SteveSy wrote:Famspear wrote:Simple common sense does tell us, however, that if you were right, you would be able to find tons of case law where a person argued that a "general income tax" was a "direct tax" AND the court ruled in that person's favor ON THAT POINT.
The Supreme Court has never ruled on the matter concerning the average wage earner in its entire existence. Just because those appointed by those trying to take the money won't agree doesn't make your position valid. Take any country where the judiciary is appointed by the government and show me where they side with the citizen on something equivalent to the mass extortion waged by our government.
Your argument is akin to saying show me where any cigarette company stated their cigarettes where addicting and hazardous to your health back in the 60's. I mean golly gee they had tons of accredited professionals researching the matter, surely they would have said so if it were so. Certainly they weren't all corrupt!
No, your logic is flawed, Steve.
Yes, you are correct that the
United States Supreme Court has never specifically ruled on the matter concerning the average
wage earner. So what?
The Supreme Court has, however, ruled that the federal income tax on the income of an individual is an indirect tax, not a direct tax, and therefore is not required to be apportioned. Wages are an example of compensation for personal services of an individual. Go find a court case where any federal court -- Supreme Court or otherwise -- has ever ruled that wages of an ordinary individual cannot be taxed. (Fool's errand.)
And don't even think about wasting our time with the preposterous argument that some rule or another is not "the law" until and unless the
U.S. Supreme Court rules on it. Indeed, the vast majority of rules of law have never been ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, and the vast majority of rules of law will never be ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
Tons of federal courts have ruled that wages of an ordinary individual are taxable. And, in the only tax protester case ever to reach the United States Supreme Court, the dissenting opinion (of all things) reads in part as follows (Justice Blackmun):
It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] [It] is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.
--
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 111 S. Ct. 604, 91-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P50,012; 67 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) (1991).
No, this was not a ruling by the Court. What Justice Blackmun was dissenting on was the ruling by the Court that John Cheek's tax evasion conviction was being throw out because of an error in the trial court's instruction to the jury.
The case went back to the trial court, and John Cheek was convicted. The conviction was upheld on appeal and, finally, after Mr. Cheek filed another petition with the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court
let Cheek's conviction stand. See
United States v. Cheek, 3 F.3d 1057, 93-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,473 (7th Cir. 1993),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112, 114 S. Ct. 1055 (1994). As a result, Mr. Cheek served his prison time and was released.
Unfortunately, a "wage" is a example of
compensation for personal services of an individual.
And if the Court ever were to take up the frivolous (but more specific) argument that the federal income tax on the "wage" of an ordinary worker is somehow unconstitutional, the Court would rule exactly the way you and I both know it would rule. Consider this, from the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in
Cheek, where the income of Mr. Cheek did indeed constitute the wage or salary of an ordinary worker:
Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.
We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.
--
Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205-206 (footnote omitted; emphasis added).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
