$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Jameson3171
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Jameson3171 »

Famspear wrote:Our new visitor wrote (or copied and pasted, or whatever):
All the cases above are the foundation of the income tax law, not the IRS code. The IRS code is a presumption of law.
No, not exactly. The Internal Revenue Code is not a "presumption" of law. And the citation to 26 USC section 7806 is completely off base. Here's what section 7806 actually says:
(a) Cross references

The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification

No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.
All that has nothing to do with the point that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is positive law. Every single provision of the Code was enacted by Congress, and every single provision is published in the United States Statutes at Large.

And:
The U.S. Constitution trumps the IRS presumption of law.
That's a meaningless statement in this context. There is no such thing as an "IRS presumption of law."

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- so, it's a higher law than the Internal Revenue Code. That may be what our friend meant to say. However, that also does not mean what the tax protesters would like it to mean.

The Internal Revenue Code provisions imposing the U.S. federal tax on income -- including but not limited to the tax on ordinary compensation received by individuals -- does not violate any provision of the Constitution. Every single court that has ever ruled on this point has ruled that the income tax provisions are not unconstitutional, with a few exceptions involving the compensation of federal judges not material to this discussion.

The Supreme Court has, on a few occasions, ruled various taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code to be unconstitutional. However, no federal court has ever ruled any provision of the current Internal Revenue Code with respect to federal income tax to be unconstitutional as applied to the compensation of individuals, the gains on sales of assets by individuals, or the interest income, dividend income, or rent income received by individuals.
The 16th amendment is not the taxing power of Congress. The 16th amendment must be construed with Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
Not exactly. In a broad sense, every provision of the U.S. Constitution should be construed in the context of every other provision. The tendency to interpret particular passages outside the context in which those passages are found is actually a bad habit found with many tax protester-tax denier folks.

More to the point: To the extent, if any, that the Sixteenth Amendment were to be construed to contradict anything in Article I, the Sixteenth Amendment would probably be held to trump the Article I provision. Unfortunately for the tax protesters, Article I and the Amendment do not contradict each other at all.

To digress: The Sixteenth Amendment created no NEW power of taxation. Unfortunately, that statement does not mean what the tax protesters would like to believe it means. Article I of the Constitution already gives the Congress the power to impose an income tax. Congress had that power even before 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.

The Sixteenth Amendment does authorize the imposition of the income tax. Confusing? Yes.

There is a difference between saying that the Amendment "created" the power to tax incomes (it did not do that) and saying that the Amendment authorizes the power to tax incomes (which it does do).
The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... Section-II
Jameson3171
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Jameson3171 »

Famspear wrote:Our new visitor wrote (or copied and pasted, or whatever):
All the cases above are the foundation of the income tax law, not the IRS code. The IRS code is a presumption of law.
No, not exactly. The Internal Revenue Code is not a "presumption" of law. And the citation to 26 USC section 7806 is completely off base. Here's what section 7806 actually says:
(a) Cross references

The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification

No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.
All that has nothing to do with the point that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is positive law. Every single provision of the Code was enacted by Congress, and every single provision is published in the United States Statutes at Large.

And:
The U.S. Constitution trumps the IRS presumption of law.
That's a meaningless statement in this context. There is no such thing as an "IRS presumption of law."

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- so, it's a higher law than the Internal Revenue Code. That may be what our friend meant to say. However, that also does not mean what the tax protesters would like it to mean.

The Internal Revenue Code provisions imposing the U.S. federal tax on income -- including but not limited to the tax on ordinary compensation received by individuals -- does not violate any provision of the Constitution. Every single court that has ever ruled on this point has ruled that the income tax provisions are not unconstitutional, with a few exceptions involving the compensation of federal judges not material to this discussion.

The Supreme Court has, on a few occasions, ruled various taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code to be unconstitutional. However, no federal court has ever ruled any provision of the current Internal Revenue Code with respect to federal income tax to be unconstitutional as applied to the compensation of individuals, the gains on sales of assets by individuals, or the interest income, dividend income, or rent income received by individuals.
The 16th amendment is not the taxing power of Congress. The 16th amendment must be construed with Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
Not exactly. In a broad sense, every provision of the U.S. Constitution should be construed in the context of every other provision. The tendency to interpret particular passages outside the context in which those passages are found is actually a bad habit found with many tax protester-tax denier folks.

More to the point: To the extent, if any, that the Sixteenth Amendment were to be construed to contradict anything in Article I, the Sixteenth Amendment would probably be held to trump the Article I provision. Unfortunately for the tax protesters, Article I and the Amendment do not contradict each other at all.

To digress: The Sixteenth Amendment created no NEW power of taxation. Unfortunately, that statement does not mean what the tax protesters would like to believe it means. Article I of the Constitution already gives the Congress the power to impose an income tax. Congress had that power even before 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.

The Sixteenth Amendment does authorize the imposition of the income tax. Confusing? Yes.

There is a difference between saying that the Amendment "created" the power to tax incomes (it did not do that) and saying that the Amendment authorizes the power to tax incomes (which it does do).
The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... ion-IIThis is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 40&invol=1
Jameson3171
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Jameson3171 »

LPC wrote:The original posting is two cut-and-pastes from the Cornell website, and a cut-and-paste from the "Virginia Land Rights Coalition" website about Edwin Viera, with barely coherent crap in between.

It's a troll, folks.

I'm going to leave it alone for another 12-18 hours to see if there is anything intelligent that can be said about the crap, and then I'll lock it down (unless another moderator beats me to it).
Seriously are you an idiot?
This is the text of the Amendment:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment. This is the text of the Amendment:

Do you actually think I was going to cite this by typing it out? Case law is case law bottom line. Doesn't matter if it was cut and pasted it still remains case law!
Jameson3171
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Jameson3171 »

fortinbras wrote:Edwin Vieira did not participate in the Supreme Court case of Abood v. Detroit. He did participate, occasionally as a principal's lawyer but mostly as an amicus, in nine decisions, and most of them involved labor unions (with Vieira opposing the labor union, sometimes as lawyer for the Right to Work organization).

He does have maverick views on the tax laws, and although he has impressive credentials, he is vastly outnumbered by multitudes of lawyers on the opposing side, many with impressive credentials of their own.
http://www.thedailybell.com/biographies ... Vieira-Jr/
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Hyrion »

Pottapaug1938 wrote:must say, in so many words, that the average American is liable to pay the income tax.
There is definitely some confusion going on. The challenge is:
to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax
Bolding mine. So Pottapaug - in my understanding - should have said:
  • must say, in so many words, that the average American is not liable to pay the income tax.
"is no law to make liable" translates to "is not liable" right?

As for what Jameson3171 is trying to prove, I'm lost on that too. Based on the citations he's provided from Legal resources such as FindLaw and the IRS - he's convinced me the average American is liable. So that would be the opposite of what needs to be proven for the challenge.

Let's make this easy (if my understanding is correct): Jameson3171, if you wish to win the challenge, here is what you need to do (based on how I understand the situation):
  • Step 1, report all your income from all sources on your IRS tax filings and identify them as having zero taxes that are liable to be paid
  • Step 2, when the inevitable IRS audits/hearings begin with the IRS saying you owe them money and you saying you do not owe money, prove to the IRS/tax-court-Judge your interpretation that you have no lawful liability to pay tax is correct
  • Step 3, when the inevitable failure occurs, file an appeal and prove to the Appeals Court your interpretation that you have no lawful liability to pay tax is correct
  • Step 4, when the inevitable failure occurs, file an appeal with SCOTUS asking for the opportunity to prove your interpretation that you have no lawful liability to pay tax is correct
Should you clearly succeed at either Step 3 or 4, you can then post the associating Court case - at which point whoever "Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc." is will have a clear opportunity to review the claim.

On the other hand, if you're really trying to prove the avg American does have lawful tax liabilities - then the challenge, from my understanding, does not apply to what you actually attempted to prove.
User avatar
NYGman
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:01 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by NYGman »

Read teh terms:
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! !

Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who <B>can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax.</B>

Don't just tell us about your pet theory -- nobody cares -- get out and win a case or shut up!

Number of takers so far: 0
So show us the case where the court ruled that the law exempted you or any other average American? you can spar with us over your theories as to why it doesn't apply, but I believe you are bringing nothing new to the table, recycling old arguments that have been soundly overruled by the courts. You really need to bring something new.

So unless you have a U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court opinion that average American are not liable to pay the income tax, then you will not win.

The point here is that the prize could be $100 Million, it would make no difference, no one will ever win, because the average American is subject to tax. And just to be clear, Clergy don't count. While they are entitled (rightly or wrongly) to a un-taxed parsonage, this is only a portion of their compensation, they are taxed on their income.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein

Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by LPC »

Jameson3171 wrote:[snip long quotation from Brushaber decision]

Do you actually think I was going to cite this by typing it out? Case law is case law bottom line. Doesn't matter if it was cut and pasted it still remains case law!
The Brushaber decision (that you quoted from) affirmed that, under the 16th Amendment, an uapportioned federal tax on incomes was constitutional.

So what's your point?
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.
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Famspear »

Dear Jameson3171:

We realize that you're new here, but your posts don't make any sense. Rather than copying and pasting massive excerpts from materials (Code sections and court opinions) that the rest of us are already knowledgeable about, just state -- in plain English, in your own words -- what you want to say.

You're apparently a babe in the woods when it comes to federal tax law, and you're dealing with the regulars here, who are experts on federal tax law.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 660
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 1:33 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by Hyrion »

Famspear wrote:you're dealing with the regulars here, who are experts on federal tax law.
Well... not me.... I dun even play a Lawyer in my dreams....
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: $10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

Post by notorial dissent »

So far all I've seen is a great deal of bandwidth wastage going back over the cases that support the constitutionality and validity of the taxing laws. So HUH, what's your point here? Almost everyone here is intimately familiar with those cases, so there is no need to repeat them repeatedly in excruciating detail, we already know how they came out. They are old very well established law.

For the record, PAM, and Vieira are not reliable or valid sources for ANYTHING. Don't bother. All quoting them will do is get you laughed at.

The question should be, do you have anything that refutes this? So far I'd say not.

Thank you for playing.

In the future curb your copypasta to something actually germane to the issue at hand.
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.