FAQ Update

[absdes96]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Explanations and citations on why the opinions of economist Adam Smith are not relevant to the meaning of "direct tax"in the Constitution.

Why an IRS levy to collect taxes without a court order is not a violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Why a notice of lien is valid even though the form and content of the notice does not comply with the state law for recording liens.

Additional citations explaining why a "notice of levy" really is an actual levy.

Many thanks for your diligent research and work. I have referred to your FAQ many times. It was an excellent resource when I took my Fundamentals of Income Taxation course toward my CFP.

[wserra]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Is your skull thinner now?

[LPC]

But I'm sure his remarks evincing a desire to shoot supporters of the current tax system will play well for the jury.

Like most other people who contribute to this forum, I don't consider myself to be a "supporter of the current tax system," because there are a number of things that I would like to see changed.

However, I am not under any delusion that the current tax system is unconstitutional or doesn't apply to me.

Which is WW's real grievance: that we're not willing to help him maintain his delusions.

[Melted Rabbit]

Meaningless garbage

tl;dr

[grixit]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Is your skull thinner now?

No and x-rays of my head showed nothing.

The eggs of shape shifting alien lizards do not show up on x-rays or mri scans. You need a phrenological dowsing rod.

[absdes96]

I had to do it the old fashioned way, pounding the information into my thick skull. Of course that was a dozen years ago or more........

Should I ever grow the cajones to go law school myself (after I finish my Masters in Chemistry), I suspect I will be pounding that same info into my not-so-thin skull as well. Incidentally, the law schools in my area are waking up to the 21st century : "Hey, if we want to make more money, we need to offer night classes and part-time schedules to non-traditional (married and working) students."

[SteveSy]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Dan your FAQ is so one sided, it might as well have been written by the taxman himself.

I looked at the first "update" to your FAQ above and to no surprise you have intentionally left out quotes, which you are well aware of, that say anything other than what you want them to say. What about the Elliot Debates on direct taxes written while they were debating the construction of the constitution? What about Albert Gallatin? You quote Hamilton yet you intentionally leave out the fact that Hamilton referred to British law to justify the indirect tax on carriages yet that very country specifically and unequivocally declares income taxes to be direct taxes.

As far as King's question they didn't answer because direct taxes were expansive there wasn't a definitive list. Certainly, as chief justice Sutherland said, if it was so precise as to only include poll, capitation, and taxes on land then the answer would have been easy and they would have simply said those things. More importantly the reason you do not post those other quotes is because after simple observation the reality is you can't find a single quote during or shortly after the constitutional convention that says indirect taxes includes a tax on income generally. In fact the only quotes that do exist are those saying the exact opposite.

You're FAQ is so biased you leave out the quote from Justice Paterson but quote the others. None of the others deal with anything close to an income tax, you just formulate an opinion by using a flawed logic of affirming the consequent where A implies B. I also might add that if we were to accept what the other Justices said such as:

If it is proposed to tax any specific article by the rule of apportionment, and it would evidently create great inequality and injustice, it is unreasonable to say, that the Constitution intended such tax should be laid by that rule.

Then a tax on high rise buildings would not be a direct tax because such a tax would create inequalities between Alaska, Idaho and New York. Justice Sutherland once again pointed out the logical fallacy in that position.

Why not quote the Justice from the Hylton case that directly spoke of taxing revenue?

Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself.

- Paterson, Hylton v. U.S.

Clearly that is detrimental to you argument and that's why you didn't post it in your FAQ even though you were fully aware it existed in the case.

But in any case, the only people who will be viewing your site and accepting it as truth will be those who have already made up their mind. Of course I'm sure the real motivation is you're looking forward to having your name quoted in more court cases where the government wins and by the Taxman himself.

[Famspear]

I've updated the Tax Protester FAQ again (groan), and this time I'm providing a list of the major changes:

Additional historical evidence on the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution.

Dan your FAQ is so one sided, it might as well have been written by the taxman himself.

I looked at the first "update" to your FAQ above and to no surprise you have intentionally left out quotes, which you are well aware of, that say anything other than what you want them to say. What about the Elliot Debates on direct taxes written while they were debating the construction of the constitution? What about Albert Gallatin? You quote Hamilton yet you intentionally leave out the fact that Hamilton referred to British law to justify the indirect tax on carriages yet that very country specifically and unequivocally declares income taxes to be direct taxes.

As far as King's question they didn't answer because direct taxes were expansive there wasn't a definitive list. Certainly, as chief justice Sutherland said, if it was so precise as to only include poll, capitation, and taxes on land then the answer would have been easy and they would have simply said those things. More importantly the reason you do not post those other quotes is because after simple observation the reality is you can't find a single quote during or shortly after the constitutional convention that says indirect taxes includes a tax on income generally. In fact the only quotes that do exist are those saying the exact opposite.

You're FAQ is so biased you leave out the quote from Justice Paterson but quote the others. None of the others deal with anything close to an income tax, you just formulate an opinion by using a flawed logic of affirming the consequent where A implies B. Why not quote the Justice that directly spoke of taxing revenue?

Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself.

- Paterson, Hylton v. U.S.

Clearly that is detrimental to you argument and that's why you didn't post it in your FAQ even though you were fully aware it existed in the case.

But in any case, the only people who will be viewing your site and accepting it as truth will be those who have already made up their mind. Of course I'm sure the real motivation is you're looking forward to having your name quoted in more court cases where the government wins and by the Taxman himself.

Steve, the FAQ runs for over 250 pages, with innumerable arguments by tax protesters. What's so special about the materials you've cited? Answer: Nothing. Indeed, much of these materials (Gallatin, for example) are not only secondary authority, they have already been shot down by the courts.

Every tax protester/tax denier has his or her own theory about which "source" is the most cogent in favor of his arguments, Steve. There's nothing special about any of the material you cited.

By the way, I wish I had a nickel for every time some tax protester somewhere used the name "Gallatin." This highlights another problem for tax protesters: the unwillingness to give up on failed arguments.

Steve, your argument is a little different, of course. You're arguing that the omission of "Gallatin", etc., makes the FAQ "one-sided."

I respectfully disagree.

[Imalawman]

Well, Steve, I understand your point, but it is HIS FAQ and he's simply putting forth HIS position. He's not obligated to engage in a full-blown discussion of the issues. I also think that you'll find among tax lawyers that there are very few that would argue that an income tax is a direct tax - as the law now stands. We've had this debate and the matter has generally been decided that its an indirect tax. If I were writing the FAQ, I'm not sure I would bother including something that I thought was generally not debated in the legal community.

[SteveSy]

Steve, the FAQ runs for over 250 pages, with innumerable arguments by tax protesters. What's so special about the materials you've cited? Answer: Nothing. Indeed, much of these materials (Gallatin, for example) are not only secondary authority, they have already been shot down by the courts.

Of course its inconsequential authority when it proves you wrong. However all evidence no matter how ridiculous that supports your conclusion is always important. btw, show me where Gallatin was shot down by the courts....my guess is you just made that up.

Every tax protester/tax denier has his or her own theory about which "source" is the most cogent in favor of his arguments, Steve. There's nothing special about any of the material you cited.

Again, its not special because its contradictory to your and the courts position.

By the way, I wish I had a nickel for every time some tax protester somewhere used the name "Gallatin." This highlights another problem for tax protesters: the unwillingness to give up on failed arguments.

[yawn]

Its not an argument its historical fact. Its amusing you call it a failed argument but refuse to acknowledge that none of you including the courts has ever produced a single quote during or shortly after the adoption constitution that says an indirect tax includes a tax on income generally and that the only quotes that exist say they exact opposite, and there are many.

Yes the arguments will fail in court but that does not make the courts right. I'm absolutely sure I can go to any court in any country and no matter how egregious the government operates there you will find the courts have proven that trying to receive justice against those actions will produce failed arguments. Using your theory every oppressive regime out there is operating fairly and the people have no reason to argue the government is operating illegally or unjustly. You seem to hold this insane belief that U.S. federal courts are somehow different than every other court system in the history of the world and are impervious to anything that might have happened to them.

Steve, your argument is a little different, of course. You're arguing that the omission of "Gallatin", etc., makes the FAQ "one-sided."

I respectfully disagree.

Whatever, when someone writing a FAQ intentionally avoids putting in any information that contradicts their position then it is one sided plain and simple. You can't quote a few justices to show your position is valid, using the A implies B method, and then act like other quotes within the same case that specifically address your position do not exist that potentially prove you wrong.

[Number Six]

It's a great FAQ--Dan Evans should be given a government job with real power to make his encyclopedic knowledge of tax enforcement more effective.
That being said, I have dozens of questions more of an ideological or practical nature.
On the practical side, you could treat tax enforcement like game theory. What are my chances of getting in trouble with a given tax-beating tactic or strategy--i.e. percentages? If someone is running a self-employed, service-oriented business in a given state, depositing checks into a non-interest bearing account and are either non-filers or filers with an unscrupulous accountant, the chances are small of getting nailed unless said tax cheat is posting on Quatloos, Sui Juris, Lost Horizons, etc. or protesting at the local p.o..

Apologies if this posting is upsetting the flow of the thread.

[Famspear]

Famspear wrote:

Steve, the FAQ runs for over 250 pages, with innumerable arguments by tax protesters. What's so special about the materials you've cited? Answer: Nothing. Indeed, much of these materials (Gallatin, for example) are not only secondary authority, they have already been shot down by the courts.

SteveSy wrote:

Of course its inconsequential authority when it proves you wrong. However all evidence no matter how ridiculous that supports your conclusion is always important. btw, show me where Gallatin was shot down by the courts....my guess is you just made that up.

What!!!????!!!

Did Weston White get hold of SteveSy's password, or something??!!?

Steve! Pay attention!!

From the Pollock case:

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.

[ . . . . ]

He [Gallatin] then quotes from [Adam] Smith's [An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the] 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."

3 Gallatin's Writings (Adams' ed.) 74, 75.

(bolding added).

Steve, that's an argument considered by the United States States Supreme Court in the first Pollock decision, at 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Court rejected those arguments!!!!! The Court concluded that, by "direct tax," the Constitution means capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. The Court stated that taxes on revenues are indirect taxes -- EXCEPT for taxes on income from property. And, of course, the effect of the Pollock ruling -- treating taxes on income from property as "direct" taxes required to be apportioned -- was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Where have you been, buddy?

And don't give me any crap about an income tax being a "capitation." We've heard enough of that nonsense from Weston White.

Why do you challenge me on stuff when you know I'm right, Steve? After all this time, do you really think that I make any thing up? You are a masochist.

[SteveSy]

Steve, that's an argument considered by the United States States Supreme Court in the first Pollock decision, at 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Court rejected those arguments!!!!! The Court concluded that, by "direct tax," the Constitution means capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. The Court stated that taxes on revenues are indirect taxes -- EXCEPT for taxes on income from property. And, of course, the effect of the Pollock ruling -- treating taxes on income from property as "direct" taxes required to be apportioned -- was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Dude, you really need to stop smoking crack. The court did not reject those arguments. They certainly never said they rejected them. In fact they used them to justify the thing that struck the law down as unconstitutional. We would have to assume the court quoted numerous things that show a direct tax includes a tax on income and then rejected them without EVER quoting anything whatsoever to support the claim that it wasn't a direct tax. That's just plain idiotic Famspear...you've topped yourself this time. Take for instance:

Mr. Hamilton also argued: 'If the meaning of the word 'excise' is to be sought in a British statute, it will be found to include the duty on carriages, which is there considered as an 'excise.' ... An argument results from this, though not perhaps a conclusive one, yet, where so important ad istinction in the constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.' 7 Hamilton's Works (Lodge's Ed.) 333.

If the question had related to an income tax, the reference would have been fatal, as such taxes have been always classed by the law of Great Britain as direct taxes.

Ummmm, the court is clearly showing Hamilton's reasoning would make the income tax a direct tax. The court never says anything that refutes this in anyway.

Why do you challenge me on stuff when you know I'm right, Steve? After all this time, do you really think that I make any thing up? You are a masochist.

No, its clear your mind is so warped you see things that aren't there.

[Nikki]

Steve:

Dan's FAQ and web site is personal work on his part.

If you have issues with him, take it up with him -- OFF SITE.

Don't attempt -- again -- to grab a thread just to air your opinions.

This thread is related to recent updates to Dan's site -- not to your underlying disagreement with various aspects of the tax laws.

If you think Dan's wrong, take it to him there, not here.

[Famspear]

Steve, that's an argument considered by the United States States Supreme Court in the first Pollock decision, at 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Court rejected those arguments!!!!! The Court concluded that, by "direct tax," the Constitution means capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. The Court stated that taxes on revenues are indirect taxes -- EXCEPT for taxes on income from property. And, of course, the effect of the Pollock ruling -- treating taxes on income from property as "direct" taxes required to be apportioned -- was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Dude, you really need to stop smoking crack. The court did not reject those arguments. In fact they used them to justify the thing that struck the law down as unconstitutional.

Why do you challenge me on stuff when you know I'm right, Steve? After all this time, do you really think that I make any thing up? You are a masochist.

No, its clear your mind is so warped you see things that aren't there.

No, Steve. The Court specifically stated that the ruling applied only to income from PROPERTY. Tax protesters can cite Pollock from now until doomsday for the Gallatin argument, but that doesn't change the point that the Supreme Court rejected Gallatin's definition of "direct tax."

If you were right, Steve, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[SteveSy]

Steve, that's an argument considered by the United States States Supreme Court in the first Pollock decision, at 157 U.S. 429 (1895).

The Court rejected those arguments!!!!! The Court concluded that, by "direct tax," the Constitution means capitations and taxes on property by reason of ownership. The Court stated that taxes on revenues are indirect taxes -- EXCEPT for taxes on income from property. And, of course, the effect of the Pollock ruling -- treating taxes on income from property as "direct" taxes required to be apportioned -- was overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment.

Dude, you really need to stop smoking crack. The court did not reject those arguments. In fact they used them to justify the thing that struck the law down as unconstitutional.

Why do you challenge me on stuff when you know I'm right, Steve? After all this time, do you really think that I make any thing up? You are a masochist.

No, its clear your mind is so warped you see things that aren't there.

No, Steve. The Court specifically stated that the ruling applied only to income from PROPERTY. Tax protesters can cite Pollock from now until doomsday for the Gallatin argument, but that doesn't change the point that the Supreme Court rejected Gallatin's definition of "direct tax."

If you were right, Steve, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

No, supposedly the 16 fixed it...not the court. Its amazing how far many of you have warped reality in order to maintain your belief.

But I digress, I've been warned that I'm not allowed to openly expose Dan's FAQ as being biased or one sided. That is only to be done in private. We're only allowed to speak about it in a positive fashion here....so I suppose I'm done.

[Imalawman]

Steve:

Dan's FAQ and web site is personal work on his part.

If you have issues with him, take it up with him -- OFF SITE.

Don't attempt -- again -- to grab a thread just to air your opinions.

This thread is related to recent updates to Dan's site -- not to your underlying disagreement with various aspects of the tax laws.

If you think Dan's wrong, take it to him there, not here.

I think its OK, just discussing the FAQ...

[Lambkin]

I think its OK, just discussing the FAQ...

Ditto; if it needs a new thread then let's have it.

[Nikki]

But I digress, I've been warned that I'm not allowed to openly expose Dan's FAQ as being biased or one sided. That is only to be done in private. We're only allowed to speak about it in a positive fashion here....so I suppose I'm done.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your personal opinion as to your perception of Dan's slant or bias.

However, if you want to challenge him as to his conclusions based on legal facts, do it in another thread.

[jg]

But I digress, I've been warned that I'm not allowed to openly expose Dan's FAQ as being biased or one sided. That is only to be done in private. We're only allowed to speak about it in a positive fashion here....so I suppose I'm done.

There's nothing wrong with expressing your personal opinion as to your perception of Dan's slant or bias.
However, if you want to challenge him as to his conclusions based on legal facts, do it in another thread.

Better yet, propose your conclusion with your support as the main issue SteveSy and all of us can weigh in as we choose. If you want to juxtapose your conclusion to that of a particular FAQ or other opinion do that as well.

Please do not pretend SteveSy that there is any limit on what you are free to opine upon here in regard to the validity, constitutionality or legality of the income tax as it is written and applied.