LPC wrote:Is it just my imagination, or are Micheal360 and Jameson3171 both operating from the same IP address?
Famspear You are the undisputed income tax champion of the world. You possess the power and wisdom to interpret case law and the 16th amendment Like no other man in our existence today or in the past.. No one can contest your superior intelligence. Law School Hall of Famer the late Tom Cryer Could not match up to your superior intelligence. Constitutional Attorney, Scholar and Author Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. the man who holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School). Another man who cannot match up your superior intelligence.
Fampear you are always right, and everybody is always wrong. You are the only one that has the ability to read. You possess such great power. Can you please use your great power and wisdom to interpret this for me, I am just not worthy to do so on my own. I know that you have a issue with people cutting and pasting text. But I just don't have the time like you have to type it out. Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), affirmed on rehearing, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), with a ruling of 5–4, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the unapportioned income taxes on interest, dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and were unconstitutional because they violated the provision that direct taxes be apportioned. The decision was superseded in 1913 by the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A separate holding regarding the taxation of interest income on certain bonds was overruled by the Supreme Court in 1988 in the case of South Carolina v. Baker.
I am sure with your God like complex and OCD With the income tax laws, you will discredit this Wikipedia content by claiming it is nonsense or incorrect. You really should seek professional medical help with this disorder. You are looking up IP addresses, seriously! Jameson3171 was telling me about you, and I had to see for myself. I share his Internet connection. If the 16th amendment did in fact give Congress the power to tax all income without limitations there would be no confusion. Unfortunately that's not the case and that's why there is confusion Famspear. You keep making references to the lower courts. First and foremost the lower courts have to be in compliance with the superior courts.
Famspear! You are always trying to discredit all text and content on the income tax.
"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."
Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 536 (1915-16)
Do you really think that your interpretation of the Brushaber case Is correct and the Harvard law review is incorrect? Seriously go seek therapy for your OCD and have a nice day.
Footnote:
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment…"
Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the Library of Congress Howard M. Zaritsky in his 1979 Report No. 80-19A, entitled 'Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws'