, TS67 got this one almost 180 degrees backwards.

There actually were some early Supreme Court decisions that held that Congress could *not* tax the salaries of *state* government employees. Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870).

The Supreme Court over-ruled that decision in 1938, stating that:

“The challenged taxes laid under section 22, Revenue Act of 1932, c. 209, 47 Stat. 169, 178, 26 U.S.C.A. 22, are upon the net income of respondents, derived from their employment in common occupations not shown to be different in their methods or duties from those of similar employees in private industry. The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States. They are under a duty to support its government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power. A nondiscriminatory tax laid on their net income, in common with that of all other members of the community, could by no reasonable probability be considered to preclude the performance of the function which New York and New Jersey have undertaken, or to obstruct it more than like private enterprises are obstructed by our taxing system.”

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 420 (1938) (emphasis added).

So, according to the Supreme Court, from 1870 to 1938, the federal government *could* tax private employees, but could *not* tax government employees (or at least not state government employees).

If TS67 were right, and Collector v. Day were also right, then the only salaries the federal government could tax would be salaries of federal employees, and the federal government was never going to be able to raise much money just by taking back a portion of what they had already paid out. In effect, all the federal government would be doing would be requiring federal employees to work for lower wages than other employees, which is hardly a source of revenue.

So, to summarize, TS67's assertion is:

1. Completely unsupported by the language of the Constitution and the debates surrounding both the ratification of the Constitution and the 16th Amendment;

2. Completely contradicted by Supreme Court decisions; and

3. Makes no sense whatsoever.

Otherwise, it's spot on.

[Famspear]

I will never leave.....I will pound the TRUTH into you and you will see the real light

Come on "truthseeker67", let's see some feeble attempts at "pounding." You can do it.

[grixit]

Show him a picture of Irwin Schiff. That'll get the pounding started.

[truthseeker67]

Lets stick with the facts shall we. Yes the Constitution has at section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Did any PRIVATE persons pay taxes back then.....NO. The United States was and is a corporate entity separate from the fifty union states with regards to taxes. The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.

Title 26 Section 3121 Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—

(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Why is it called the INTERNAL Revenue Service? Because it is INTERNAL to the United States Proper, NOT the fifty union states.

AND well doesn't this look interesting: Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, Sec. 4612 [Petroleum Tax] For Purposes of this Subchapter-

(4) United States
In general
The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. If Sheldon Cohen, writer of the code, wanted the Income Tax to apply to private employees, companys AND the 50 union states, he would've wrote it that way. More to Follow.....

[truthseeker67]

Here just read this:

http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/The ... ItSays.pdf

Have fun!

[Joey Smith]

What a bunch of gibberish. The argument of "truthseeker" is some akin to a little kid who pulls a bunch of junk out of the garage and then tries to build an airplane.

So "truthseeker" why don't you take the challenge at http://www.hereisthelaw.com

Nobody has won the challenge yet!

[.]

Poor guy. He must be new to the game.

But, you never know, perhaps after he figures out that every single tired, old, shot-down-many-times-in-court argument he has trotted out (or will momentarily trot out) isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, he'll get creative, come up with some original whacked-out theory and become the next de-tax guru.

Which would be a good thing, because we're running out of unimprisoned gurus.

[Doktor Avalanche]

The guru drought is so bad I'm ready to spring a few out of prison just so we can have something to talk about.

[wserra]

Here just read this:

Read it, follow it, get indicted, go to jail. Just like its author. Good advice.

Did you really expect to get anywhere with this, Dr. C? The guy can't even stick to the same bullshit for more than a single sentence. In just one post, we have:

• The income tax only applies to government employees.
• The United States is a corporation.
• The income tax only applies to those with "privileged occupations" (whatever they are).
• "I have no idea what 'includes' means."
• The states are not part of the United States.
• "More to Follow....."

Don't anybody ask the poor guy whether a govt employee in a non-privileged occupation who works outside the U.S. has to pay income tax. His brain would likely explode.

[Famspear]

Lets stick with the facts shall we.

You started this off well. But, wow. What a mess after that.

Did any PRIVATE persons pay taxes back then.....NO.

That's nonsense. Ordinary people have paid taxes of various sorts since the founding of the Republic.

The United States was and is a corporate entity separate from the fifty union states with regards to taxes.

The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.

Baloney. Stick to facts.

Why is it called the INTERNAL Revenue Service? Because it is INTERNAL to the United States Proper, NOT the fifty union states.

Baloney.

If Sheldon Cohen, writer of the code, wanted the Income Tax to apply to private employees, companys AND the 50 union states, he would've wrote it that way.

Hilarious nonsense. Sheldon Cohen was Commissioner of Internal Revenue from 1965 to 1969. Sheldon Cohen did not "write" the Internal Revenue Code. The Internal Revenue Code is not written by IRS commissioners, for heaven's sake. And the Code is written to apply to (among other things) private employees and companies in all the fifty states.

More to Follow.....

Oh, yeah.

Yeah, "truthseeker," we've seen all this crap before. Look, get serious. Stop copying and pasting the same old garbage from the same old tax protester web sites, and make a real effort. Start by educating yourself. So far, you've given no indication that you're "seeking" the "truth."

[Famspear]

The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.

No. The Internal Revenue Code does not apply "only" to "privileged occupations." And the Code is not restricted to occupations "within" the United States.

For example, under the Code, income from embezzlement is taxable. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that income from embezzlement is taxable to the wrongdoer, even though the money does not belong to the wrongdoer, and even though the wrongdoer has to give the money back to its rightful owner. Embezzlement is a form of theft, a crime. Criminal activites are not "privileged occupations".

I'll add these comments, because they touch at things you're hinting at, "truthseeker" (adapted from something I wrote in another place):

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages or other compensation is not subject to federal income tax because the individual has "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986), and again in Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986). The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected similar arguments challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. Social Security tax. In the case of Steward Machine Company v. Davis, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that "the relation of employment is one so essential to the pursuit of happiness that it may not be burdened with a tax," and upheld the validity of the Social Security tax. The Court stated: ". . . natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less 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." Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the tax is imposed in connection with "government granted privileges" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9401 (7th Cir. 1986).

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer enjoys a "grant of privilege or franchise" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985).

The argument that an individual who received Form W-2 wages is not subject to federal income tax unless the taxpayer has obtained a "privilege from a governmental agency" was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9401 (9th Cir. 1985), and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Prout v. United States, 31 Fed Appx. 624, 2002-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,304 (10th Cir. 2002) (not for public.).

Regarding the taxability of income in connection with events or activities not involving a government privilege, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Rutkin v. United States that the receipt of money obtained by extortion is taxable as income to the wrongdoer. Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in James v. United States that the receipt of money obtained through embezzlement is taxable as income to the wrongdoer, even though the wrongdoer is required to return the money to its owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961).

Peter Hendrickson and the other scammers at losthorizons have failed to explain these rulings, because they use incorrect definitions of technical legal terms like "wage" AND they wrongly focus on the use of those terms in court rulings. Hendrickson and His Hapless Heroes falsely claim that the term "wage" is defined the way THEY define it.

They are wrong.

The term "wage" is defined in the Code -- for purposes of the WITHHOLDING REQUIREMENT imposed on the EMPLOYER, which is separate from the requirement imposed on the employee to pay federal income tax. Further, the term "wage" is often used by the courts as a shorthand for the more general concept of "compensation for services."

Neither the statutes nor the courts use the terms "wage" or "employer" or "employee" or "person" to mean what Hendrickson says the words mean. So Hendrickson and His Heroes always lose.

[LPC]

Lets stick with the facts shall we. Yes the Constitution has at section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. Did any PRIVATE persons pay taxes back then.....NO.

Well, it looks like another village is missing its idiot.

Who do you think was paying taxes to the states before the adoption of the Constitution?

On the subject of taxation, the authors of the Federalist Papers expressly recognized that the Congressional power to tax would be *concurrent* with the taxing powers of the states, and that both the federal government and the state governments might be taxing the same objects or activities:

“[The power of imposing taxes on all articles other than exports and imports], I contend, is manifestly a concurrent and coequal authority in the United States and in the individual States.”

And:

“As to a supposition of repugnancy between the power of taxation in the States and in the Union, it cannot be supported in that sense which would be requisite to work an exclusion of the States. It is, indeed, possible that a tax might be laid on a particular article by a State which might render it INEXPEDIENT that thus a further tax should be laid on the same article by the Union; but it would not imply a constitutional inability to impose a further tax.”

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #32, (Emphasis in original.)

Which is why the Supreme Court ruled in 1796, with the concurring votes of two members of the Constitutional Convention then sitting as Justices on the court, that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for private use. Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

This implicit holding of Hylton was made explicit in 1820:

“The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”

Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court; emphasis added).

The idea that taxes imposed by the United States government can not (or do not) apply to "private persons" living within the states of the United States is a joke.

The United States was and is a corporate entity separate from the fifty union states with regards to taxes.

There is actually some truth to this in the sense that (a) the US is an entity that can own property, sue, and be sued (but only with its consent), (b) the US and the states have separate finances and the revenues and expenses of the US are separate from the states (except for certain programs for revenue sharing and expense sharing), and (c) the taxes imposed by the US are separate from the taxes imposed by the states.

But so what? If anything, it undermines what you want to believe because it shows that the US does not need the states in order to impose taxes directly upon the citizens and residents of the states.

The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.

This is wrong on several levels.

1. The business about "privileged occupations" appears no where in the IRC, and is contradicted by the broad references to "all income from whatever source derived" (as well as specific references to receipts such as "alimony").

2. The IRC is NOT limited to income earned within the United States, and specifically applies to *all* income earned by citizens or residents anywhere in the world (subject to certain statutory exceptions).

3. The "United States" for this purpose is the collective name given to the states of the United States. (See Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), quoted above.)

Title 26 Section 3121 Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—

(1) State
The term “State” includes [....]

You suffer from functional illiteracy, because you obviously don't understand the meaning of the word "includes." See http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#USdef

[LPC]

Here just read this:

http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/The ... ItSays.pdf

If the law means what it says, then what does "gross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services...." mean? That's IRC section 61(a), in case you want to look it up.

And doesn't it bother you that it takes Hendrickson 67 pages to try to make a point that I can completely refute in one sentence?

[The Operative]

Lets stick with the facts shall we.

Yes, let's do that.

Yes the Constitution has at section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Correct.

Did any PRIVATE persons pay taxes back then.....NO.

Wrong. Private individuals did pay taxes. See Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796). Mr. Hylton was an individual from Virginia who owned carriages for his own private use. The court determined the tax was constitutional. See http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/U ... S.171.html

In 1865, a lawyer from Illinois named William Springer, challenged the income tax law of the time. Whether or not he worked for the government of the US was not an issue. Most likely, he was a private individual whose income was subject to the income tax. The Supreme Court in Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), found that the income tax was a constitutional "duty or excise". See http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/U ... S.586.html

The United States was and is a corporate entity separate from the fifty union states with regards to taxes. The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.

Title 26 Section 3121 Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—

(1) State
The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

(2) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

An individual who is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (but not otherwise a citizen of the United States) shall be considered, for purposes of this section, as a citizen of the United States.

Why is it called the INTERNAL Revenue Service? Because it is INTERNAL to the United States Proper, NOT the fifty union states.

Baloney. Yet another person that does not understand the meaning of the word, "includes". Whenever the word 'include' or any of its derivatives is used, it is intended to add to a set. It is never intended to subtract from a set those things that are normally within the set. For example, if I said, "My key chain includes keys to my neighbor's house." Does that mean that keys to my house are not on my key chain? No, it does not. Does it mean that keys to my car are not on my key chain? No, it does not. Does it mean that keys to your house are on my key chain? No, it does not, because your house keys are not within the normal meaning of my key chain. However, when I say that keys to my neighbor's house are included on my key chain, I am adding to the set. It is the same within the tax laws. The definition of state and United States do not exclude the normal meaning of the words. The courts have explained this numerous times.

AND well doesn't this look interesting: Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, Sec. 4612 [Petroleum Tax] For Purposes of this Subchapter-

(4) United States
In general
The term "United States" means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. If Sheldon Cohen, writer of the code, wanted the Income Tax to apply to private employees, companys AND the 50 union states, he would've wrote it that way. More to Follow.....

Baloney. The fact that those terms are used within one section of the code and not within another does not negate the normal meaning of the terms used in the other section. The simple fact is the courts have looked at this argument and found it to be without merit.

[Nikki]

...
The United States was and is a corporate entity separate from the fifty union states with regards to taxes.
If that's the primary basis of your argument, please provide something which establishes its validity. A reference to a specific section of the US Code or a court decision is preferred. Citations to publications which directly led to convictions are not acceptable.


The INTERNAL Revenue Code only applies to privileged occupations WITHIN the United States.
Please tell us, LoserHead TS67, what's the latest letter toy received from the IRS and how many thousands of dollars in penalties have been assessed against you??

Title 26 Section 3121 Definitions:
(e) State, United States, and citizen
For purposes of this chapter—
You obviously do not understand either what "For purposes of this chapter" means or the specific definition of includes and including which applies to all of 26USC, do you?

...

AND well doesn't this look interesting: Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, Sec. 4612 [Petroleum Tax] For Purposes of this Subchapter-

At least your mistakes are consistent.

More to Follow.....

I really hope that what follows displays some original thought or at least rises above cut-and-paste of defendants' arguments from losing court cases.

[Noah]

[
Baloney. Whenever the word 'include' or any of its derivatives is used, it is intended to add to a set. It is never intended to subtract from a set those things that are normally within the set.

7701 (c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

7701 (c) seems to distingush Includes and including from include.

I have not found where "Include" is not a word of confinement, whereas includes and including may not be, especially where otherwise noted. Where did you get your definition of include? Thanks.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is hardly a fair fight, folks. A marginally-literate [ ...would have wrote... ] visitor chases his prey into the lion's den - (pay particular attention beginning at about 3:20):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTS12os_v0M

[Famspear]

7701 (c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

7701 (c) seems to distingush Includes and including from include.

I have not found where "Include" is not a word of confinement, whereas includes and including may not be, especially where otherwise noted. Where did you get your definition of include? Thanks.

???????? Noah, you're not making any sense. Re-read what you posted.

...."includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

You yourself posted the definition. It means exactly what it says. You have found where "include" is "not a word of confinement."

Regarding the supposed difference between "include" and "includes," are you serious? The word "include" is an inflection of "includes", just as "goes" is an inflected form of "go." This is pretty basic English.

I go
you go
he goes

I include
you include
he includes

[Paul]

I have not found where "Include" is not a word of confinement, whereas includes and including may not be, especially where otherwise noted. Where did you get your definition of include? Thanks.

Well, since the statutory definitions of "State" and "United States" use the word "includes," and not "include," why should we bother answering the question of someone who doesn't understand conjugation of verbs?