"Show me the law that makes the Federal income tax legal"

[oldhat]

The "I happy to be a very special snowflake, so that means I don't have to pay taxes like everyone else" argument makes me want to retch.

Get off the Internet and stop using electricity, my taxes are paying for it.

Freeloader.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

nozed if I did not file I will quickly be in a court that will subject me to jurors, my peers, who are totally ignorant about the federal income tax and will must likely have no clue what is going on [...]


It would be up to your attorney to educate them.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

do you know the meaning of the word "NO"?


No.

[se7ensnakes]

Here, Here simpletons. I am trying to debate this issue in an orderly manner. Not jump from here to there. I want right now everyone to acknowledge that the constitutional source for the income tax DOES NOT lie with the 16th Amendment. It is obvious that you are evading the issue. This is a type of intellectual dishonesty. If to were to digress and show you what supreme court actually said, I will post a wall of text, and in your attempt to read it your head will burst like if it was hit by a mercury filled bullet. Those that survive will go home crying and sucking their thumbs. So please lets stay on topic. Right now we are investigating the constitutional source for the income tax. Do we agree that it is NOT the 16th Amendment? Yes ...No anyone?

Please review your membership agreement, particularly the part where it says "Be civil and polite". Continuing to insult other posters is likely to result in further moderator action, up to and including suspension or banning.

[se7ensnakes]

Cl1
Like I am trying to educate you now?

[se7ensnakes]

parky what the Supreme Court actually said, is till to be clarified and debated... we are not there yet....Right now we are having problems with the word "NO". This is rather a problem.

[dudalb]

Here, Here simpletons. I am trying to debate this issue in an orderly manner. Not jump from here to there. I want right now everyone to acknowledge that the constitutional source for the income tax DOES NOT lie with the 16th Amendment. It is obvious that you are evading the issue. This is a type of intellectual dishonesty. If to were to digress and show you what supreme court actually said, I will post a wall of text, and in your attempt to read it your head will burst like if it was hit by a mercury filled bullet. Those that survive will go home crying and sucking their thumbs. So please lets stay on topic. Right now we are investigating the constitutional source for the income tax. Do we agree that it is NOT the 16th Amendment? Yes ...No anyone?


No, We do not agree. You argument would get you an F in any course in Tax Law.

[se7ensnakes]

This is much like when someone claims that there is a god. Those making the claim should come forth and provide evidence. It will be just as easy for someone to simply post the law, a law in completion with a clarification of the subject. But we are not there yet....we need to get over the word "No".

[se7ensnakes]

dudalb the supreme court stated that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing power...you disagree? Please provide your evidence to refute the citation...otherwise this is just a mood swing your having...I dont debate mood swings...they are irrational.

[JimBenArm]

So, you're not a lawyer, have no education in tax law, don't have any idea what the terms oldhat is using actually mean, yet somehow, through the magic of your own special enlightenment achieved via Google University will now attempt to educate us on the intricacies of tax law, constitutional law, and who has to pay income tax.

How very generous of you!

[KingMerv00]

The prosecution dropped charges of tax evasion against him.

Consider reading his front page at least. He also addresses the issue of "freedom is not free". This guy is smarter and has more credentials then you on this matter.

You understand the difference between acquittal and dismissal, right? According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cryer#Cryer_files_motions_to_dismiss_tax_evasi on_charges):

courts have rejected and discredited these claims” and countered Cryer's claim that the income generated from his law practice is not taxable, citing Commissioner v. Kowalski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_v._Kowalski), 434 U.S. 77 (1977) (payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayer has complete dominion); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) (rejecting taxpayer's contention that the “exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction”); Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) (monies received from the sale of one's services constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment).

The courts rejected his legal arguments to dismiss the case. Instead, Cryer argued that the government could not meet their burden of proof:

Cryer did not make any of his arguments about the legality of the income tax to the jury itself. Instead he asserted that he really did not believe that he owed the taxes, so there was no criminal intent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

se7ensnakes, have you read the decision in U.S. v. Condo (http://www.case-law.us/741%20F.2d%20238)?

It's considerably newer and more to the point than Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.

Basically, the court rejected all the arguments that there is no legal basis for the income tax laws as "frivolous".

The final holding in the decision is:
11. Condo is adamant in asserting the unconstitutionality of the taxing system. But a belief in the unconstitutionality of a law, no matter how tenaciously held, does not excuse its violation if, indeed, the law is upheld as constitutional. United States v. Ness, 652 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1126, 102 S.Ct. 976, 71 L.Ed.2d 113 (1981); United States v. Kelley, 539 F.2d 1199, 1204 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 963, 97 S.Ct. 393, 50 L.Ed.2d 332 (1976). Condo's additional arguments, advanced in briefs submitted after oral argument, are frivolous. Though Condo has developed his theory of how the Constitution should be interpreted, we have repeatedly held that theory is wrong. He violated the statutes in the face of these holdings.

[Bob Klase]

The 16th Amendment did not crate the income tax.

The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax..."the Sixteenth Amendment conferred NO new power of taxation"

You are quite correct. The 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. None was required since Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution had already given the power to congress:

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;

The 16th Amendment merely removed the requirement to apportion those taxes and allowed congress to use the money "without regard to any census or enumeration".

[Thunder]

You are quite correct. The 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. None was required since Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution had already given the power to congress:

The 16th Amendment merely removed the requirement to apportion those taxes and allowed congress to use the money "without regard to any census or enumeration".

And that...is that. The USA has the right to collect taxes on all forms of income, earned within the borders of the USA.

[dudalb]

se7ensnakes has been posting a lot in the Economics section. He seems to buy into every kooky piece of Economic Woo that comes along.

[Toke]

What kind of goverment does not collect taxes?
Even the warlords of Congo and Somalia can do that, ok somewhat informal, but still.

[Humanzee]

Thank you, Bob.

[ConspiracyKiller]

While we are on the subject I have a quick question.

What if you are paid with U.S. gold coins, is the tax based on the intrinsic value of the coins or its face value as legal tender according to federal law?

In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable "income" can only be the face value indicated upon the coin money paid -- i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50 for a circulating gold U.S. coin.

, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

"These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

"A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."

Is this a form of tax mitigation or more precisely is it legal tax mitigation?

[Horatius]

I'd suggest that legal citations from 1877 and 1910 have perhaps been overruled by the more recent move away from the gold standard.

[jhunter1163]

dudalb the supreme court stated that the 16th amendment did not give congress any new taxing power...you disagree? Please provide your evidence to refute the citation...otherwise this is just a mood swing your having...I dont debate mood swings...they are irrational.

I reject your argument. So does my dog.

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=81&pictureid=1293

[ConspiracyKiller]

I'd suggest that legal citations from 1877 and 1910 have perhaps been overruled by the more recent move away from the gold standard.

Thats exactly what I thought but to my surprise (I'm still in shock) I have not been able to find any new law since abolishing the gold standard. I would appreciate it very much if someone could either find any new law that applies to this or at least an explanation of why there isn't one (though I would think there must be one and I have just overlooked it).

[LightinDarkness]

I reject your argument. So does my dog.


Awww!

That settles it in my mind. The dog is clearly the victor...his cuteness overrules the woo.

[ConspiracyKiller]

According to the law, the Supreme court, the U.S. treasury and the Federal Reserve:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqcur.htm#1
Is U.S. currency legal tender for all debts?

"According to the "Legal Tender Statute" (section 5103 of title 31 of the U.S. Code), "United States coins and currency (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." This means that all U.S. money, as identified above, when tendered to a creditor legally satisfies a debt to the extent of the amount (face value) tendered."

Under 31 U.S.C. § 5112: "(a) The Secretary of the Treasury may mint and issue only the following coins: (7) A fifty dollar gold coin that is 32.7 millimeters in diameter, weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold."

31 U.S.C. § 5112(h) provides: (h) The coins issued under this title shall be legal tender as provided in section 5103 of this title.

Title 31 U.S.C. § 5103 defined “legal tender.” Section 5103 states: “United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts.”

See Mathes v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 576 F.2d 70, 71 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (“Congress has delegated the power to establish this national currency which is lawful money to the Federal Reserve System.”); United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (“By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes.”).

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml
The pertinent portion of law that applies to your question is the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, entitled "Legal tender," which states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues.

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor."



The Constitution Congress is obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires, and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender, but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property," is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.

So When you are paid with U.S. gold coins the tax is based on the face value of the legal tender as according to federal law. But I would not suggest going by the law because the courts will convict you despite the law.

[ktesibios]

So if my employer were for some reason to hand me a pay envelope containing my wages in gold coins, the face value of the coins is what would go on my W2 and be the value used in determining what they contributed to my taxable income?

Okay, now suppose that because spending gold coins down at the corner store is a bit of a PITA, I hold on to them, the market price of gold goes up and a few years later I sell them as gold for more than their face value. Would the difference between face value and their sale price be subject to capital-gains tax? If the CGT applies, would the basis value used in computing it be the face value or their market value at the time they came into my possession?

[Bob Klase]

So When you are paid with U.S. gold coins the tax is based on the face value of the legal tender as according to federal law. But I would not suggest going by the law because the courts will convict you despite the law.

Perhaps not. Generally your employer deducts your wages from his taxable income (or profit). I suspect that if you could convince your employer to pay you with valuable coins then he would lose the deduction on all but the face value that will be taxable to you. So the IRS would still be collecting tax on the value of your pay- it would just shift to your employer. Might be a good deal for you if you can get your employer to go for it.

[ConspiracyKiller]

So if my employer were for some reason to hand me a pay envelope containing my wages in gold coins, the face value of the coins is what would go on my W2 and be the value used in determining what they contributed to my taxable income?

Okay, now suppose that because spending gold coins down at the corner store is a bit of a PITA, I hold on to them, the market price of gold goes up and a few years later I sell them as gold for more than their face value. Would the difference between face value and their sale price be subject to capital-gains tax? If the CGT applies, would the basis value used in computing it be the face value or their market value at the time they came into my possession?

#1. If you buy and hold gold as an investment, and later sell it at a profit, you will have either a long-term or short-term taxable gain, but when obtained as payment for services rendered no. In addition , gold coins such as the currently U.S. minted gold Buffalo (face value $50.00/market value $1,050.00) is classified as a collectible, which means that profits are not taxed as capital gains but as ordinary income.

#2. The sell of gold is not reported unless in quantities of 25 ounces ( one 'contract') or more and even then it only applies to South African Krugerrands, Canadian Maple Leafs, and Mexican gold Onzas etc, not U.S. currency. But of course any transaction of over $10,000 U.S. currency must be reported as "FinCEN Form 8300". As part of federal anti-terrorism initiatives, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in addition to the IRS, is notified of cash payments of over $10,000 in a single transaction.

But I still would not recommend it because the courts will find you guilty of avoiding the inflation tax, though I'm sure the charge and conviction will be called something else.

Round #1. 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions in a Federal income tax evasion case involving nine defendants and at least $114 million dollars. Robert Kahre paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold and silver U.S. coins.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/9893062.html

"Kahre contends his workers had agreed to be independent contractors, so he did not have to withhold taxes for them. His six businesses are in the trades of painting, drywall, tiling, plumbing, heating-cooling and electrical work.

Further, the $50 gold coins and the silver dollars Kahre used for payroll are designated by Congress as legal tender, so people are entitled to value them at their stamped denominations, he also contends. Taken at face value, each defendant's annual coin income placed him below the threshold for filing a federal tax return."
Round #2. http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html


Be sure to read the comments because the U.S. attorney's office is demanding for the identities of all of the people who wrote comments on the Review-Journal Web site about the criminal tax trial in round #2.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/48240147.html

Like I said; "I would not suggest going by the law because the courts will convict you despite the law."

[ConspiracyKiller]

In Crummey v. Klein Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case where: "Brent E. Crummey brought this lawsuit complaining that ... two employees of the KISD tax office, declined to accept Crummey’s fifty-dollar United States American Eagle gold coins for any more than the face value of the coins in Federal Reserve Note dollars as tender in payment for taxes Crummey owed."

The Fifth Circuit stated: "Regardless of any currency confusion that may have arisen in bygone eras, our present standard is clear: As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar." Further: "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency." http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/08/08-20133.0.wpd.pdf

But according to the government's current case against Kahre and the others the indictment calls "the face value of the coin or coins," ... a "bogus amount".

That is their words in the indictment, "bogus amount".

"Bogus"
adjective

Definition: Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

Etymology: First attested from w:1797, 1797, as underworld term for counterfeit coins. Meaning of the machine (known as a bogus press) was first attested w:1828, 1828. Sense of phony paper money as well as a general adjective applied to anything, being less valuable than it first appeared was first attested w:1848, 1848.

So the face value of legal tender as set by federal law is bogus = Counterfeit or fake; not genuine.

Does that mean all United States coins which is an attribute of law, constitutional, interest free and separate from Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks are now bogus = Counterfeit or fake; not genuine?

[Hans]

But according to the government's current case against Kahre and the others the indictment calls "the face value of the coin or coins," ... a "bogus amount".

Could we have that quote in context?

[ConspiracyKiller]

According to the government, Kahre and others concocted a fraudulent cash payroll "scheme" and then peddled it to other Las Vegas contractors. Defendants did not report to the IRS any payments made to workers, "either at the true amount or at the bogus amount, ... being the face value of the coin or coins," according to the indictment.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/46074037.html

[CurtC]

Let me clarify for you:
1) The 16th Amendment did not create the income tax.
Yes, we all agree that the 16th Amendment didn't create any new powers of taxation, because Congress already had the power to tax incomes. The 16A simply removed some restrictions about apportionment. Thanks for giving us the opportunity to make that clear, but at this point I think it's a resolved issue and we can move on.


2) Those who are subject to the Federal Income Tax are listed in title 26. Those who are liable, the subject of the tax is readily stated and not obsfucated.
And Title 26 says who's subject to the income tax, it's right there up front. Section 1 says "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual . . . who is not a married individual a tax determined in accordance with the following table:"

It's followed by a table listing tax rates on various income amounts. The next section, 1(a) which covers people who are married, with its own table. Every single word of Title 26 was a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.

So it's settled then. The federal gummint has the power to tax incomes, and Title 26 is the law that makes that happen. Any further questions?

[linusrichard]

It's not clear to me exactly what's going on with Kahre. It appears to me that he was paying his employees based on the value of the metal in the coins, but then declaring it on the taxes based on the face value. For example, let's say I worked for Kahre, and he owed me $4500. He pays me in five $50 gold coins, each of which contains $900 worth of gold. I'm happy because I have $4500 worth of gold. But for tax purposes, I've only been paid $250. So you can see the problem there. Now, if he was paying them based on the face value of the coins, it seems like it would be fine, and I don't understand what the indictment is about. But that doesn't seem likely to me. I guess the point is that it isn't a game you can play and get something for nothing. There's no coin that says $50 on one side for when you have to pay taxes and $900 on the other side when you want to spend it.

This is weird:
But I still would not recommend it because the courts will find you guilty of avoiding the inflation tax, though I'm sure the charge and conviction will be called something else.

Round #1. 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions

Did you notice that as you were typing it?

[Thunder]

Here, Here simpletons.

Do you really expect anyone to debate or converse with you, when you refer to us with such disrespectful terminology?

[ConspiracyKiller]

It's not clear to me exactly what's going on with Kahre. It appears to me that he was paying his employees based on the value of the metal in the coins, but then declaring it on the taxes based on the face value. For example, let's say I worked for Kahre, and he owed me $4500. He pays me in five $50 gold coins, each of which contains $900 worth of gold. I'm happy because I have $4500 worth of gold. But for tax purposes, I've only been paid $250. So you can see the problem there. Now, if he was paying them based on the face value of the coins, it seems like it would be fine, and I don't understand what the indictment is about. But that doesn't seem likely to me. I guess the point is that it isn't a game you can play and get something for nothing. There's no coin that says $50 on one side for when you have to pay taxes and $900 on the other side when you want to spend it.

This is weird:


Did you notice that as you were typing it?

So If a citizen says they are going to use the law in order to find a legal loophole so as to mitigate their taxes should they be arrested for criminal/"legal" intent of tax evasion?

Here is another way to look at it. Brent E. Crummey thought that because he had paid the government (U.S. Mint) market value for his $50.00 U.S. gold coins he would get the same market value back when he used them to pay his taxes but the government (court) "found in light of the record and applicable law," Crummey's argument, "to be without merit".

This left Crummey still owing taxes plus penalties and accrued interest not counting legal fees etc, for which he had to sell his home to pay.

Did the government/court want to see him suffer or were they trying to sucker every dime they could from him/us or were they simply following the law which is:

, Thompson v. Butler, 95 US 694 (1877), establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values of coin and paper money used as legal tender:

"A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them."

, Ling Su Fan v. U.S., 218 US 302 (1910) establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of the sovereign:

"These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

United States v. Wangrud, 533 F.2d 495, 495 (9th Cir. 1976) (per curiam) (“By statute it is established that federal reserve notes, on an equal basis with other coins and currencies of the United States, shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private, including taxes.”).

In Crummey v. Klein Independent School District, (2008) the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard a case where: "Brent E. Crummey brought this lawsuit complaining that ... two employees of the KISD tax office, declined to accept Crummey’s fifty-dollar United States American Eagle gold coins for any more than the face value of the coins in Federal Reserve Note dollars as tender in payment for taxes Crummey owed."

The Fifth Circuit stated: "Regardless of any currency confusion that may have arisen in bygone eras, our present standard is clear: As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar." Further: "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency." http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...0133.0.wpd.pdf

Be sides you cannot convict a taxpayer unless you show that the taxpayer willfully violated federal law. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991); United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2002); Richey v. United States, 9 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993) (subjective good faith is sufficient).




Regarding my comment where I said; " But I still would not recommend it because the courts will find you guilty of avoiding the inflation tax, though I'm sure the charge and conviction will be called something else."

I made sure to post the past case as Round #1. 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions before someone else would post it suggesting that I am wrong that he will eventually be convicted.

I will eat dirt if Kahre is not eventually convicted and sent to prison.

I hope for his/all of us he doesn't but that doesn't mean I think he has even the slightest chance of not being convicted despite the fact that he followed the law to the letter and despite the fact that he has notarized recites for multiple letters as evidence of his written correspondence with the I.R.S. requesting instructions on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins and despite the fact that the I.R.S. has no instructions on its Web site or in its publications nor ever replied Kahre with instructions.

Kahre will still go to prison.



As for se7ensnakes

This argument need no further refutation. For the government acknowledges that the citizen has rights; and the limited or qualified property which the Government claims in him, extending merely to his personal human labor and his lawful obedience, touches not one of these rights. Citizenship is the duty and obligation of the citizen to labor of the mutual benefit of both government and citizen, under a warrant to the citizen of protection. The person of the citizen is not property, BUT THE RIGHT TO HIS LABOR IS PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS ENTITLED TO.

You may not like it and you no doubt think the word "citizen" should be replaced with "slave" but as pointed out by others on this thread its the LAW and you need to try to learn how to deal with it.

I mean this in the nicest way, (only to make your life easier).

[linusrichard]

So If a citizen says they are going to use the law in order to find a legal loophole so as to mitigate their taxes should they be arrested for criminal/"legal" intent of tax evasion?

If I do $900 worth of work for you, and you pay me in $900 in a paycheck, taxes will be paid based on $900 of wages. If I do $900 worth of work for you, and you pay me in (what we consider to be) $900 worth of metal, why shouldn't taxes be paid based on $900 of wages, just because the metal has a face value of $50?

What I'm saying is that I don't think Kahre found a legal loophole. I think he found an illegal loophole. Now, in "Round 1" the jury found that he lacked the requisite belief that he was breaking the law. But obviously he knows the law now - "Round 1" was his education. So, you're probably right - in "Round 2" he has a good chance of being convicted, because he can't claim he didn't know.

Here is another way to look at it. Brent E. Crummey thought that because he had paid the government (U.S. Mint) market value for his $50.00 U.S. gold coins he would get the same market value back when he used them to pay his taxes but the government (court) "found in light of the record and applicable law," Crummey's argument, "to be without merit".

Right. Would you pay $60 for a $50 gift certificate to Chili's? If you did, would you expect to be able to get $60 worth of food with that gift certificate? I'm not sure why anyone would pay more than face value for a coin, although I'm sure there's some reason.

[teedot]

Delurking and making my first post.

A friend of mine who was into all of this stuff wound up in prison because of it. He learned the hard way that this tax denial/strawman/UCC/freeman/patriot crap is just that ... crap.

Yes, we have to pay taxes. If you don't and mess around in court in order to avoid paying said taxes, you will, like my friend, wind up in prison.

Anyone who has managed to avoid prosecution has only done so by tying up the courts with frivolous filings, etc. or through a technicality.

[JimBenArm]

Delurking and making my first post.

A friend of mine who was into all of this stuff wound up in prison because of it. He learned the hard way that this tax denial/strawman/UCC/freeman/patriot crap is just that ... crap.

Yes, we have to pay taxes. If you don't and mess around in court in order to avoid paying said taxes, you will, like my friend, wind up in prison.

Anyone who has managed to avoid prosecution has only done so by tying up the courts with frivolous filings, etc. or through a technicality.
Hey, welcome to the forum, and good post!

Only one problem. You see, it's obvious your friend didn't have proper legal advice. If he had not approached the bench, but instead stayed at the back wearing a live pigeon on his head, and said "You're not the boss of me!" in a loud voice three times, slapped the baliff, and flipped off the judge he would not have been bound by the laws of this land. He could have then made them pay him, and gone on to live for free. Of course it would have been all-expenses-paid at the local correctional facility, but hey. Freedom has its price.

[tsig]

Delurking and making my first post.

A friend of mine who was into all of this stuff wound up in prison because of it. He learned the hard way that this tax denial/strawman/UCC/freeman/patriot crap is just that ... crap.

Yes, we have to pay taxes. If you don't and mess around in court in order to avoid paying said taxes, you will, like my friend, wind up in prison.

Anyone who has managed to avoid prosecution has only done so by tying up the courts with frivolous filings, etc. or through a technicality.

Welcome to JREF!

I have a fool proof method to not pay any income taxes in fact you can have the gvmt send you money.

Retire. 'Course this only works once a lifetime.

[tsig]

Hey, welcome to the forum, and good post!

Only one problem. You see, it's obvious your friend didn't have proper legal advice. If he had not approached the bench, but instead stayed at the back wearing a live pigeon on his head, and said "You're not the boss of me!" in a loud voice three times, slapped the baliff, and flipped off the judge he would not have been bound by the laws of this land. He could have then made them pay him, and gone on to live for free. Of course it would have been all-expenses-paid at the local correctional facility, but hey. Freedom has its price.

If you get sent to prison you pay no income tax so the scheme actually works.

[se7ensnakes]

THANK YOU BOB KLAUSE, THANK YOU. I am wondering if anyone here here get what you posted? I repeat:
You are quite correct. The 16th Amendment did not create any new tax. None was required since Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution had already given the power to congress:
More specifically: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Dont pad yourself on your back, though, your next statement was really dumb.

[se7ensnakes]

The 16th amendment did not remove the apportionment rule. Can anyone here see that? Do you know why? Come on Conpiracy killer, you seem very velbose can you tell the forum why the 16th Amendment did not remove the apportionment rule?
Hint: It has to do with Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States.
It is actually staring at you in the face.
...Sigh... I could see clearly why international bankers fleece nations out of their labor, because they can create money out of thin air while everyone else has to work for it. People just dont think!

[ConspiracyKiller]

If I do $900 worth of work for you, and you pay me in $900 in a paycheck, taxes will be paid based on $900 of wages. If I do $900 worth of work for you, and you pay me in (what we consider to be) $900 worth of metal, why shouldn't taxes be paid based on $900 of wages, just because the metal has a face value of $50?

What I'm saying is that I don't think Kahre found a legal loophole. I think he found an illegal loophole. Now, in "Round 1" the jury found that he lacked the requisite belief that he was breaking the law. But obviously he knows the law now - "Round 1" was his education. So, you're probably right - in "Round 2" he has a good chance of being convicted, because he can't claim he didn't know.



Right. Would you pay $60 for a $50 gift certificate to Chili's? If you did, would you expect to be able to get $60 worth of food with that gift certificate? I'm not sure why anyone would pay more than face value for a coin, although I'm sure there's some reason.

If you do (what someone else thinks is the equivalent of) $90,000.00 worth of work for me, and I pay you only $9,000.00 in a paycheck, for which you except, as was our contractual agreement, then (that someone else will see) I clearly negotiated a good deal as is my right/responsibility to run my own business. Just as it is your right to negotiate what you feel is a good contract, (paid in two tons of horse manure if you so desire), for your services.

In this case you were paid the agreed amount in the form stipulated per our contract, (you could have insisted to be paid in $9,000.00 (face value) of nickels worth at the time $10,500 in metal), for your services and your taxes will be paid based on the $9,000.00 face value of the nickels as the LAW states.

Or as per the contract you could have stipulated (as is your right) to be paid in $9,000.00 (face value) of pennies worth at the time $11,800.00 in metal but for which your taxes will be based only on the face value according to the LAW.

#1. The government is arguing that they should determine, (not you), what your services are worth. For example you paint my walls to look like the constitution is burning and agree to be paid specifically with 188 pounds of nickels (so you can make a sculpture of a nickel toilet flushing the Bill of Rights) The government is claiming that they can choose according to the current market value what they are going to tax you based on what is worth more at the time be it the face value or weight in metal.

While at the very same time (2008) the government tells Brent E. Crummey that even though he had paid the government (U.S. Mint) market value for his $50.00 U.S. gold coins he wont get any market value back when he used them to pay the government his taxes.

"The core of Crummey's appeal rests on Crummey's argument that the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in United States American Eagle gold coin is different than (worth more than) the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in Federal Reserve Notes. According to Crummey, the fact that the United States Mint sells coins into circulation at an amount that is often different that the face value of the coins,supports his theory of the existence of some form of dollar-for-dollar exchange rate between the "coin" dollar and the "FRN" dollar."

But he is wrong because according to the "LAW" you and I "HAVE NO CHOICE" but to declare the face value of legal tender coins for tax purposes when used as payment for services rendered because "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency" and as "A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them." "These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

That is why the government (court) "found in light of the record and applicable law," Crummey's argument, "to be without merit".

But only a fool would obey the law because its obvious that the government will find you guilty if you do as Kahre is a perfect example of this.

By the way the IRS has still not presented any law to show Kahre has committed a crime nor have they yet to include "ANY" instructions on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins on its Web site or in its publications nor in response to Kahre's requests for instruction or as evidence in the past court case which is why Kahre was found NOT GUILTY. Though he will eventually go to prison and his life will be destroyed in order to make an example of him so that no one else will be foolish enough to obey the law regarding this case.

[se7ensnakes]

parky when there is a refusal to admit to the word "No", I consider that dishonest. It warrants no further discussion. The supreme court statement is so rather simple there should not have been a problem. The whole topic becomes a waste of time when that happens.

[se7ensnakes]

joethejuggler, we are discussing the law that requires one to pay for the income tax. I am prepare to cite Supreme Court cases and only supreme court cases. The reason why: Because there are contradictory appellate court cases. One judges says one thing and another judge says something different and contradictory. I will give you samples of that but I dont believe you are prepare to understand the errors. I will eventually post them, if I sense your ability to understand. Also when you post a case post actually post the case with possibly a url. All the cases I intend to post here will have all references required including urls. I make it easy, People are already confused enough.

[ConspiracyKiller]

joethejuggler, we are discussing the law that requires one to pay for the income tax. I am prepare to cite Supreme Court cases and only supreme court cases. The reason why: Because there are contradictory appellate court cases. One judges says one thing and another judge says something different and contradictory. I will give you samples of that but I dont believe you are prepare to understand the errors. I will eventually post them, if I sense your ability to understand. Also when you post a case post actually post the case with possibly a url. All the cases I intend to post here will have all references required including urls. I make it easy, People are already confused enough.

I don't have time to post in detail right now but its obvious that the Supreme Court is above and therefore makes mute any lower court decisions so I will agree to that (though I admit you weren't asking me).

[Bob Klase]

Dont pad yourself on your back, though, your next statement was really dumb.

You're right. What I wrote:

The 16th Amendment merely removed the requirement to apportion those taxes and allowed congress to use the money "without regard to any census or enumeration".

isn't even close to what the 16th amendment says:

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.

Clearly the 16th amendment says that if you don't like the federal government collecting taxes then you can exempt yourself from paying them.

THANK YOU BOB KLAUSE, THANK YOU.

But 'dumb' is a relative term. With your keen ability to copy and paste a name without spelling it wrong I'd say dumb is a compliment coming from where you're standing.

[Bob Klase]

The 16th amendment did not remove the apportionment rule. Can anyone here see that? Do you know why?

Oh, Oh, I got it, I know. Pick me, pick me pick me. The 16th amendment did not remove the apportionment rule because Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 said:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States

And when they wrote the 16th Amendment and said:

without apportionment among the several States

they were obviously just screwing around and didn't really think anyone would take it seriously.

[se7ensnakes]

Bob Klase Come on think...I gave you a big hint. You started out so nicely.
Look you said that they Constitutinal source or Income tax is in
Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html) and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Do you, by chance see any reference, or delimitations for and by apportionment? Well do you? Maybe because it did not need to? Maybe that is why the supreme court said that the 16th amendment did not give congress any taxing power?
Come on ...think

[se7ensnakes]

QUESTION: What is the Constitutional Rule for collecting the Income Tax?

[linusrichard]

If you do (what someone else thinks is the equivalent of) $90,000.00 worth of work for me, and I pay you only $9,000.00 in a paycheck, for which you except, as was our contractual agreement, then (that someone else will see) I clearly negotiated a good deal as is my right/responsibility to run my own business. Just as it is your right to negotiate what you feel is a good contract, (paid in two tons of horse manure if you so desire), for your services.

In this case you were paid the agreed amount in the form stipulated per our contract, (you could have insisted to be paid in $9,000.00 (face value) of nickels worth at the time $10,500 in metal), for your services and your taxes will be paid based on the $9,000.00 face value of the nickels as the LAW states.

Or as per the contract you could have stipulated (as is your right) to be paid in $9,000.00 (face value) of pennies worth at the time $11,800.00 in metal but for which your taxes will be based only on the face value according to the LAW.

#1. The government is arguing that they should determine, (not you), what your services are worth. For example you paint my walls to look like the constitution is burning and agree to be paid specifically with 188 pounds of nickels (so you can make a sculpture of a nickel toilet flushing the Bill of Rights) The government is claiming that they can choose according to the current market value what they are going to tax you based on what is worth more at the time be it the face value or weight in metal.

While at the very same time (2008) the government tells Brent E. Crummey that even though he had paid the government (U.S. Mint) market value for his $50.00 U.S. gold coins he wont get any market value back when he used them to pay the government his taxes.

"The core of Crummey's appeal rests on Crummey's argument that the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in United States American Eagle gold coin is different than (worth more than) the legal monetary value of fifty dollars in Federal Reserve Notes. According to Crummey, the fact that the United States Mint sells coins into circulation at an amount that is often different that the face value of the coins,supports his theory of the existence of some form of dollar-for-dollar exchange rate between the "coin" dollar and the "FRN" dollar."

But he is wrong because according to the "LAW" you and I "HAVE NO CHOICE" but to declare the face value of legal tender coins for tax purposes when used as payment for services rendered because "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency" and as "A coin dollar is worth no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between them." "These limitations are due to the fact that public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear, therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and authorizes their use in exchange."

That is why the government (court) "found in light of the record and applicable law," Crummey's argument, "to be without merit".

But only a fool would obey the law because its obvious that the government will find you guilty if you do as Kahre is a perfect example of this.

By the way the IRS has still not presented any law to show Kahre has committed a crime nor have they yet to include "ANY" instructions on how to value post-1985 gold or silver coins on its Web site or in its publications nor in response to Kahre's requests for instruction or as evidence in the past court case which is why Kahre was found NOT GUILTY. Though he will eventually go to prison and his life will be destroyed in order to make an example of him so that no one else will be foolish enough to obey the law regarding this case.

If you can't tell the difference between what Kahre did and what Crummey did, I'm not sure I can help you. Do you think Kahre paid his employees using coins whose face value totaled less than the contract price because he was a master negotiator? Or do you think he paid his employees using coins whose face value totaled less than the contract price because he was transferring to them value based on the market value of the metal?

So when the government tries to tax Kahre based on the value that was actually transferred from him to his employees, they're not "arguing that they should determine what your services are worth" or "claiming that they can choose according to the current market value what they are going to tax you based on what is worth more at the time be it the face value or weight in metal" - what they're doing is looking at what is actually happening, and basing the tax on that.

What you have to understand is that Kahre and Crummey are in completely different situations with respect to the government. Kahre is moving wealth around in a way that makes that wealth subject to tax, and he wants to be taxed based on a different valuation of wealth than that which his employees are using. (Unless you think he's just a master negotiator, who managed to secure a 94% discount on wages from all his employees.) He's trying to have his cake and eat it too - giving a coin to his employee, and saying, here, this is worth $900, and then turning to the IRS and saying, don't worry, it was only worth $50 really. It's a scam.

Crummey, on the other hand, owed money to the government. When you owe money to someone, they can decide what to accept. Do you want to pay your taxes in lima beans? If the IRS is willing to accept them, you can! If not, you can't! The only thing they have to accept is legal tender, which means face value of legal tender. If the government wanted to accept the $50 coins at some higher amount, they could, but they don't have to. Just like I don't have to, and you don't have to. (By the way, if you ever owe me money and want to pay me in $50 gold coins, I will probably be willing to accept them above face value :)).

So, Kahre loses (or will likely lose) because he's pretending to pay less for his labor than he really is in order to evade/avoid tax liability, while Crummey loses because the government, like any creditor, can decide whether it wants to accept anything other than legal tender at face value for debts owed it. Not complicated, really.

[JoeTheJuggler]

joethejuggler, we are discussing the law that requires one to pay for the income tax. I am prepare to cite Supreme Court cases and only supreme court cases. The reason why: Because there are contradictory appellate court cases. One judges says one thing and another judge says something different and contradictory. I will give you samples of that but I dont believe you are prepare to understand the errors. I will eventually post them, if I sense your ability to understand. Also when you post a case post actually post the case with possibly a url. All the cases I intend to post here will have all references required including urls. I make it easy, People are already confused enough.

I don't have time to post in detail right now but its obvious that the Supreme Court is above and therefore makes mute any lower court decisions so I will agree to that (though I admit you weren't asking me).
I think you mean "moot".

If the Supreme Court has not reverse a lower court decision, then that lower court decision stands. U.S. v. Condo is valid law and has not been reversed by the Supreme Court.

By the way, while the 16th Amendment doesn't confer the right of Congress to collect taxes (because the Constitution already did that), it certainly recognizes that that power exists.

Se7ensnakes, you have nothing but frivolous misreadings of the Constitution to support your position.

[se7ensnakes]

Oh this is getting interesting:
Bob Clase you made two contradictory statements: first you stated that the source for the income tax is in Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution...Now you are saying it is in: Article 1. Section 9, Clause 4: No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken?
Okay which of these two is specific to the income tax?
I am going to confuse you a bit...Go to the IRS website and try to find out if the income tax is a direct or an excise. Caution. a direct tax is not an excise. Once you go come back from the IRS website please post which of the two constitutional references given belong to the Income Tax. I will await your return.

[se7ensnakes]

joes the juggler you assert that: Se7ensnakes, you have nothing but frivolous misreadings of the Constitution to support your position.
yet i am the only person here given adequate references to the constitution, and to supreme court cases. You appear exasperated and unable to follow what is being discussed here. You have not supported any of you statement with anything from either the constitution or the supreme court. Additionally, sure apellate court cases have validity, until they are challenged, and if they are found to contradict the supreme court...well we know what is going to happen.

[NoZed Avenger]

Se7en.

You've played this faux-Socratic method stuff already on this site. Loss Leader (in the thread I referenced above) already explained where you went wrong in detail, backwards and in high heels. Either you willfully refuse to understand the complete and devastating refutation -- one that left your strained reading of 80-90 year old cases a smoking, devastated ruin -- or you are incapable of doing so. Please go back and read those posts again; several people spent a fair amount of time explaining that the old direct/indirect tax divisions are no longer important, why that is so, and the Supreme Court cases that require that finding.

[oldhat]

Still waiting, se7ensnakes:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4878950&postcount=248

[linusrichard]

Oh this is getting interesting:
Bob Clase you made two contradictory statements: first you stated that the source for the income tax is in Article. I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the constitution...Now you are saying it is in: Article 1. Section 9, Clause 4: No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken?
Okay which of these two is specific to the income tax?

Neither is specific to the income tax. Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4 imposed a limitation on that power. Amend. XVI eliminated the limitation imposed by Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4.

I am going to confuse you a bit...Go to the IRS website and try to find out if the income tax is a direct or an excise.
I'm not going to bother the IRS's website. Tax on income from property is a direct tax. Tax on income from labor is an indirect tax. Neither income tax is an excise. What's your point?
Caution. a direct tax is not an excise. Once you go come back from the IRS website please post which of the two constitutional references given belong to the Income Tax. I will await your return.
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1 "belongs to" the income tax, just as it "belongs to" all taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4 does not "belong to" the income tax, as it only "belongs to" capitation and other direct taxes. Or, we could say that Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4 doesn't "belong to" anything since the passage of Amend. XVI.



Let me simplify it for you. Let's say the Constitution originally said in one part that Congress has the power to grow apples, pears, oranges, and bananas. And then in another part, the Constitution said that Congress could only grow navel oranges in odd-numbered years. And then later the Constitution gets an amendment that says that Congress can grow any kind of oranges every year. And then there's a Supreme Court case that says the amendment didn't give Congress any new power to grow oranges. So the question is: does Congress have the power to grow apples? And where does this power come from?

[se7ensnakes]

Nozed Nice try...show me a supreme court case that states that the direct/indirect tax delination is no longer valid. Even the IRS does not claim that! Also there was a sound reason why the founding fathers define indirect and direct tax. You think the direct / indirect tax has no practical validity? You seriously think that the founding fathers pulled it out of their asses just to make life complicated? Edited for Rule 12 If you think we dont need these rules to collect taxes then it is okay for montana citizens to pay as much as new yorkers? Maybe on the days you drive your car can we impose the federal income tax. Edited for Rule 12
Please attack the argument, not the arguer.

[se7ensnakes]

Oldhat I think you are not reading the arguments placed here. I answered that and moved beyond. I understand that all this material i new to you but please refrain from posting until you read.

[oldhat]

Oldhat I think you are not reading the arguments placed here. I answered that and moved beyond.

Wrong.

CITE or else you didn't.

[se7ensnakes]

Linusrichard an excise is an indirect tax. lol
While the expression indirect tax does not appear in constitution it was adequately defined by the supreme court.
On a more serious note:
Please reference this post: "Neither (direct or indirect) income tax is an excise. ", and "Neither is specific to the income tax. Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4 imposed a limitation on that power. Amend. XVI eliminated the limitation imposed by Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4."
There are least three major and unanimous supreme court cases that contradict that statement...but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt...Sources please.
(please dont cite wikipedia)

[se7ensnakes]

oldhat it should be clear to you by now that we are not talking about All Federal Income tax but specifically taxes on wages. this is what i posted in the beginning and this is what i am continually posting now. Your mistake is that you think that i am claiming that all income taxes have no law. Like i said...please read the post before you post.

[linusrichard]

Sidenote: I went ahead and bothered the IRS's website. They use "direct" and "indirect" in the colloquial sense. In the colloquial sense, income tax is a direct tax. In the constitutional sense, direct taxes are only capitations and taxes on property (not income taxes).

It doesn't matter, because the only limitation the Constitution placed on Congress's power to impose direct taxes was removed by the Sixteenth Amendment. But there you go.

[Bob Klase]

Do you, by chance see any reference, or delimitations for and by apportionment?

Yes I did. You would have too if you read the entire constitution rather than picking and choosing, or if you'd just read my last post:

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States

If you want to discuss taxes other than direct taxes then there was never a requirement to apportion them, so no need for the 16th amendment to collect them without apportionment.

[oldhat]

oldhat it should be clear to you by now that we are not talking about All Federal Income tax but specifically taxes on wages. this is what i posted in the beginning and this is what i am continually posting now. Your mistake is that you think that i am claiming that all income taxes have no law. Like i said...please read the post before you post.

That's nice, how come you still haven't responded to my points about your basic misreadings and misunderstandings of Stanton, which was a big point of contention for you only one page ago? Moving the goalposts around?

[Bob Klase]

Oldhat I think you are not reading the arguments placed here. I answered that and moved beyond.

You've given a lot of answers here. Unfortunately most of them are wrong. You've shown a marked inability to learn from your mistakes and seem to be unable to move beyond them.

[linusrichard]

Linusrichard an excise is an indirect tax. lol
1. Okay, yes. I was using a different definition of excise. But yes, by a better definition of excise for this discussion, and income tax is an excise; I stand corrected.
2. So what?
While the expression indirect tax does not appear in constitution it was adequately defined by the supreme court.
On a more serious note:
Please reference this post: "Neither (direct or indirect) income tax is an excise. ",
As you have pointed out, this is a mistake. But again, so what?
and "Neither is specific to the income tax. Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 1 gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises." Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4 imposed a limitation on that power. Amend. XVI eliminated the limitation imposed by Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4."
There are least three major and unanimous supreme court cases that contradict that statement...but I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt...Sources please.
(please dont cite wikipedia)[/QUOTE]

Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but prior to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, effective February 25, 1913, this power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population. The difficulty, if not impossibility, of meeting this requirement, led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, which gives Congress power “to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration,” thereby removing this key barrier to the imposition of income taxes, and giving Congress broad power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, subject to general constitutional limitations.
C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11.

That the authority conferred upon Congress by § 8 of article 1 ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine.
...
Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of ... art 1, § 9, cl. 4, that ‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.’
...
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, -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.
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)



Okay, now I'll take your "three major and unanimous Supreme Court cases," please.

[se7ensnakes]

You invalidate your posting by refusing to post citations.
Linusrichard you keep fabricating all these things: "They use "direct" and "indirect" in the colloquial sense. In the colloquial sense, income tax is a direct tax. In the constitutional sense, direct taxes are only capitations and taxes on property (not income taxes).
It doesn't matter, because the only limitation the Constitution placed on Congress's power to impose direct taxes was removed by the Sixteenth Amendment."
Do you realize that removing a limitation you are effectively creating new venues for income tax laws? Did you forget the "NO" lesson previously. Repeat after me: No new power of taxation...no new power of taxation...no new power of taxation...
U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)

You see how nicely I post all my references?

[NoZed Avenger]

Nozed Nice try...show me a supreme court case that states that the direct/indirect tax delination is no longer valid. Even the IRS does not claim that! Also there was a sound reason why the founding fathers define indirect and direct tax. You think the direct / indirect tax has no practical validity? You seriously think that the founding fathers pulled it out of their asses just to make life complicated? I mean exactly how small is your mind? If you think we dont need these rules to collect taxes then it is okay for montana citizens to pay as much as new yorkers? Maybe on the days you drive your car can we impose the federal income tax. Please, Please go and pump some oxygen in your brain....


For the kids out there, one of the first lessons in law school is this:

"Huffing ether is not -- I repeat, *not* -- considered a valid substitute for legal research."


Would that everyone had learned this valuable lesson.

[dudalb]

I wish LashL, our goddess of legal affairs, would come in to squash this guy.

[se7ensnakes]

Linusrichard huh where did that come from? What are the sources for C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11?
Under what constitutional cases did that emerge? Specifically: "thereby removing this key barrier to the imposition of income taxes, and giving Congress broad power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, subject to general constitutional limitations."
Do you see a difference between that and:
U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)
but wait there is more...
in 1895 the supreme court decided that the taxes derived from property was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned as per Article 1. Section 9, Clause 4: No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken?
This case is:
U.S. Supreme Court
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Argued May 6, 7, 8, 1895
Decided May 20, 1895
158 U.S. 601
"The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void became not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid." http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/ (http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/)
Direct taxes from income of Real Estate properties are invalid because not apportioned, but also the inability to redirect income from property makes it a direct tax, which is quite different from an excise tax.
So I asked what cases did the author of C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 pulled that from?
Do you even know?

[se7ensnakes]

dualb are you not interested in becoming independent, do a little reading of your own than trying to "squash" me?

[dudalb]

Tell me when you are going to put what you preach into practice.
I promist to visit you at Club Fed.

[ConspiracyKiller]

If you can't tell the difference between what Kahre did and what Crummey did, I'm not sure I can help you. Do you think Kahre paid his employees using coins whose face value totaled less than the contract price because he was a master negotiator? Or do you think he paid his employees using coins whose face value totaled less than the contract price because he was transferring to them value based on the market value of the metal?

So when the government tries to tax Kahre based on the value that was actually transferred from him to his employees, they're not "arguing that they should determine what your services are worth" or "claiming that they can choose according to the current market value what they are going to tax you based on what is worth more at the time be it the face value or weight in metal" - what they're doing is looking at what is actually happening, and basing the tax on that.

What you have to understand is that Kahre and Crummey are in completely different situations with respect to the government. Kahre is moving wealth around in a way that makes that wealth subject to tax, and he wants to be taxed based on a different valuation of wealth than that which his employees are using. (Unless you think he's just a master negotiator, who managed to secure a 94% discount on wages from all his employees.) He's trying to have his cake and eat it too - giving a coin to his employee, and saying, here, this is worth $900, and then turning to the IRS and saying, don't worry, it was only worth $50 really. It's a scam.

Crummey, on the other hand, owed money to the government. When you owe money to someone, they can decide what to accept. Do you want to pay your taxes in lima beans? If the IRS is willing to accept them, you can! If not, you can't! The only thing they have to accept is legal tender, which means face value of legal tender. If the government wanted to accept the $50 coins at some higher amount, they could, but they don't have to. Just like I don't have to, and you don't have to. (By the way, if you ever owe me money and want to pay me in $50 gold coins, I will probably be willing to accept them above face value :)).

So, Kahre loses (or will likely lose) because he's pretending to pay less for his labor than he really is in order to evade/avoid tax liability, while Crummey loses because the government, like any creditor, can decide whether it wants to accept anything other than legal tender at face value for debts owed it. Not complicated, really.

#1. What is tax mitigation?

#2. What is a loophole?

#3. Is it at all legal for someone to move wealth around in a way that makes that wealth subject to "LESS" tax?

The United States Supreme Court has stated that "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

"Tax avoidance describes lawful conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the creation of a tax liability in the first place. Whereas an evaded tax remains a tax legally owed, an avoided tax is a tax liability that has never existed."
For example "personal taxation may be legally avoided by creation of a separate legal entity to which one's property is donated. The separate legal entity is often a company, trust, or foundation. Assets are transferred to the new company or trust so that gains may be realized, or income earned, within this legal entity rather than earned by the original owner. Usually one is only personally taxed on property and earnings that one actually owns; thus, by donating assets to a separate legal entity, personal taxation can be avoided, although corporate taxes may still be applicable."

The above tax avoidance/mitigation/loopholes save millions in taxes for those that can afford to set it up as Warren Buffet said: our income tax system is SO absurd that his secretary pays more income tax than he himself (despite being among the richest in the world).

#4. So considering the above would it be legal for someone, if the contract stipulated payments to be maid in quarters by weight (pounds per contract), to claim he/she was paid only the value of the quarters in weight of metal? "NO" because the law says that "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency".

#5. When negotiating a contract sometimes the amount one receives in legal tender depends on other things such as a caretaker might only be paid in rent or a car might be included for the length of the contract which would lower the pay in legal tender or they insists on being paid cash and not check which is a burden on the owner and so less pay is offered for the services rendered plus the bonuses for completing the service by a certain date and etc, etc, can significantly lower what one is paid in legal tender. Throughout this negotiation both parties are constantly thinking how it will affect their tax burden because both parties want to keep as much as the wealth they have earned through their labor as possible.

So who is to dictate what the contract price should have been and in what medium of exchange it should have been paid besides the parties who negotiated the contract?

#6. "When you owe money to someone, they can decide what to accept." Does this mean they can specifically request to be paid in cash not check or in all $20 bills or instead $10 roles of quarters or $100 boxes of nickels or crate of pennies? Of course they can but the other parties can counter that its such a large enough burden on their part to pay $100 boxes of nickels that they want compensation for the hassle and so argue that they should have to pay less than the originally requested amount at the beginning of the current negotiation.

In the end the parties enter into a contract for which the owner has agreed to take on the risk (committed to a set "payment" despite any future rise and fall of the dollar) plus the extra burden of taking the extra time and going threw the extra hassles and extra expenses necessary in order to obtain the specified legal tender as per the contractual agreement in which the other parties have agreed to take on the risk (committed to a set "fee" despite any future rise and fall of the dollar) and the extra burden of taking the extra time and going threw the extra hassles and extra expenses necessary in order to spend or "at their own risk" try to sell it on the open market if that is what they so choose.

Again you cannot convict a taxpayer unless you show that the taxpayer willfully violated federal law. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991); United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2002); Richey v. United States, 9 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993) (subjective good faith is sufficient).

The IRS "FAILED" to present into evidence any law that showed what kahre and others was doing was "NOT" legal. Kahre can use the past case as evidence that he and the court found that he did not commit a crime and therefore he had no reason to stop doing it.

[se7ensnakes]

Linusrichard
Before you post that it is the Brushaber case read it, because nearly all of the initial arguments presented by Justice White is contrary to the it. Please do not be confuse by the suppositions which justice white uses. They are suppositions which state, "if you believe this to be the case, this is what will happen" ...
For example justice white states that if you believe that the 16th amendnment did away with the direct/indirect classification this will be what will happen. or if you believe that the 16th amendment created an exclusive new type of tax and omitted references to other taxes...this will be what is happening. In short the brushaber case and the C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 note are contradictory. According to you C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 estates that: thereby removing this key barrier to the imposition of income taxes, and giving Congress broad power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, subject to general constitutional limitations
BUT...
Justice White discerts:
"But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion."
So essencially Justice white indicates that doing away with the constitutional references to direct and indirect rules will cause confusion. This is quite different from what your quote from C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 states. Sorry I hate to break it to you but some laws and some historical footnotes have no constitutional validity.
U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1
No. 140.
Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.
That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes. Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of art. 1, 8, cl. 1, that 'all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,' and to the limitations of art I., 2, cl. 3, that 'direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,' and of art 1, 9, cl. 4, that 'no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.' In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U. S. supra, at page 557: 'In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excises."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)
So where did the author of C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 gets his information from?

[se7ensnakes]

justice white asserts not discerts

[linusrichard]

You invalidate your posting by refusing to post citations.
What are you talking about? I posted citations. Read it again. Come on. CJS and a Supreme Court case. I gave the citations.
Linusrichard you keep fabricating all these things: "They use "direct" and "indirect" in the colloquial sense. In the colloquial sense, income tax is a direct tax. In the constitutional sense, direct taxes are only capitations and taxes on property (not income taxes).
It doesn't matter, because the only limitation the Constitution placed on Congress's power to impose direct taxes was removed by the Sixteenth Amendment."
Do you realize that removing a limitation you are effectively creating new venues for income tax laws? Did you forget the "NO" lesson previously. Repeat after me: No new power of taxation...no new power of taxation...no new power of taxation...
You're playing a semantic game. You can say it like this:
* Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress had the power to impose direct taxes, but they had to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the limitation, so that Congress had the same power to impose direct taxes they had before, except without that limitation. Therefore the Sixteenth Amendment didn't give any new power of taxation - before, power to impose direct taxes, after, power to impose direct taxes.
Or like this:
* Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress didn't have the power to impose direct taxes without apportionment. After the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress had the power to impose direct taxes without apportionment. Therefore the Sixteenth Amendment did give a new power of taxation - before, no power to directly tax without apportionment, after, power to directly tax without apportionment.

These use different words to say the same thing. They are both true. If you want to understand what someone says when they say no new power of taxation, you have to understand the context in which they're saying it. The power to impose direct taxes existed before and after the Sixteenth Amendment, and the Amendment didn't grant a new power, but lifted a restriction on the power that already existed. Or, you know, you could read the part of the Supreme Court opinion I posted in my previous post. If it's not too much work for you.
U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)

You see how nicely I post all my references?
Yes, I see your references. Maybe you could return the favor by noticing mine. Whatever.
Linusrichard huh where did that come from? What are the sources for C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11?
Under what constitutional cases did that emerge? Specifically: "thereby removing this key barrier to the imposition of income taxes, and giving Congress broad power to levy and collect taxes on income from whatever source derived, subject to general constitutional limitations."
For that part, CJS cites two cases:
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶4, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶2926 (1916).
Simmons v. U.S., 308 F.2d 160, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9713, 10 A.F.T.R.2d 5523 (4th Cir. 1962).

Do you see a difference between that and:
U.S. Supreme Court
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915
Decided February 21, 1916
240 U.S. 103
"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed..."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html (http://supreme.justia.com/us/240/103/case.html)

I've explained this. If you won't read what I wrote, I can't help you. If you can't understand what I wrote, let me know, and I'll try to break it down more simply.
but wait there is more...
in 1895 the supreme court decided that the taxes derived from property was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned as per Article 1. Section 9, Clause 4: No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken?
This case is:
U.S. Supreme Court
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
Argued May 6, 7, 8, 1895
Decided May 20, 1895
158 U.S. 601
"The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void became not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid." http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/ (http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/)
Direct taxes from income of Real Estate properties are invalid because not apportioned, but also the inability to redirect income from property makes it a direct tax, which is quite different from an excise tax.
You are citing to a case that was decided before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed? You're citing to a case that was invalidated by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment?! Fantastic. Amazing. Hey, I can prove to you that slavery is legal -- I have this great Dred Scott case... why should it matter that it's from 1857? Has something happened since then?
So I asked what cases did the author of C.J.S. Intern. Rev. Sec. 11 pulled that from?
Do you even know?
Do I even know? You are hilarious. Sure I know. CJS drops footnotes like what. Here are some sources for the section I quoted. Happy hunting:

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493, 1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶4, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶2926 (1916).
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S. Ct. 673, 39 L. Ed. 759, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) ¶2557 (1895), opinion vacated on reargument, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S. Ct. 912, 39 L. Ed. 1108, 3 A.F.T.R. (P-H) P 2602 (1895) and (overruled on other grounds by, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 108 S. Ct. 1355, 99 L. Ed. 2d 592, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9284, 61 A.F.T.R.2d 88-995 (1988)).
U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. XVI.
Kasey v. C. I. R., 457 F.2d 369, 72-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9307, 29 A.F.T.R.2d 72-773 (9th Cir. 1972).
U.S. v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 91-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50437, 34 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 579, 68 A.F.T.R.2d 91-5469 (7th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43, 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9308, 61 A.F.T.R.2d 88-1117 (2d Cir. 1988).
U.S. v. House, 617 F. Supp. 237, 87-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9562, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-700 (W.D. Mich. 1985).
Simmons v. U.S., 308 F.2d 160, 62-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9713, 10 A.F.T.R.2d 5523 (4th Cir. 1962).
Pledger v. C. I. R., 641 F.2d 287, 81-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9314, 47 A.F.T.R.2d 81-1234 (5th Cir. 1981).
Charczuk v. C.I.R., 771 F.2d 471, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9656, 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5740 (10th Cir. 1985); Ficalora v. C.I.R., 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9103, 55 A.F.T.R.2d 85-473 (2d Cir. 1984); Hallowell v. C.I.R., 744 F.2d 406, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9881, 54 A.F.T.R.2d 84-6149 (5th Cir. 1984); Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F.2d 469, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9209, 53 A.F.T.R.2d 84-716 (5th Cir. 1984); U.S. v. Silkman, 543 F.2d 1218, 76-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9752, 38 A.F.T.R.2d 76-6059 (8th Cir. 1976); U.S. v. Rochelle, 384 F.2d 748, 67-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9694, 20 A.F.T.R.2d 5630 (5th Cir. 1967).
U.S. v. Moore, 692 F.2d 95, 79-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9676, 82-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9654, 50 A.F.T.R.2d 82-6037 (10th Cir. 1979).
Stelly v. C.I.R., 761 F.2d 1113, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9436, 56 A.F.T.R.2d 85-5228 (5th Cir. 1985).
U.S. v. Venator, 568 F. Supp. 832, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9887, 52 A.F.T.R.2d 83-6294 (N.D. N.Y. 1983).
Oak Mfg. Co. v. U.S., 193 F. Supp. 514, 61-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9199, 7 A.F.T.R.2d 632 (N.D. Ill. 1961).

[linusrichard]

#1. What is tax mitigation?

#2. What is a loophole?

#3. Is it at all legal for someone to move wealth around in a way that makes that wealth subject to "LESS" tax?

The United States Supreme Court has stated that "The legal right of an individual to decrease the amount of what would otherwise be his taxes or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

"Tax avoidance describes lawful conduct, the purpose of which is to avoid the creation of a tax liability in the first place. Whereas an evaded tax remains a tax legally owed, an avoided tax is a tax liability that has never existed."
For example "personal taxation may be legally avoided by creation of a separate legal entity to which one's property is donated. The separate legal entity is often a company, trust, or foundation. Assets are transferred to the new company or trust so that gains may be realized, or income earned, within this legal entity rather than earned by the original owner. Usually one is only personally taxed on property and earnings that one actually owns; thus, by donating assets to a separate legal entity, personal taxation can be avoided, although corporate taxes may still be applicable."

The above tax avoidance/mitigation/loopholes save millions in taxes for those that can afford to set it up as Warren Buffet said: our income tax system is SO absurd that his secretary pays more income tax than he himself (despite being among the richest in the world).

All of this begs the question. Of course I agree with you that there are legal loopholes. But that doesn't prove that Kahre found one of them. I think he found an illegal loophole. I don't think he was "mitigating." I think he was "cheating."

#4. So considering the above would it be legal for someone, if the contract stipulated payments to be maid in quarters by weight (pounds per contract), to claim he/she was paid only the value of the quarters in weight of metal? "NO" because the law says that "As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar, regardless of the physical embodiment of the currency".
I bolded the part that you didn't notice when you pasted it. As legal tender, a dollar is a dollar. But if I'm accepting a 50 dollar coin for 900 dollars worth of work, am I accepting it as legal tender, or am I accepting it as a hunk of metal?

So who is to dictate what the contract price should have been and in what medium of exchange it should have been paid besides the parties who negotiated the contract?
Nobody's dictating what the price should have been or in what medium it should have been in. If you pay me for 900 dollars worth of work with a coin that says 50 dollars on its face but contains 900 dollars worth of gold, anyone with eyes in their head can see that you're paying me with metal, not with legal tender. You know what? You and I don't have to argue about this. It is up to a jury. In "Round 1," the jury said he didn't know he was breaking the law, which was probably correct, and he was acquitted, which was probably also correct. In "Round 2," the jury can decide if he somehow negotiated a 94% labor discount with all of his workers, or if he was paying them in gold.

#6. "When you owe money to someone, they can decide what to accept." Does this mean they can specifically request to be paid in cash not check or in all $20 bills or instead $10 roles of quarters or $100 boxes of nickels or crate of pennies? Of course they can but the other parties can counter that its such a large enough burden on their part to pay $100 boxes of nickels that they want compensation for the hassle and so argue that they should have to pay less than the originally requested amount at the beginning of the current negotiation.
No, you misunderstand me. What I mean is, they have to accept payment in a reasonable form, and they have to accept legal tender, and if they want to, they can also (not instead) accept something like a crate of pennies or a palette of lima beans. They can't only accept a crate of pennies unless that was in the contract from the start. But if you owe me money, and you offer to pay me in a crate of pennies, I'm allowed to say yes or no. But if you offer to pay me in $50 bills, I have to say yes. Unless we specified otherwise in the contract.
So - the government has to accept $50 gold coins for a value of $50. They can accept $50 gold coins at a higher value if they wish, but they don't have to.

Again you cannot convict a taxpayer unless you show that the taxpayer willfully violated federal law. See Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 202 (1991); United States v. Bishop, 291 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir. 2002); Richey v. United States, 9 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1993) (subjective good faith is sufficient).
We are in agreement on this. You know what my favorite thing about Cheek v. U.S. is? He got convicted. So good.

The IRS "FAILED" to present into evidence any law that showed what kahre and others was doing was "NOT" legal. Kahre can use the past case as evidence that he and the court found that he did not commit a crime and therefore he had no reason to stop doing it.

See, I think this is the opposite of true. The past case is evidence that Kahre has been informed of the law. The court didn't find that he didn't commit a crime. The jury found that he didn't know what he was doing was illegal, and acquitted him for that reason. Having spent a lot of time in court, he now knows what he was doing was illegal, and if he's kept doing it, he could go away.

It's funny - as much as people like to hate on the IRS and their alleged abuse of power, this type of case is about the only type of criminal case there is where ignorance of the law is a valid defense. Not what you'd expect if you buy the CT about how the IRS will get you convicted no matter what etc., etc.

[linusrichard]

@se7ensnakes:

You're reading it wrong. What do the words "the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to" mean in the context of the Brushaber case?

Here's what Justice White is saying:

"The defendant has such and such an argument. The defendant's proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would require such and such a result. But that result doesn't work. The correct way to look at it is this other way."

In other words, the part of the opinion you quote above is the part that White is telling you is wrong, and it is the later part of the opinion that I quote that White is saying is right. See?

The Corpus Juris Secundum is written by and for lawyers who need to know what the law really is. It's a much better authority than a couple anonymous dudes arguing on a discussion forum. Honest.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

You invalidate your posting by refusing to post citations.


Umm... do you even know what a citation is? Because linusrichard posted a few.

(And if you were responding to someone else, please learn to use the http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/quote.gif button located at the bottom-right of every post.)

[fezzic]

From what I read Kahre was not acquitted, the jury hung on each count and could not come to a decision either conviction or acquital. If he'd been acquitted, he's homefree because double jeopardy forbids trying him for the same crime twice and the prosecution does not get to break a crime down into small parts and try someone separately on each part, especially if each part was an element of the original crime.

[lightfire22000]

The sixteenth amendment establishes the income tax as legal officially.

...You really want to know what makes the income tax legal?

If you don't pay it people will arrest you and make your lives miserable!

All laws are only de facto laws. No one cares about licenses for goatees or asserting a right to beat a wife once a month. Those are just wastes of ink.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

No one cares about licenses for goatees or asserting a right to beat a wife once a month. Those are just wastes of ink.


You honestly don't think that's covered by any law? Really?

[Thunder]

The federal income tax is legal. Only cheapskates and liars don't wanna pay it.

[se7ensnakes]

lightfire
No one is arguing the broad spectrum of income taxes. Learn to read before you post. If you feel that there is a specific law for taxes on wages. please post the law and be sure that the law includes the subject of the taxes.

[defaultdotxbe]

You honestly don't think that's covered by any law? Really?
according this site (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/arkansas) its covered by law in arkansas

several other sites list it, but none list the actual statute, so who knows

[se7ensnakes]

Linusrichard you stated erroneiously that:
"Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress had the power to impose direct taxes, but they had to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the limitation, so
that Congress had the same power to impose direct taxes they had before, except without that limitation. Therefore the Sixteenth Amendment didn't give any new power of taxation - before, power to impose direct taxes, after, power to impose direct taxes."
I am certain that either you are either not reading the stated cases or that you are not able to read the case correctly. Justice White is NOT saying that apportionment is no longer relevant. It is stating that apportionment is not applicable. Why is apportionment not applicable. Justice White is claiming that the 1894 Income Tax law was incorrectly written because it assumed that the income tax was direct.
U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1
No. 140.
Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.
"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)
Let me see if you are paying attention. Why is apportionment not applicable?
I will await your answer.

[se7ensnakes]

linusrichard I see the brushaber citation but the citation runs contrary to the statement that apportionment is no longer valid. Once again where are the references?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Linusrichard you stated erroneiously that:
"Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress had the power to impose direct taxes, but they had to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the limitation, so
that Congress had the same power to impose direct taxes they had before, except without that limitation. Therefore the Sixteenth Amendment didn't give any new power of taxation - before, power to impose direct taxes, after, power to impose direct taxes."
I am certain that either you are either not reading the stated cases or that you are not able to read the case correctly. Justice White is NOT saying that apportionment is no longer relevant. It is stating that apportionment is not applicable. Why is apportionment not applicable. Justice White is claiming that the 1894 Income Tax law was incorrectly written because it assumed that the income tax was direct.
U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1
No. 140.
Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.
"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)
Let me see if you are paying attention. Why is apportionment not applicable?
I will await your answer.

OKAY.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE), to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE) of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#IMPOST) and Excises (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXCISE) shall be uniform throughout the United States

Art 1 Sec 8

Congress couldn't create an income tax (not uniform) so it passed the 16th Amendment which says..


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#APPORTIONMENT) among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ENUMERATE).

That' s why. End subject.

[se7ensnakes]

linusrichard I was testing you and you failed the test. I wanted to see if you were actually reading the cases: You posted:
"You are citing to a case that was decided before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed? You're citing to a case that was invalidated by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment?! Fantastic. Amazing."
"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case....
Brushaber, supra, at 19."
Linusrichard Please stop. Please stop now. I can go on. I am certain you dont even know what an indirect tax is.

[se7ensnakes]

RIKA
Please dont just post. read what has been said? Is there any end to this ignorance?

[KoihimeNakamura]

Oh. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were going to just deny the constitution. Well, have fun not reading.

[fullflavormenthol]

Oh. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were going to just deny the constitution. Well, have fun not reading.
It is the tax protestor tactic. You could show them a law written to their "standards" and they would turn around and ask you to show them the law the makes it legal for Congress to tax wages earned at a McDonald's in the Mall on a Tuesday.

Ignore them and laugh when they go to prison.

[LightinDarkness]

RIKA
Is there any end to this ignorance?

Yes, yes there is. The ignorance will when once you abandon your debunked theories and realize that the government has every constitutional and lawful right to tax you.

Sadly for you, this is not likely to happen anytime soon.

[linusrichard]

Linusrichard you stated erroneiously that:
"Before the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress had the power to impose direct taxes, but they had to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the limitation, so
that Congress had the same power to impose direct taxes they had before, except without that limitation. Therefore the Sixteenth Amendment didn't give any new power of taxation - before, power to impose direct taxes, after, power to impose direct taxes."
If you can read, you can read the Sixteenth Amendment. What do you think the Sixteenth Amendment means, if it doesn't remove the requirement of apportionment?
I am certain that either you are either not reading the stated cases or that you are not able to read the case correctly. Justice White is NOT saying that apportionment is no longer relevant. It is stating that apportionment is not applicable. Why is apportionment not applicable.
What are you talking about? Apportionment is no longer applicable? What does that mean? Apportionment was a requirement for direct taxes before the Sixteenth Amendment. Not after.
Justice White is claiming that the 1894 Income Tax law was incorrectly written because it assumed that the income tax was direct.
U.S. Supreme Court
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
240 U.S. 1
No. 140.
Argued October 14 and 15, 1915.
Decided January 24, 1916.
"Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced"
This citation doesn't support your claim.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1)
Let me see if you are paying attention. Why is apportionment not applicable?
I will await your answer.
Why is it not "applicable"? What do you mean by "applicable"? If you mean why is it not required for direct taxes, it's because of the Sixteenth Amendment. If you mean why is it not required for indirect taxes, it's because Art. I Sec. 9 Cl. 4, which imposes the apportionment requirement, doesn't apply to indirect taxes. This actually isn't hard stuff.
linusrichard I see the brushaber citation but the citation runs contrary to the statement that apportionment is no longer valid. Once again where are the references?
First apportionment is not "applicable" and now apportionment is not "valid"? I really have no idea what you're talking about. Where are the references? I cited to Brushaber. 240 U.S. 1. Link. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=240&invol=1) What do you want?
linusrichard I was testing you and you failed the test. I wanted to see if you were actually reading the cases: You posted:
"You are citing to a case that was decided before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed? You're citing to a case that was invalidated by a subsequent Constitutional Amendment?! Fantastic. Amazing."
"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case....
Brushaber, supra, at 19."
This is beautiful. Nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock case? Wow, that really makes it look like I'm wrong, huh? What are those three little dots at the end? They probably don't mean much, right? Just three little dots, can't be that important. But just out of pure curiosity, let's finish the sentence, shall we?
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.
I normally hate it when people post in a large type size, but I really wanted to make your dishonesty obvious. White was saying that the Amendment didn't repudiate or challenge one particular ruling in Pollock, but through the dishonest use of ellipsis, you made it appear as though the Amendment didn't repudiate or challenge anything in Pollock. Disgusting.

Chew on this quote from Brushaber, instead:
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.

Linusrichard Please stop. Please stop now. I can go on. I am certain you dont even know what an indirect tax is.
I will stop. I will stop now. I know you can go on. But I'm not stopping because I don't know what an indirect tax is, or because you think I don't. I'm stopping because you've demonstrated yourself to be a dishonest person. I can argue with someone who disagrees with me, obviously. I can argue with someone who's ignorant, I can argue with someone who's wrong, I can argue with someone who is willfully, stubbornly, obstinately wrong. I can argue with someone who doesn't get it. But if you're not going to argue honestly, then we're just playing Calvinball, and that's not going to get anybody anywhere.

So, yeah, done here.

[tsig]

justice white asserts not discerts

Made more sense the other way.

[CORed]

People keep coming up with interesting legal theories explaining why you really don't have to pay income tax. Most of them end up in prison for not paying income tax.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

according this site (http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/arkansas) its covered by law in arkansas

several other sites list it, but none list the actual statute, so who knows


Hmm... I'm now pretty sure I misread lightfire22000's post. I thought he was claiming there were no laws against beating your wife.

Sorry, lightfire22000. :o

[se7ensnakes]

linusrichard
Somehow I feel that this conversation is in repeat loop. What do you think this means?
"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."
be clear with me: According to Justice White is the Federal Income Tax a direct or indirect tax?

BTW your confusion is not unique. I have three lower court cases that claim the income tax is 1)direct 2)indirect 3) neither, the 16th Amendment created a new type of tax.
Pick one of these but please review what justice white said.

[linusrichard]

linusrichard
Somehow I feel that this conversation is in repeat loop. What do you think this means?
"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."
be clear with me: According to Justice White is the Federal Income Tax a direct or indirect tax?

I'm not inclined to answer since you've displayed that you want to argue dishonestly. I'm done arguing with you altogether. But on the off chance that you are actually asking an honest question, answering it wouldn't really be arguing, so...

A tax on income from wages is indirect. A tax on income from property is considered direct. The Federal Income Tax taxes both, which is why it was problematic before the Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment made the distinction between direct and indirect taxes meaningless, except as an academic exercise.

BTW your confusion is not unique.
I am not confused.
I have three lower court cases that claim the income tax is 1)direct 2)indirect 3) neither, the 16th Amendment created a new type of tax.
Pick one of these but please review what justice white said.
Can you provide citations?

[se7ensnakes]

whaaa what? What on earth are you saying?
prove that:
A tax on income from wages is indirect.
stop misleading the weak minded people in this forum!!!!

[JimBenArm]

Yeah, they might not believe the stuff he's saying if you don't stop that! After all, they're HIS weak-minded people! Go get your own!

[linusrichard]

I don't have time right now to do much, but just super-quickly:

"Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation . . ., (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property."

Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service, case no. 05-5139 (D.C. Cir. 2007)


Listen well, O weak-minded people! Listen to me try to confuse you about whether the income tax is indirect, direct, or both! It is central to my plan! Even though the distinction is now legally irrelevant! Mua ha ha ha!!!! :rolleyes:

[se7ensnakes]

Linusrichards
You are all over the place. You are stating that the income taxes are direct if derived from real estate, indirect if from wages but that the distinction is irrelevant because in your opinion justice white stated that, since the 16th amendment there is no riding law that can prevent the citizens of the state of Montana to pay as much as the citizens of the state of New York? You said that as income taxes are concern the apportionment rule is no longer valid and therefore the federal government can, at will, pick and choose any state and tax it according to the federal government's personal preference, or some other hereby unstated method? Since, in your view, the legal distinction (the only distinction that really matters in practice and in court) between direct and indirect taxes is irrelevant what does the irs use now?
Please post any reference to justice whites assertion that the federal income tax is indirect. You do know what the resulting problem will be I hope.

[linusrichard]

Linusrichards
You are all over the place. You are stating that the income taxes are direct if derived from real estate, indirect if from wages but that the distinction is irrelevant because in your opinion justice white stated that, since the 16th amendment there is no riding law that can prevent the citizens of the state of Montana to pay as much as the citizens of the state of New York?
No. You're confusing uniformity with apportionment. Apportionment, the requirement imposed by Art. I Sec. 9 cl. 4 is not a requirement for direct income taxes anymore, since the Sixteenth Amendment. Uniformity, the requirement imposed by Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 1, applied to all duties, imposts, and excises. I'm not certain, but I believe "excises" would, in this context, include taxes on income from wages.
You said that as income taxes are concern the apportionment rule is no longer valid
Correct. Do you dispute that? Have you read the Sixteenth Amendment?
and therefore the federal government can, at will, pick and choose any state and tax it according to the federal government's personal preference, or some other hereby unstated method?
Incorrect. That's uniformity, which was unaffected by the Sixteenth Amendment, and is still required of duties, imposts, and excises (indirect taxes).
Since, in your view, the legal distinction (the only distinction that really matters in practice and in court) between direct and indirect taxes is irrelevant what does the irs use now?
I really don't understand this question. What does the IRS use? The laws passed by Congress? I don't know what you're asking, sorry.
Please post any reference to justice whites assertion that the federal income tax is indirect.
I'm not sure I ever alleged he ever made any such assertion.
White doesn't use the term "indirect" very much in Brushaber. The distinction is one between direct taxes and "duties, imposts, and excises." If you read the opinion carefully, he lays it out very well, although his language is a little difficult to the modern eye, so you do have to read it carefully.

I'll try to summarize it a little bit:
Early caselaw interpreted the Constitution as laying out two main types of taxes when it referred to "taxes, duties, imposts and excises." "Taxes" referred to Direct Taxes, and "duties, imposts, and excises" referred to Indirect Taxes. Direct taxes were subject to the requirement of apportionment, and duties, imposts, and excises were subject to the requirement of apportionment.
But having these two categories of taxes led to difficulties when there was a disagreement as to which category a particular tax belonged to.
Then there's this part, which bears careful reading since you're curious for some reason about White's opinion about the nature of the income tax:
Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635. The whole law was, however, declared unconstitutional on the ground that to permit it to thus operate would relieve real estate and invested personal property from taxation and 'would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vacations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor' ( id. p. 637),-a result which, it was held, could not have been contemplated by Congress.
and then he talks about how the point of the Amendment is to take income taxes out of the debate when it comes to apportionment, by exempting all income tax from apportionment, whether it's direct or indirect.

Then this:
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 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.
So, read that how you like.
You do know what the resulting problem will be I hope.
Clue me in.

By the way, you still owe me three citations - one to a case that claims the income tax is indirect, one to a case that claims the income tax is direct, and one to a case that claims the 16th Amendment created a new type of tax. Don't disappoint me.

[CurtC]

You said that as income taxes are concern the apportionment rule is no longer valid and therefore the federal government can, at will, pick and choose any state and tax it according to the federal government's personal preference, or some other hereby unstated method?

Getting rid of the apportionment rule didn't get rid of the uniformity rule. From your words here, it seems to me that you may not understand what the apportionment rule required. Taxes had to be imposed that hit each state according to its population, which is a bitch of a rule if you want to tax incomes.

[se7ensnakes]

getting rid of the apportionment rule...there must be a uniformity rule...it cannot be assume under law. It must be explicitly stated.

[se7ensnakes]

The apportionment rule is still valid. According to Justice white all that the 16th amendment did is to prevent the classification of indirect taxes as direct taxes. There is nothing repudiating the Pollock decision in the 16th amendment. the 16th amendment did not rewrite the original constitution for obvious reason. First and foremost direct and indirect taxes are natural events, they are defined for the purpose of collecting them. The supreme court cannot obliterated the distinction between direct and indirect taxes anymore than they can obliterated the law of gravity. If you note that the 16th Amendment contains no instruction as to how to collect an unapportioned direct income tax. Your idea is that you are taken to a train station and there is no instruction where to go. If your idea is that you pay "direct income taxes" by way of the rule of uniformity, it has to state that: direct income taxes must now follow the rule of uniformity. I see no such rule anywhere. Justice White is very clear when he states that the purpose of the amendment was to prevent the classification of indirect taxes as direct taxes. The 16th Amendment claims that the income tax does not need to be apportioned ...it says that because the income tax is in the category of indirect tax. If the income tax is an indirect tax then it must follow the rule of uniformity. One final statement: You will never see an IRS indictment which states the subject of the tax, which is clearly a procedural error.

[se7ensnakes]

What supreme court case stated: "the Federal income tax on any and all income is lawful". I could find where they said the contrary, but for the life of me i have never found such a statement. But you can show me. You are not making this up are you? You are tire of posting maybe and you want anyone that makes you think to go away perhaps?

[NoZed Avenger]

I know 6 months s a long time, so you could easily have forgotten how all your questions were already answered ad nauseum or shown to be completely moot.

But couldn't you go back and re-read them before re-starting the exact same schtick again?

I mean, vary it up a bit, add something new?

[NoZed Avenger]

Oh, and for anyone curious, an even *earlier* thread had LossLeader thoroughly dissecting these claims in an extremely educational manner:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70859

[Mashuna]

I know 6 months s a long time, so you could easily have forgotten how all your questions were already answered ad nauseum or shown to be completely moot.

But couldn't you go back and re-read them before re-starting the exact same schtick again?

I mean, vary it up a bit, add something new?

20 months is even longer - this is a full-on necro thread!

[NoZed Avenger]

20 months is even longer - this is a full-on necro thread!

You're right - misread the date.

[SpitfireIX]

getting rid of the apportionment rule...there must be a uniformity rule...it cannot be assume under law. It must be explicitly stated.


Even granting this for the sake of argument (though it's wrong), the US Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), Article I, Section 8, reads, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;[bolding mine]


General taxes (including income taxes) are not required to be uniform; only duties (taxes on imported goods) imposts (additional taxes on imported goods from certain countries) and excises (taxes on domestically produced goods) are required to be.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[jargon buster]

Just a quicky
Do you earn enough to pay tax and if so do you pay it?

[jargon buster]

I wonder if se7ensnakes has gone because he pays his tax like a good little boy ;)

[Puppycow]

The 16th Amendment has been ratified by I believe 40 states. That makes it LAW. It legalized a Federal income tax.

The Internal Revenue Code, was written by Congress. It is LAW. It spells out how the Federal income tax will work.

So there, two laws that make the income tax legal. Why is what I did sooooooo very hard for them?

It's not valid if the flag has a gold fringe.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Zombies eat tax evaders. Mmmmm....tastes like currency.

[NoZed Avenger]

Zombies eat tax evaders. Mmmmm....tastes like currency.



Mmrmrmrr . . . . Capital Gaaaaaaiiiiinnnns.

[TSR]

Mmrmrmrr . . . . Capital Gaaaaaaiiiiinnnns.
.
Off with ya head
tuh tax tax tax 'til ya dead


Darkness falls across the land
The filing deadline is close at hand
Creatures crawl in search of tax
Which terrifies y'alls stupid *ss

The foulest stench is in the air
The W-2s of all last year
And gristly ghouls from every office
Are closing in to own your tucus

And though you claim "not have to pay"
Your theories are a full mess
For no mere mortal can resist
The legal of ... IRS


Yeah, pretty much a Gleek...
.

[se7ensnakes]

"Even granting this for the sake of argument (though it's wrong)..."
Oh great, you are arguing that taxes could be collected without any underlying rule?

"General taxes (including income taxes) are not required to be uniform; only duties (taxes on imported goods) imposts (additional taxes on imported goods from certain countries) and excises (taxes on domestically produced goods) are required to be."
LOL ...Where did you get this brain fart? There are only two classes of taxes in this constitutional republic. Lets count slowly...1) Direct Taxes 2)Indirect Taxes. There is not a third or a fourth or a fifth. Moreover direct taxes follow the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes follow the rule of uniformity. This is all i could tell you because your level of confusion does not allow me to post further. I know for certain that i will only be wasting my time.

[se7ensnakes]

You appear to be one of those people that like paying income taxes because you "get money back at the end of the year"! I bet you think to yourself...Why would anyone want to end the income tax because we get money back at the end of the year.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"Even granting this for the sake of argument (though it's wrong)..."
Oh great, you are arguing that taxes could be collected without any underlying rule?


The "underlying rule" are rules by which taxes are currently collected. The Constitution of the United States of America explicitly allows for a such a rule.

"General taxes (including income taxes) are not required to be uniform; only duties (taxes on imported goods) imposts (additional taxes on imported goods from certain countries) and excises (taxes on domestically produced goods) are required to be."
LOL ...Where did you get this brain fart? There are only two classes of taxes in this constitutional republic. Lets count slowly...1) Direct Taxes 2)Indirect Taxes. There is not a third or a fourth or a fifth.


Those are general categories of tax. Those are divided into more specific types: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax#Kinds_of_taxes. Duties, imposts/tariffs, and excises are all a form of tax.

[dvictr]

thunder..

working and having an income is optional

[marplots]

Be a patriot. Pay your taxes. Support America. This doesn't have to be a civil law, it works well enough as a moral law.

If your character is so flawed and so full of animosity toward my great nation that you would seek to underfund her noble goals for your own material gain -- then, I pray you take your monies, your goods and chattels, and find another country to live in where you can contribute and quit living off of my largess.

[dafydd]

Be a patriot. Pay your taxes. Support America. This doesn't have to be a civil law, it works well enough as a moral law.

If your character is so flawed and so full of animosity toward my great nation that you would seek to underfund her noble goals for your own material gain -- then, I pray you take your monies, your goods and chattels, and find another country to live in where you can contribute and quit living off of my largess.

Create a country called Freedonia and send all the freeloaders there. It would be fun to watch.

[Grassy Knowlington]

Create a country called Freedonia and send all the freeloaders there. It would be fun to watch.

Thomas Moore's island in Utopia would be more apt I think but still with Groucho Marx.

[dafydd]

I would like to see a freeman point me to the law that says you can use all the facilities without paying your share.

[dudalb]

Create a country called Freedonia and send all the freeloaders there. It would be fun to watch.

Rufus P Firefly, PM of Fredonia: "Now we come to the matter of Taxes"
Chicolini:"I hava uncle in Taxes"
Firefly: 'No; I mean money,finance....dollars".
Chicolini: 'Atsa right Dollars, Taxes".


Could not resist it.

[catsmate1]

Create a country called Freedonia and send all the freeloaders there. It would be fun to watch.
And then create an Aeronautics and Space Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FASA):D

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Rufus P T Firefly, PM of Fredonia: "Now we come to the matter of Taxes"
Chicolini:"I hava uncle in Taxes"
Firefly: 'No; I mean money,finance....dollars".
Chicolini: 'Atsa right Dollars, Taxes".


Could not resist it.

Sorry, couldn't stop myself.;)

[se7ensnakes]

Precisely, and I know without any doubt, that cannot show me in the constitution where these "general taxes" are mentioned. Please please dont quote Wikipedia in an intelligent conversation. It makes me feel like i am debating a total imbecile.

[se7ensnakes]

working and having an income are optional? So is living and dying....

[se7ensnakes]

Marplot ... you are not realized.
It has not dawn on you that America is taking a course set by a Power Elite. It has not dawn on you that your taxes are a scam to pay for a debt that is artificial. The only real thing about the debt is your work, which is condensed in paper that is made legal tender. If you truly love your country you should fight fraud and reinstall the constitutional republic.

[se7ensnakes]

We can pay for the Aeronautics and Space Administration, the roads and bridges, the schools and hopistals, etc. the same way that Abraham Lincoln paid for the civil war. In fact this economic system we have was setup by bankers to enrich themselves. It is maintained by ignorant people such as yourself.

[jargon buster]

se7ensnakes you missed one

Just a quicky
Do you earn enough to pay tax and if so do you pay it?

[dafydd]

Just a quicky
Do you earn enough to pay tax and if so do you pay it?

Do you earn enough to pay tax if you work at McDonald's?

[se7ensnakes]

Lets see how you obsfuscate the issue. The constitution says in Article 1 Section 8 that: The Congress shall have Power To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; Obama started a war with the Libyan government. He attacked with some 100 plus missiles each costing about $569,000 dollars. This makes the Obama administration a rogue government. But each of you in this forum will stand idle by and claim that "ya needs to stop beingz a freeloader and pays youse income tax." Why? Why do you stand there and see the constitution ignored day in and day out and do nothing at all? You have no clue what i am talking about when i discuss the income tax. You probably never read anything regarding the income tax except comic books that state: the income tax was created by the 16th Amendment. Am just wondering how you can stick your heads in the sand and state that there is nothing wrong with the country. Everything is just dandy...

[Thunder]

thunder..

working and having an income is optional

sure...if you're gonna live in the woods.

I have no problem with folks living off the federal lands, and not paying income tax due to their lack of income.

[TSR]

Obama started a war with the Libyan government.

.
Which one? YOu *do* realize there are *two* different entities who claim to be the official government, right? But only one of those has been slaughtering civilians.
.

He attacked with some 100 plus missiles each costing about $569,000 dollars.

.
No, *they* attacked, and did so under authority of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, which makes it a police action, not a war.

In response, Gaddafi pledged a cease fire and then began bombing Benghazi.

***Only then***, two days later, did the UN forces begin using missles.
.

You probably never read anything regarding the income tax except comic books that state: the income tax was created by the 16th Amendment.

.
No, that amendment states that it is creating an income tax. By having been retified by 42 of the 48 states (at the time).
.

Am just wondering how you can stick your heads in the sand and state that there is nothing wrong with the country. Everything is just dandy...

.
Am wondering why you make this claim when no one here has stated that there is nothing wrong with the country...
.

[tyr_13]

Rufus P Firefly, PM of Fredonia: "Now we come to the matter of Taxes"
Chicolini:"I hava uncle in Taxes"
Firefly: 'No; I mean money,finance....dollars".
Chicolini: 'Atsa right Dollars, Taxes".


Could not resist it.

My degree is from Fredonia.

That's the State University of New York at Fredonia of course. Probably more famous for Fredonia grapes.

So please don't send a bunch of moron tax dodgers there.

[jargon buster]

se7ensnakes believes that there is no law that says he has to pay tax, yet still he pays.
Either that or he doesnt earn enough.

His failure to address the question speaks volumes.

[marplots]

Marplot ... you are not realized.
It has not dawn on you that America is taking a course set by a Power Elite. It has not dawn on you that your taxes are a scam to pay for a debt that is artificial. The only real thing about the debt is your work, which is condensed in paper that is made legal tender. If you truly love your country you should fight fraud and reinstall the constitutional republic.

How is it that the rule by a Power Elite equates to taxes being a scam?

I should mention that "Power Elite" is a neutral phrase to me, not inherently a bad thing. It would be a derail to address the question of what constitutes the best form of government, but I might point out that however the U.S. is actually run, I am quite satisfied with my place in the system.

If I found out that the whole country was run on the whims of dolphins in a tank at Sea World, I would still have to congratulate them on the results and would be very careful about modifying it, dolphins or no.

Would you even consider a symbiotic rather than a parasitic relationship?

[ArmillarySphere]

I for one welcome our new cetacean overlords.

[twinstead]

King of not only the sea, it seems...


They call him Flipper, Flipper, faster than lightning,
No-one you see, is smarter than he,
And we know Flipper lives in a world full of wonder,
Lying there under, under the sea!
Everyone loves the king of the sea,
Ever so kind and gentle is he,
Tricks he will do when children appear,
And how they laugh when he's near!

[Grassy Knowlington]

I for one welcome our new cetacean overlords.

Another blow to the already oppressed (and on the menu) fish masses.

[se7ensnakes]

The question is irrelevant and a digression.

[se7ensnakes]

Which one? YOu *do* realize there are *two* different entities who claim to be the official government, right? But only one of those has been slaughtering civilians.
This is irrelevant to the topic. By legal definition sending missiles to a country is an act of war, be it one or two or three "official" governments. Blowing up structures and killing people is an act of war. Accoriding to the constitution before a president attacks a sovereign nation there must be a congressional declaration of war. These are called checks and balances. What ever the UN had decided is irrelevant and does not (or should not) trump the constitution.
There is no such thing as policing a foreign nation. When one country kills inhabitants of another country, particularly with military weapons, that is an act of war.

[se7ensnakes]

Do you know the meaning of the "NO"? It is a very simple word, how can you confuse the word "NO". NO certainly does not mean YES. NO does not mean MAYBE. The word "NO" has a relatively easy meaning. So when the supreme court states that the 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing power, it simply means that the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax. Are you still having problems understanding the word "NO"?

[se7ensnakes]

Well Marplots a person has to have a certain sense of justice to disagree with the actions of the power elite. Surely, you could go and put a cat in a microwave and fry it. You probably would not think you did anything wrong. Of if you see a little old little get her purse stolen you might find it funny and laugh out loud. You might find that the little old lady crying in distraught, is some kind of amusement to you. I cannot debate this point.

[timhau]

Quoting is obviously a waste of time, since we all have access to se7ensnakes's thoughts as long as his tinfoil hat is malfunctioning.

[jargon buster]

se7ensnakes wrote
The question is irrelevant and a digression.
Am I to take it that is a response to my question which was
Do you earn enough to pay tax and if so do you pay it?

Irrelevant???
The fact that you choose to pay tax even though you claim there is no law which compels you to makes you a little strange to say the least.

So, I would like you to pay me an "existance tax" of $100 a day , there is no law that exists to make you pay me this tax but by your own definition you should pay it me anyway.

[marplots]

Well Marplots a person has to have a certain sense of justice to disagree with the actions of the power elite. Surely, you could go and put a cat in a microwave and fry it. You probably would not think you did anything wrong. Of if you see a little old little get her purse stolen you might find it funny and laugh out loud. You might find that the little old lady crying in distraught, is some kind of amusement to you. I cannot debate this point.

See, that's a funny thing about justice. It's relative. Mice would applaud your cat in the microwave analogy. I think the system in place is a pretty good one. A guy begging quarters on the street might not agree. In any system, you are going to select for one mode of behavior over another, this is a property of systems -- a rule that prevents X will necessarily harm someone who relies on X. I think this is why appeals to justice sound like personal animus by way of "failure to launch."

Here's what I have done. In those areas where I cannot abide the standards of practice as they exist now, I don't participate. There's enough room to maneuver in the U.S., enough ways to live that I can do this. It would be less so in North Korea I suppose. I'm not a power elite by a long shot. But if people wish to live that way, then I won't say them nay. On the other hand, if a top tier mathematician wants to live in a shack in rural Idaho, good on him too (except for that making bombs thing).

What, I wonder, is the Utopian ideal you cannot find room for? Does it require a contribution from me?

A good metric is to take a look around and compare our system with others, understanding there might be cultural differences that only allow for certain modifications. So, yeah. I dig the U.S. and the way it operates.

[DavidJames]

se7ensnakes - Do you not use the quote feature because you don't know how or is it a mechanism to avoid questions you don't want to answer? Or is there another reason?

[se7ensnakes]

Timhau I think the problem is not with the quoting...the problem is that you have not read the previous post.

[se7ensnakes]

Marplots
See, that's a funny thing about justice. It's relative. Well i suppose that Ted Bundy would make that kind of argument.

[se7ensnakes]

lets get to the core of the problem. Can any of you show me an IRS indictment where the subject of the tax (the thing that is being tax) is mentioned?
la la la la do da do da.

[TSR]

lets get to the core of the problem. Can any of you show me an IRS indictment where the subject of the tax (the thing that is being tax) is mentioned?
la la la la do da do da.
.
Matter of fact, we can... (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=167391,00.html)

Start about a third of the way down, with the chart, then keep on reading.
.

[marplots]

Marplots said, "See, that's a funny thing about justice. It's relative."
Well i suppose that Ted Bundy would make that kind of argument.

He might, and I'd have to agree with him. This doesn't mean he gets off, it just means that I can't claim some standard higher than social convention to keep him imprisoned (or dead, since he was electrocuted in 1989).

Here's the difference. Gravity is a natural law. It's a sort of rule you can't violate, no matter how you feel about it. The very fact that people can and do violate human standards of behavior ought to demonstrate they are relative to the person doing the action. Justice is not some universal law, but an emotional reaction to what happened, a kind of category making related to how you think society and people ought to behave.

Even if you come up with some heinous act that is despised and rejected by all humans, that still doesn't help your case. The fact that one act is perceived by all as unjust doesn't mean that the property of justice isn't relative itself, you've only managed to show that some particular act is. To make this plain, consider the statements: Light always travels at the fastest speed possible in any medium; and, speed is not relative to the object under consideration. The existence of the property in one case doesn't inform us as to the universality of that property.

On the other hand, one case where the property doesn't hold will do to show it is not a universal. So, I put it to you that in any courtroom in the land, where people come to argue about the justice of some matter, you will find the relativity of it on display.

Also, you should note that agreeing that justice is relative doesn't change anything we do now at all. It only keeps us a bit more humble about it.

[jargon buster]

Gravity is a natural law. It's a sort of rule you can't violate, no matter how you feel about it.
But isn't the law of gravity just another written down explanation of a natural phenomenon?

Is it really a law or is it simply an explanation of something previously unexplained.
After all gravity existed long before the law of gravity didn't it?

Oh and not to be too picky , I can defy the law of gravity by jumping in the air, albeit temporarily.;)

Anyway, sorry to go off topic, although se7ensnakes has proved beyond all doubt that even he doesn't believe he is immune from taxation.

[tsig]

lets get to the core of the problem. Can any of you show me an IRS indictment where the subject of the tax (the thing that is being tax) is mentioned?
la la la la do da do da.

We seldom see arguments this lucid here.

[marplots]

But isn't the law of gravity just another written down explanation of a natural phenomenon?

Is it really a law or is it simply an explanation of something previously unexplained.
After all gravity existed long before the law of gravity didn't it?

Oh and not to be too picky , I can defy the law of gravity by jumping in the air, albeit temporarily.;)

Anyway, sorry to go off topic, although se7ensnakes has proved beyond all doubt that even he doesn't believe he is immune from taxation.

Physics metaphors are so handy, but in truth I should stay away from them. It always turns out I don't understand the physics deeply enough for this forum.

[dafydd]

lets get to the core of the problem. Can any of you show me an IRS indictment where the subject of the tax (the thing that is being tax) is mentioned?
la la la la do da do da.

Very mature. Still,to believe the freeman garbage one needs the mental age of a five year old.