Se7enSnakes Explains His Tax Theories [Archive]

Loss Leader

19th December 2006, 11:58 AM

In a thread mostly devoted to the physics of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, Se7enSnakes has indicated that he believes that the 9/11 conspiracy is taking place alongside some sort of taxation conspiracy. He has written:

They could be swindle just like every body else. For example.......Where is the law that requires most people to pay an income tax. We have a whole nation of people paying income tax .........and we have armies of accountants/lawyers telling them they haver to pay......but i have yet to find any specifics to the law.

You are not telling me that of all of the people in this forum...no one can tell me some simple answers regarding monies that they pay every year? That people are just coerce to pay without any idea why? Of all the stupid things. Surely there has to be one person here!

I was really hoping that someone else, other than myself, understood these tax issues. Believe me, i have seen experts in the field make a multitude of errors regarding this matter.
I asked a simple question................regarding Article 1 section 8 and the 16th amendment........is it making a reference to which of the two general classification of taxes..........the direct orindirect?

If a nation can be fooled into believing that by law they owe something to the government.......imagine how easy it is for the same nation to be fooled into thinking that some fire can topple a steel structure.

I have made my point several times - That we have an entire nation of ignorant people that have not clue why they are paying a particular tax.

I believe that in the usa there is a government within the government. For some reason these simple issues are not taught, and people remain generally ignorant.

However, whatever it is that Se7enSnakes actually believes about taxes, he has refused to explain his position. He basically has just insulted people for not guessing whatever he happened to be thinking.

Also Loss Leader everything you are saying is wrong.... I cannot show you that you are wrong because you lack a grasp of simple tax concepts. You dont even have a basic understanding of taxation.

I cannot start a new thread.........no one knows anything. They dont even know the classification of a simple sales tax......much less federal taxes.
What would i talk about?

Suppose i did site websites or supreme court cases .......what good would that do? You dont have even simple definitions correct. It is as though you were reading a text with words you dont understand.

Now, it's my belief that Se7enSnakes thinks that all taxes are ultimately a tax on a person's labor and, since one trades one's labor for its fair value, no one makes a profit on his/her labor. Thus, there is no such thing as income and there should be no income tax. However, this is entirely a guess because nobody but Se7enSnakes has the least idea what in the world he's going on about.

Contrary to his assertions, the people on this board are very interested in hearing new opinions and learning and evaluating new points of view. This thread is for Se7enSnakes to explain whatever he'd like to about taxation.

For my part, I promise to listen intently and to carefully consider any information given.

The Central Scrutinizer

19th December 2006, 12:04 PM

Oh dear, another tax loon.

Tell Se7enSnakes to not pay taxes if they are illegal. And then see what happens. And then when he is sitting in prison, he can wonder where it all went wrong.

slingblade

19th December 2006, 12:46 PM

My contention (my guess, actually) is that Snakey doesn't really pay any income taxes. He simply loans a bit of his income to the government for a year, and gets it back in March-ish. Without any interest, of course, but still.

Then he goes out and buys a new electronic toy with his refund. Wheee!

Architect

19th December 2006, 03:15 PM

fuelair

19th December 2006, 03:22 PM

What seven doesn't know would fill the universe - at least based on what he has excreted on the site this split from. I assume he is a socky of one of the untertrollenfuhrers like peedeep, lifegrazer,whatever1234.

davefoc

19th December 2006, 04:11 PM

Just a moment....if they claim that the US Government isn't empowered to raise taxes, how's it goin' to pay for all them things Governments have to do? Or is that the point?

I was going to say "like social security and the NHS", but of course that's a very British perspective........I'll bet Seven doesn't even know we get more or less free healthcare in the Uk paid from (gasp) taxes!

I haven't followed this too closely, but in the US we have a low level background noise that comes from a few people that have some theories about why taxes (the income tax usually but sev7enSnakes seems to have theories about other taxes) are illegal. Quite a few of the most vocal of these folks have ended up in jail. The government here isn't real keen on people that don't pay taxes but it gets positively irate with people that don't pay taxes and brag about it. Wesley Snipes of all people seems to have gotten caught up in this. How in the world a guy with huge wealth decides that he doesn't need to pay taxes and that he'll risk his freedom to not pay them is beyond me. So far, the Snipes defense attorney says that Snipes is innocent, which as you can imagine if UK defense attorneys are anything like American defense attorneys isn't that informative about whether Snipes is actually guilty or not.

Hutch

19th December 2006, 04:15 PM

Nice opening post, Loss Leader,but will VII Reptiles find it here? I mean, yu ever see the CT'ists post outside the Conspiracy sub-forum?

Still, would be nice to introduce him to the Political subspecies of forumites...I'm sure he would have interesting comments to make on the Israeli-Palestinian topic..:covereyes :eye-poppi :eek:

se7ensnakes

19th December 2006, 07:31 PM

Arus808
Wrong:
A sales tax is a state or locality imposed percentage tax on the selling or renting of certain property or services. Its also known as a consumption tax.

Consumers pay the sales tax, on things that they buy and use or services rendered. Whether its you buying a big mac at mcdonalds or paying the merry maids to clean your home.

The sales tax revenues are typically split into several fractions going to the state, schools, counties, cities, public transit and possibly other jurisdictions. The size and split of these fractions vary significantly from state to state except in the states that do not have a sales tax.

You are stating two things here
1) Sales tax is on the selling and services rendered.
or
2) Sales tax is on things that you buy.

which is it?

Is the sales tax one the thing that you are buying or on the buying of the thing?

Forget the income tax issue..........you are not ready to discuss that.

Zep

19th December 2006, 07:36 PM

Forget the income tax issue..........you are not ready to discuss that.Or, more likely, YOU are not ABLE to discuss that.

Why not give it a go, big man! After all, we only have a few lawyers and senior accountants and suchlike here. Amd I'm sure they will see it your way once you explain to them! When you're ready, of course... ;)

se7ensnakes

19th December 2006, 07:36 PM

Loss Leader ..........
Is the purpose of the Supreme Court to create new laws or to interpret the law?

Why 1926? was there some new law added?

Loss Leader

19th December 2006, 07:50 PM

Loss Leader ..........
Is the purpose of the Supreme Court to create new laws or to interpret the law?

Why 1926? was there some new law added?

I'll answer that question but you won't like what I say.

The law is a living thing. It is, in the main, a general written set of rules to promote justice. Now, that's a good thing because written rules can be promulgated, studied, followed, debated and changed. But it's also a tricky thing.

Laws are general. They apply broadly. But laws affect people very narrowly. No legislature (or other rulemaker) can possibly foresee all of the implications of a rule. General rules may turn out to fit very badly into some situations.

Laws are written. They use language. Language, for all of its benefits, is inexact. If you don't believe me, try in 200 words or less to write down exactly how you feel about your mother. Words do not perfectly capture concepts. Worse, they may have different meanings to different people.

Laws promote justice. This is tricky because, while "justice" is a good thing, there are a whole lot of definitions of justice. The Nazis defined justice as whatever Hitler wanted. A communist nation might define justice as whatever increases social good, the individual be damned. And different individuals who come to a law may have different personal conceptions of justice.

So, does the Supreme Court make laws or interpret them? The answer is that the Supreme Court makes laws. As do the Appelate Courts. As do traffic courts. As do the individuals on the streets who choose, as a body politic, to accept or protest them. As do the police who choose whether to enforce them. When Griswold was running all over Connecticut trying to get somebody to arrest him for buying contraception, the dozens of police who refused to do so were making law. As does the cop who lets you go with a warning or the councilman who helps get a pothole on your street taken care of.

Within the framework of respect for the Constitution as it lives today, I have no problem saying that I am proud that the Supreme Court participates in the creation of law in the United States.

TriangleMan

20th December 2006, 01:06 AM

Zep

20th December 2006, 01:31 AM

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 05:57 AM

brodski

20th December 2006, 06:11 AM

The IRS does not have a wonderful page.......it lies.'
But you would not know that because you are ignorant on the history and law concerning taxes as evidence by your posting here.

"Contrary to popular belief...........ignorance is not bliss............the ignorant suffer untold pain"

The problem is, if the government (who makes the laws) says that tax is legal, if the politicians who form the government say that tax is legal; if the people who vote for politicians not only think tax is legal, but overwhelmingly support taxation; if the constitution (which sets the framework for laws) specifically makes income tax legal and if the court system who interpret the laws says that tax is legal and have refuted (in the strongest terms) every attempt to show that tax is illegal_
1) how can you demonstrate that tax is illegal, how can you show that your argument is correct and;
2) if tax where illegal, what is to stop the 99% of the US population and 100% of the us government system who support taxation, making taxation legal? If taxation is currently illegal, why have they not done so?

Loss Leader

20th December 2006, 06:42 AM

Ladewig

20th December 2006, 06:59 AM

Assuming this discussion is about American income tax, the IRS has a wonderful page (http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html) detailing all of the frivilous arguments against taxation, why they are wrong, and cites the relevant case law.

From the website:
Some taxpayers are attempting to reduce their federal income tax liability by filing a tax return that reports no income and no tax liability (a “zero return”) even though they have taxable income. Many of these taxpayers also request a refund of any taxes withheld by an employer. These individuals typically attach to the zero return a Form W-2, or other information return that reports income and income tax withholding, and rely on one or more of the frivolous arguments discussed throughout this outline in support of their position.

I cannot recall the last time I encountered nuttiness as ballsy as that. Wow!

drkitten

20th December 2006, 08:41 AM

The IRS does not have a wonderful page.......it lies.'

Unfortunately, the United States Code does not.

Title 26, section 1, subsection (a) states:

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

subsections (b), (c), and so forth cover other taxpayers with other statuses.

"There is hereby imposed" is fairly straightforward.

marksman

20th December 2006, 08:51 AM

"regarding Article 1 section 8 and the 16th amendment........is it making a reference to which of the two general classification of taxes..........the direct orindirect?"

Both.

"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." (http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html)

As of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress has the power to collect federal income taxes through direct taxation and indirect taxation and in doing so need not concern itself with the requirement that such taxes be directly apportioned amongst the States, as Congress was required to do with all direct taxes (prior to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment) -- and, in fact, is still required to do with those direct taxes that are not taxes on income.

If you believe otherwise, please show me your Constitutional support for that proposition. Myself, I'm relying on the actual text of the Sixteenth Amendment.

I note that the Supreme Court agreed with me in the 1916 case of Brushaber v. Union Pac. Ry. Co. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=nytimes&court=us&vol=240&invol=1). This should not be surprising since the plain language of the Amendment itself mandates this interpretation.

TriangleMan

20th December 2006, 08:51 AM

The IRS does not have a wonderful page.......it lies.'
But you would not know that because you are ignorant on the history and law concerning taxes as evidence by your posting here.

Um, there was a loooooooooot of case law cited on that webpage, did you even read it? That means there were actual trials, in court, with judges and everything. You can go to law databases and look up the verdicts. What in it specifically was lies? What part of the tax law am I ignorant about by linking to that website?

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 08:52 AM

Pardalis

20th December 2006, 08:57 AM

Seven, do you think people outside of the US also pay taxes to their governments?

ETA: I'll ask my question another way.

Are you against the very idea of paying taxes (in general), or just against the ones you don't want to pay?

Loss Leader

20th December 2006, 08:59 AM

You are omitting the burk of this forum and jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
Lets take this step by step.

Can you answer the question:
When you buy a television from Walmart and you pay a sales tax........what is the subject of the sales tax.

We simply cannot proceed until you show that you have rudimentary knowledge of tax terminology.

Seven, for the four billionth time, please just tell us your answer to this question. We are having no luck guessing what you are thinking and many have tried. For instance, I believe that you think the answer is that the subject of the sales tax is the labor of the person paying it.

Also, for the second time: You asked me a question and I answered it as fully as I knew how. Will you not reply to my answer?

If you won't continue the discussion with me that you started, I see no reason for anyone to even try to answer your question. After all, you would have shown that you will not engage in a conversation even if you yourself start it.

marksman

20th December 2006, 09:03 AM

When you buy a television from Walmart and you pay a sales tax........what is the subject of the sales tax.
This will vary from state to state. In New York, the statute reads, in relevant part, as follows:

there is hereby imposed and there shall be paid a tax... upon... [t]he receipts from every retail sale of tangible personal property...
-N.Y. Tax L. sec. 1101(a)

Skeptic

20th December 2006, 09:09 AM

SevenSnakes seems to be basing his anti-tax theory on the distinction between "income" and "sources of income". There are two anti-IRS theories: one, that the income tax code only taxes "sources" of income and wages (for example) are income therefore not taxed; the other is the opposite, namely, that the income code taxes "income", but that wages are just a "source" of income and not the income itself, so they are not taxed.

A refutation of both rather nonsensical theories is found here:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

(search for "source").

marksman

20th December 2006, 09:11 AM

You know, I'm going to wait to determine to which nonsensical antitax theory he adheres until he actually enunciates a theory. To date, he's only been asking really silly questions of tax law, from which he could spin in a thousand different silly directions.

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 09:15 AM

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 09:18 AM

marksman

20th December 2006, 09:26 AM

The subject of the sales tax in New York (and I will not state for certain it is the same in all other States as I have not perosonally looked into the sales tax laws in other states) is the receipts from retail sales of tangible property. What is it that you think I don't understand? Do you agree with my answer or not? If you do not agree, then tell me what your answer is and why you think mine is inaccurate.

TriangleMan

20th December 2006, 09:37 AM

Is there anyone here that is not aware that many people have been convicted because of income tax issues? I am, in particular, interested in the people that have won. But again........you are dismissing the burk of the discussion here and avoiding an intelligent discussion on the matter.
No actually I'm not avoiding anything. Loss Leader posted this quote citing you as the source:
They could be swindle just like every body else. For example.......Where is the law that requires most people to pay an income tax. We have a whole nation of people paying income tax .........and we have armies of accountants/lawyers telling them they haver to pay......but i have yet to find any specifics to the law
That you don't want to discuss this, try to just dismiss the IRS link as "lies" and instead pester posters about sales tax shows that you are the one avoiding things.

The link I provided to the IRS webpage answers the above questions quite clearly and cites the relevant case law. Do you agree now that there are laws in place that allow the US Government to charge and collect income taxes? If you disagree, what specifically do you think is incorrect and not already addressed in the previous case law?

slingblade

20th December 2006, 09:42 AM

Unless you are brilliant enough to know exactly to what 7 is referring, he will not deign to have a coherent discussion with you. Apparently, we mere mortals are unfit to interact with such a prodigious intellect.

Pardon me. Typing the above has made me laugh so hard, I am momentarily incapacitated.

Loss Leader

20th December 2006, 09:42 AM

That you don't want to discuss this, try to just dismiss the IRS link as "lies" and instead pester posters about sales tax shows that you are the one avoiding things.

Also, Seven, you still have yet to answer my post which was a long and careful answer to a question that you asked of me.

Thanz

20th December 2006, 09:50 AM

So what is the answer?
What is the subject of the sales tax?
The sale.

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 11:20 AM

Thank you
The subject of the sales tax is the sales
The event

Is there anyone that disagrees with this?

Loss Leader

20th December 2006, 11:26 AM

Thank you
The subject of the sales tax is the sales
The event

Is there anyone that disagrees with this?

For the sake of being sociable, I'll take your word.

So, where to next, Seven?

And when will you answer me regarding your question about the Supreme Court?

marksman

20th December 2006, 11:57 AM

Thank you
The subject of the sales tax is the sales
The event

Is there anyone that disagrees with this?

If by "sales", you mean "the receipts from retail sales of tangible property", then I do not disagree.

Skeptic

20th December 2006, 12:30 PM

I am, in particular, interested in the people that have won.

That's simple: there aren't any.

People, of course, win in court against the IRS all the time--when the IRS abused its powers, or simply made a mistake. But nobody had ever won against the IRS using any of the "untaxing" arguments any of the tax protestors ever made.

The closest the so-called tax protestors ever come to a "win" is when, once in a while, somebody argues in tax court that he doesn't have to pay income tax because of (insert guru's nonsense here) and gets prosecuted, not only for back taxes, but for the criminal offense of "willful failure to file".

Once in a blue moon, some tax protestor beats the rap on the criminal offense because he convinces the jury that he was truly, really, too stupid to realize he had to pay income tax, and gets acquitted because in the case of this specific offense, knowing that not paying was illegal is necessary for conviction. In 99% of the cases, however, the jury doesn't believe their story and convicts them anyway, and, needess to say, even if they are acquitted in the criminal trial, they still have to pay the tax (and interest and penalties) they didn't pay before.

So the success rate of all tax protestor arguments in civil trials is exactly 0%, and abour 1% or less in criminal trial. Nobody had ever managed to save a penny in taxes by making any tax protestor argument in court, and in most cases they only get hit by further penalties, interest, and court costs, not to mention possible jail time.

See www.quatloos.com and look for information about tax protestors (or the tax protestor forum) for more than you probably care to know about them.

fuelair

20th December 2006, 06:04 PM

So what is the answer?
What is the subject of the sales tax?

Also the subject of the sales tax is the same for all states - this does not change.

Like i have said before........anyone can cut and paste.
Understanding what they are cutting and pasting is another matter.

TROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLLTROLL TROLLTROLLTRO

ABANDON THREAD! ABANDON THREAD! ALL CREW AND LEGITIMATE PASSENGERS REPORT TO THE LIFEBOATS IMMEDIATELY!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!! REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 09:29 PM

Skeptic you are throwing all kinds of not-on-the subject discussions regarding the federal income tax which at the moment is irrelevant.
If I stated that people have won cases against the IRS using 1) court procedural issues 2) income tax issues, I will certainly have to provide that. I am more interested in why these people won. Unlike you who merely want to see who has won. I am more interested in examining the issue than a mere...........Oh! this person beat the IRS. This is the reason for the discussion.
Also I am not protesting any taxes whatsoever. I merely want to pay what is legally required of me, and not any more.
Please try to stay on topic.

davefoc

20th December 2006, 09:40 PM

Skeptic ...Please try to stay on topic.

And what is the topic? So far not one person in this thread knows what your point is except yourself. I thought skeptic did a pretty good job of drawing some reasonable inferences about the subject of the thread and making a response. Obviously not based on your response.

So maybe you could just describe in a non-cryptic way what your point is.

se7ensnakes

20th December 2006, 09:46 PM

Zep

20th December 2006, 10:04 PM

Mashuna

21st December 2006, 12:31 AM

You are omitting the burk of this forum and jumping to an unfounded conclusion.
Lets take this step by step.

Can you answer the question:
When you buy a television from Walmart and you pay a sales tax........what is the subject of the sales tax.

We simply cannot proceed until you show that you have rudimentary knowledge of tax terminology.

Well, this was a question to Brodski, but I'm in the same country, so I'll answer.

Walmart (or their subsidiary ASDA, over here) will charge 17.5% Value Added Tax (VAT) at point of sale. This is a tax that is charged and reclaimed through the supply chain, and taxes, well, the 'value added' improvements made through the product production stages. It also shifts the burden of collection to business, away from the government.

Is the 'income tax is illegal' theory purely a US one? I've not heard of a similar movement in the UK.

davefoc

21st December 2006, 12:36 AM

Is the 'income tax is illegal' theory purely a US one? I've not heard of a similar movement in the UK.

Maybe all of your would be "taxation is illegal" guys are tied up proving your crop circles are the result of alien messaging systems.

Mashuna

21st December 2006, 12:49 AM

Maybe all of your would be "taxation is illegal" guys are tied up proving your crop circles are the result of alien messaging systems.

Well, as long as the message they decipher isn't "don't pay any tax, it's all illegal", that should work out ok.

slingblade

21st December 2006, 01:34 AM

Is the 'income tax is illegal' theory purely a US one? I've not heard of a similar movement in the UK.

I don't know. I see it as maturity-related. Those who protest taxes in general strike me as selfish and short-sighted. Taxes are just another bill, but since the services we receive are somewhat invisible, those who haven't yet learned to see past their own noses also can't yet see what they're getting for their money. Like roads and clean water.

I am in favor of taxation being fair, and having just representation. No, I'm not a moron who thinks it's okay to just hand a government my money without insisting on accountability. And I think the government wastes a lot of money and it honks me off. But I'm still willing to pay my fair share. I like roads and clean water.

Loss Leader

21st December 2006, 01:35 AM

The subject of the sales tax is on the exchange of money for goods. It is a tax on the event. Such a tax is classified as an indirect tax.

A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=281&invol=497

I have read Tyler as carefully as a person may at 4:15 in the morning. The Supreme Court in that case classified the estate tax as applied to property held by spouses as joint tenants as an indirect tax. The Court found that this indirect tax was a proper exercise of authority by Congress. The decision meant that the three people involved in the suit did have to pay estate taxes on the property. I repeat: This Supreme Court decision upheld the estate tax as constitutional and the tax protestors lost. They had to pay the tax.

As to whether the estate tax is direct or indirect or whether such a distinction even matters, one might be properly cynical. The Supreme Court may well have worked backwards. First, the Court decided that it was going to uphold the tax. Then the Court found some legal reasoning on which to prop up its decision.

All in all, I can see no reason why Tyler would at all support any argument against the payment of any tax. Once again, in that case the people involved were required to pay.

(And this is assuming the reasoning in Tyler is still good law. The case being 76 years old, there is a good chance that the direct/indirect distinction on which the Court rests its opinion is not even given so much as lip-service anymore.)

Mashuna

21st December 2006, 02:12 AM

I don't know. I see it as maturity-related. Those who protest taxes in general strike me as selfish and short-sighted. Taxes are just another bill, but since the services we receive are somewhat invisible, those who haven't yet learned to see past their own noses also can't yet see what they're getting for their money. Like roads and clean water.

I am in favor of taxation being fair, and having just representation. No, I'm not a moron who thinks it's okay to just hand a government my money without insisting on accountability. And I think the government wastes a lot of money and it honks me off. But I'm still willing to pay my fair share. I like roads and clean water.

I wonder if things like the NHS also make people more accepting of paying tax. Sure, there'll be arguments over amounts, but not the concept

brodski

21st December 2006, 03:30 AM

I wonder if things like the NHS also make people more accepting of paying tax. Sure, there'll be arguments over amounts, but not the concept I think it has more to do with the very different political culture in the UK as opposed to the US. The importance of deference in the British political psyche (especially until the latter end of the 20th century) should not be underestimated. In the US OTOH the idea that a private citizen can challenge (and should) the legality of what the government does via the courts, has a strong history.
Until the UK started to join the various European institutions the idea that a law passed by parliament caudal be somehow "illegal" was a total nonsense, what was legal was whatever parliament said was legal, that political system is not a fertile ground for tax protestor arguments.

Mashuna

21st December 2006, 03:37 AM

I think it has more to do with the very different political culture in the UK as opposed to the US. The importance of deference in the British political psyche (especially until the latter end of the 20th century) should not be underestimated. In the US OTOH the idea that a private citizen can challenge (and should) the legality of what the government does via the courts, has a strong history.
Until the UK started to join the various European institutions the idea that a law passed by parliament caudal be somehow "illegal" was a total nonsense, what was legal was whatever parliament said was legal, that political system is not a fertile ground for tax protestor arguments.

So, to paraphrase your argument, you're saying that the US wouldn't have had all this trouble with tax protesters if they'd just stayed a colony?

Running off to hide now
:boxedin:

TriangleMan

21st December 2006, 03:39 AM

Is the 'income tax is illegal' theory purely a US one? I've not heard of a similar movement in the UK.
It exists a little bit in Canada as well but I can't remember their arguments over why income tax is "illegal" there.

brodski

21st December 2006, 03:57 AM

So, to paraphrase your argument, you're saying that the US wouldn't have had all this trouble with tax protesters if they'd just stayed a colony?

Running off to hide now
:boxedin:

Well, let's face it; the American Revolution was basically just a bunch of tax protestors who got organised. ;)

hiding with Mashuna
:boxedin:

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 05:23 AM

I will repeat what i have said before.
You are urging me to describe what i am talking about, and i am making the attempt to do so. But, seriously, how do you expect to understand what ia m saying if you dont have a good grasp of the terms used by the supreme court?
Can you explain that to me?

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 05:34 AM

Loss leader but the use of the indirect tax classification is there and redefined in the Tyler v. United States. Is it not? Do you acknowledge this?

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 06:56 AM

marksman

21st December 2006, 07:43 AM

Zep now that you clearly understand what is an indirect tax - on the federal level -can you tell me. according to the constitution, what is the specific guideline for the collection of an indirect tax?

There are two.

Section 9 of Article I states that "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."fn

This means that any direct tax that Congress directs must be proportion to the decennial census. However, this portion of the Constitution was amended by the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment, as I already quoted, authorizes the federal government to collect an income tax "from whatever source derived." This means the federal government can collect both direct and indirect taxes on income ("whatever source" necessarily including both the event of earning income as well as the tangible fruits of earning income). This creates an exception to Art I, Sec. 9. As of the Sixteenth Amendment, Congress can impose a direct tax (and could always impose an indirect tax) on income without it being proportional to the decennial census.

Now that we've gotten the relevant Constitutional provisions out of the way, perhaps you'd care to explain why any of this is relevant to your contention that the income tax is unenforceable and/or invalid.

fnWhen discussing Section 9, we also need to keep in mind section 8, which says that "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". Note that Congress has the power to lay taxes, without regard to whether they are direct or indirect. How does this square with section 9 that talks about direct taxes? Simple. Congress has the power to lay both direct and indirect taxes but, pursuant to section 9, direct taxes must be imposed proportionally according to the decennial census. As of the advent of the 16th amendment, this restriction does not apply to income taxes, whether they are to be considered direct or indirect.

davefoc

21st December 2006, 08:15 AM

drkitten

21st December 2006, 08:41 AM

I was wondering what the point of the sales tax questions was? These are controlled by states so what do possible constitutional constraints on taxes levied by the federal government have to do with state taxes?

I believe seven's "point" (using the word in its broadest sense) will eventually turn out to be that the sales tax is both morally better and more legally sound than the income tax. I doubt that he will ever be able to express himself as clearly as I have done in the sentence above.

Also, for the record, if he does manage to express himself in that way, he will be wrong on two of two evaluations.

drkitten

21st December 2006, 08:51 AM

A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=281&invol=497

The quotation is valid and properly attributed.

The interpretation you wish to put on it is entirely invalid.

The different between a "direct" and an "indirect" tax has little to do with whether what is taxed is an "event" or a "fruit," but on who pays the tax (whether the incidence of the tax can be shifted). See http://www.jstor.org/view/0017811x/ap040313/04a00080/0 for a full discussion of the issue.

Your legal "theory" is without basis, foundation, or merit.

Thanz

21st December 2006, 09:01 AM

Your legal "theory" is without basis, foundation, or merit.
While I certainly welcome and appreciate your participation in the thread, I don't see how you can even derive a legal theory from his postings.

Really, I see a lot of guesses about what se7ensnakes point might be, but I just don't see him making a point. Rather, he continues with some sort of psuedo-socratic BS about defining certain terms and vaguely insulting the intelligence of everyone else, but I don't see a point in there anywhere.

Se7ensnakes, if you have a point or an argument to make, just make it. IF there is then a disagreement about terms, we can address it. Contrary to your assertions, a lot of the people here are rather intelligent and can comprehend long arguments as long as there is a point to be made. Soi if you have a point, please make.

And then drkitten can explain where you went wrong.

marksman

21st December 2006, 09:12 AM

I was wondering what the point of the sales tax questions was? These are controlled by states so what do possible constitutional constraints on taxes levied by the federal government have to do with state taxes?

My guess is that se7ensnakes argument goes as follows:

There is a difference between indirect (taxable events) and direct (taxable fruits) taxes. (The sales tax is merely an illustration of this.)
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution states that the federal government cannot impose direct taxes, unless they affect everybody proprtionate to the census.
The federal income tax is a direct tax on the fruits of labor rather than on the event of being paid income.
The federal income tax does not tax people proportionate to the census.
Ergo, the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
There are many propositions that are wrong with this argument (if it is his argument). First among these is that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution created an exception to the restrictions on Congress imposing direct taxes.

drkitten

21st December 2006, 09:15 AM

My guess is that se7ensnakes argument goes as follows:

There is a difference between indirect (taxable events) and direct (taxable fruits) taxes. (The sales tax is merely an illustration of this.)
Article I, section 9 of the Constitution states that the federal government cannot impose direct taxes, unless they affect everybody proprtionate to the census.
The federal income tax is a direct tax on the fruits of labor rather than on the event of being paid income.
The federal income tax does not tax people proportionate to the census.
Ergo, the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
There are many propositions that are wrong with this argument (if it is his argument).

I think the fourth proposition is in fact correct. It's always sad when it's easier to enumerate the correct propositions than the incorrect ones.

wastepanel

21st December 2006, 09:30 AM

The subject of the sales tax is on the exchange of money for goods. It is a tax on the event. Such a tax is classified as an indirect tax.

A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=281&invol=497

I live in Ohio. In Ohio, certain rents and labor is subject to sales tax. If that is the case, than labor is the subject of sales tax in Ohio also. If that is the case, then the act of payment for labor can be argued as being taxable.

Your case law is quite right in the fact that it was established with that case that spouses don't have to pay estate tax on their deceased spouse's assets. Are you arguing the trust theory (All assets are placed into a living trust. The trust is taxed when you die based upon its value.)?

***QUICK NOTE*** I've worked as a tax accountant for 5 and a half years. We had one of these "tax deniers" schedule an appointment with us on April 14th. The appointment lasted 2 hours as the denier argued with my boss on every line of the tax form. When my boss was complete, this guy pulled out a Constitution and began arguing that we were "vitims and purveyors of idiots that think there is an legal income tax system".

We kicked him to the curb.

marksman

21st December 2006, 09:55 AM

I think the fourth proposition is in fact correct. It's always sad when it's easier to enumerate the correct propositions than the incorrect ones.
Given the 16th amendment made an analysis of whether the federal income tax is direct or indirect totally irrelevant, I'd be surprised if it had ever come up with respect to the currect federal income taxation scheme.

Loss Leader

21st December 2006, 10:10 AM

Loss leader but the use of the indirect tax classification is there and redefined in the Tyler v. United States. Is it not? Do you acknowledge this?

I acknowledge that in 1930, the Supreme Court stated that an estate tax on jointly held property was an indirect tax and was, thus, enforceable.

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 10:24 AM

brodski

21st December 2006, 10:37 AM

is the Federal Income tax a

1) Direct Tax
2) Indirect Tax
3) a new type of tax that is neither direct nor indirect

and when you do that........show me where the supreme court has approved what you say.

You seem to be under the misapprehension that something must be approved by the supreme court before it is constitutional, that is completely wrong. In order to be constitutional a thing much have NOT been REJECTED by the supreme court.
If you believe that federal income tax is unconstitutional, it is for YOU to convince the supreme court of your case, your side has had 93 years to do this, what's taking so long?

davefoc

21st December 2006, 10:40 AM

is the Federal Income tax a

1) Direct Tax
2) Indirect Tax
3) a new type of tax that is neither direct nor indirect

and when you do that........show me where the supreme court has approved what you say.

Please consider answering some questions or trying to make a point before you post again se7ensnakes.

Right now it has been stated several different ways that with regard to income tax the direct/indirect issue isn't relevant because of the sixteenth amendment. If you disagree, just state why.

Try a topic sentence something like this:

The sixteenth amendment does not allow the federal government to impose an income tax because ...

or some other sentence that actually attempts to convey your meaning. Right now after all this time nobody knows for sure what you're talking about and that appears to include you. drkitten seemed to have some insight, but you didn't confirm or deny her appraisal of the situation. Was she on the right track. Is there anybody that has posted so far that has come reasonably close to guessing your point? Do you have a point?

marksman

21st December 2006, 11:19 AM

It's a direct tax. Zenith Radio Corp. v. U. S. (http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/443/case.html), 437 U.S. 443, 98 S.Ct. 2441 (1978) (footnote 14) (describing "income taxes" as an example of "direct taxes")

Get to the point already.

is the Federal Income tax a

1) Direct Tax
2) Indirect Tax
3) a new type of tax that is neither direct nor indirect

and when you do that........show me where the supreme court has approved what you say.

Loss Leader

21st December 2006, 11:54 AM

is the Federal Income tax a

1) Direct Tax
2) Indirect Tax
3) a new type of tax that is neither direct nor indirect

and when you do that........show me where the supreme court has approved what you say.

Some types of taxes on income are direct and some are indirect. However, that distinction (and forty years of case law) no longer matter. So, the closest to the right answer would be #3, which I would change to read, "Sometimes direct and sometimes indirect but in no case making any difference which."

And here is where the Supreme Court approved what I said:

Mr. Justice Butler in Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. (1926):

It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived".

drkitten

21st December 2006, 12:43 PM

1) Direct Tax
2) Indirect Tax
3) a new type of tax that is neither direct nor indirect

I go for #4 -- not relevant.

and when you do that........show me where the supreme court has approved what you say.

Certainly.

"The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the 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. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803; see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussing the 1953 joint Congressional resolution that confirmed Ohio’s status as a state retroactive to 1803), and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

In November 2004, the Justice Department filed a civil injunction complaint against William Benson, asking the court to bar Mr. Benson from selling a fraudulent tax scheme and from unlawfully interfering with the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Benson’s tax scheme relies on the frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified. See http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv04752.htm; see also 2004 TNT 223-20 (Nov. 16, 2004).

The IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819, which discusses this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to pursue a claim on these grounds."

patchbunny

21st December 2006, 12:44 PM

It exists a little bit in Canada as well but I can't remember their arguments over why income tax is "illegal" there.
Because Ohio wasn't a province when the 16th Amendment was ratified.

Simple, really. :D

Skeptic

21st December 2006, 02:06 PM

By the way, it goes without saying that everybody who ever tried this "theory" in court lost. Perhaps it's all a huge conspiracy... or perhaps the 16th amendment actually means what it plainly says.

Zep

21st December 2006, 02:30 PM

Loss Leader

21st December 2006, 05:22 PM

Zep now that you clearly understand what is an indirect tax - on the federal level -can you tell me. according to the constitution, what is the specific guideline for the collection of an indirect tax? What is the one rule necessary to collect such a federal tax?
What particular article in the constitution deals with the indirect tax?
Remember....we are not talking about anything controversial here. I am simply talking about the portion of the sales tax which is federal.

I expect that you mean to point to Article 1, Sec. 8: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

As to the portion of the sales tax which is federal - well, it's close to zero. Except for a few taxes on certain items such as gasoline, the federal government is supported almost entirely by the income tax. Congress also has the power to impose tarriffs on foreign goods without any requirement of uniformity.

Now, the question that is left is what it means for a tax to be "uniform throughout the United States"? The answer is ... almost nothing.

This is Mr. Justice Powell's excellent treatment of the subject in a unanimous opinion in United States v. Ptasynski (1983) (cites mostly omitted):

The Uniformity Clause conditions Congress' power to impose indirect taxes. 9 It provides that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Art. I, 8, cl. 1. ... As Justice Story explained:

"[The purpose of the Clause] was to cut off all undue preferences of one State over another in the regulation of subjects affecting their common interests. Unless duties, imposts, and excises were uniform, the grossest and most oppressive inequalities, vitally affecting the pursuits and employments of the people of different States, might exist."

This general purpose, however, does not define the precise scope of the Clause. The one issue that has been raised repeatedly is whether the requirement of uniformity encompasses some notion of equality. It was settled fairly early that the Clause does not require Congress to devise a tax that falls equally or proportionately on each State. Rather, as the Court stated in the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S., at 594 , a "tax is uniform when it operates with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found."

Nor does the Clause prevent Congress from defining the subject of a tax by drawing distinctions between similar classes. ... Subsequent cases have confirmed that the Framers did not intend to restrict Congress' ability to define the class of objects to be taxed. They intended only that the tax apply wherever the classification is found. See Knowlton v. Moore, supra, at 106;

The question that remains, however, is whether the Uniformity Clause prohibits Congress from defining the class of objects to be taxed in geographic terms. ... The Court found that "[t]he uniformity provision does not deny Congress power to take into account differences that exist between different parts of the country, and to fashion legislation to resolve geographically isolated problems." The fact that the Act applied to a geographically defined class did not render it unconstitutional.
...

With these principles in mind, we now consider whether Congress' decision to treat Alaskan oil as a separate class of oil violates the Uniformity Clause. We do not think that the language of the Clause or this Court's decisions prohibit all geographically defined classifications. As construed in the Head Money Cases, the Uniformity Clause requires that an excise tax apply, at the same rate, in all portions of the United States where the subject of the tax is found. Where Congress defines the subject of a tax in nongeographic terms, the Uniformity Clause is satisfied. [empasis added] See Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S., at 106 . We cannot say that when Congress uses geographic terms to identify the same subject, the classification is invalidated. The Uniformity Clause gives Congress wide latitude in deciding what to tax and does not prohibit it from considering geographically isolated problems.

In layman's terms, the requirements for the imposition of an indirect federal tax are that Congress is able to give a non-geographic reason for the tax with a straight face after practice.

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 07:46 PM

I was afraid of this. You guys are quoting things you have no idea what you quoting.
dr kitty did you really read the BRUSHABER decision in its entirety?
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

1) please go back and read the Brushaber decision and complete the meaning of the decision. Dont take things out of context.

2) You keep beating a dead horse.......many times over i have said that the 16th amendment was constitutional and that it supported my opinion based on what the supreme court have said. You clearly did not read the brushaber decision but merely cut and paste from, i suspect, Wikipedia.
PLEASE GO BACK AND READ THE CASE and quote here exactly what it says in reference to the 16th Amendment because that is what i support.

3) Exactly what do you mean by this?
The interpretation you wish to put on it is entirely invalid.

4) Your link did not work.

5) Again.........go back to what has already been said. Dont make me keep repeating what i have already stated. You will see that i never said that the income tax was illegal..........I merely said that MOST people are not liable. Go back and read the very first post.

se7ensnakes

21st December 2006, 07:58 PM

Skeptic
I can only support that which the supreme court has stated about the 16th amendement. I dont make my own interpretation. I read what has been said. If you come up with some odd ball idea regarding the 16th amendement, I want to see some related supreme court decision.
You see those rules which you are stating about the 16th amendment has been in place, since the beginning of the country. So if you decide to come up with some odd ball decision, I want to see. If the supreme court states one thing this year and then states something entirely contrary the next year........so much the better ..............because there are court procedures to attend to.

jsfisher

21st December 2006, 08:04 PM

I was afraid of this. You guys are quoting things you have no idea what you quoting.
...[snip]...
please go back and read the Brushaber decision and complete the meaning of the decision. Dont take things out of context.
...[snip]...
You will see that i never said that the income tax was illegal
Here's a thought:

How about instead of demanding everyone else present your case, you simple do it yourself? Got something to say? Then just say it rather than badgering people because they haven't quite yet seen what you haven't said they should see.

Zep

21st December 2006, 08:19 PM

3+4 reptiles, here's some nice big goalposts you can practice moving.

http://www.ec-securehost.com/UCSInc/images/751-1120_sm.jpg
http://www.ec-securehost.com/UCSInc/images/751-1120_sm.jpg

Loss Leader

21st December 2006, 08:30 PM

1) please go back and read the Brushaber decision and complete the meaning of the decision. Dont take things out of context.

2) You keep beating a dead horse.......many times over i have said that the 16th amendment was constitutional and that it supported my opinion based on what the supreme court have said. You clearly did not read the brushaber decision but merely cut and paste from, i suspect, Wikipedia.
PLEASE GO BACK AND READ THE CASE and quote here exactly what it says in reference to the 16th Amendment because that is what i support.

I read this ninety year-old decision - one of the first to apply the 16th Amendment and to take on some of the claims of tax protestors. Mr. Chief Justice White states that the 16th Amendment has the effect of prohibiting any different treatment of income by virtue of the source of that income. The Court states that the question of direct or indirect tax or of the source of income is dead. The Court then goes on to state that the Amendment's effect of removing income from the category of indirect tax DOES NOT render it a direct tax. And, the Court continues, even if it did, a direct tax is allowed at least so long as it does not on its face discriminate geographically.

White was not the clearest writer in the world, but here are the quotes that support my statements above:

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.
...
[T]here 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.
...
[T]he 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 far as these numerous and minute, not to say in many respects hypercritical, contentions are based upon an assumed violation of the uniformity clause, their want of legal merit is at once apparent, since it is settled that that clause exacts only a geographical uniformity, and there is not a semblance of ground in any of the propositions for assuming that a violation of such uniformity is complained of.

Dr Adequate

22nd December 2006, 12:45 AM

Again.........go back to what has already been said. Dont make me keep repeating what i have already stated. You will see that i never said that the income tax was illegal..........I merely said that MOST people are not liable. Go back and read the very first post. But surely "MOST people" have an "income from whatever source derived" and so may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment.

To show that most people are in fact liable to pay tax, observe that most people have a "taxable income" as defined in U.S.C. Title 26 §63 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000063----000-.html) and that U.S.C. Title 26 §1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html) requires at least 15% of one's taxable income, if one has any.

Hence, most people are liable to pay tax.

Skeptic

22nd December 2006, 01:01 AM

Oh, so you're not a "direct/indirect" tax protestor, you're a "16th amendment changed nothing" tax protestor. Sorry, I misunderstood which worthless theory you believe in.

To quote the Tax Protestor FAQ again:

The 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax.

This statement is taken from language in the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions and, unlike most other tax protester nonsense, it is actually true. The problem is not that the statement is false, but that it doesn't mean what tax protesters think it means and it doesn't lead to the conclusion that tax protesters want to reach.

Tax protesters believe that, before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, a tax on incomes was unconstitutional and therefore outside the power of Congress. This is not correct because, as explained above, it was clear even before the 16th Amendment that Congress could tax wages and earnings from employment, as well as income from business operations. By incorrectly asserting that a tax on incomes was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and then asserting that the 16th Amendment gave Congress no new power to tax, tax protesters can conclude that a tax on incomes must be unconstitutional even after the adoption of the 16th Amendment, which is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous because it means that the 16th Amendment does not mean what it says. The amendment plainly states that "The Congress shall have the power to tax incomes" and tax protesters nevertheless try to claim that Congress does not have the power to tax incomes.

It is also ridiculous because it would mean that Congress proposed a constitutional amendment, and the states ratified a constitutional amendment, that changed nothing and has no meaning.

To understand the statement of the Supreme Court when it said that the 16th Amendment created "no new power," you have to understand the context in which it was made. One of the claims made by the taxpayer in the Brushaber case was that the 16th Amendment was "repugnant to the constitution" because it created a form of tax that was neither apportioned (as required for "direct" taxes by Article I, Section 9) nor uniform (as required for "excises" by Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). The court referred to the conclusion "that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes," as an "erroneous assumption."

"[T]he 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." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

This statement was confirmed and explained by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), in which the court stated that "by the previous ruling [in Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th 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 in the category of direct taxation...."

Therefore, the power to tax incomes without apportionment is not a new kind of power, but just a different classification of the "previous complete and plenary power of income taxation," taking it out of the category of direct taxation and placing it back in the category of indirect taxation "to which it inherently belonged."

(As noted above, some circuit courts refer to the income tax as a "direct non-apportioned tax" despite the explanations in the Brushaber and Stanton decisions. Regardless of the confusion in terminology, the courts are unanimous that the income tax is constitutional under the 16th Amendment.)

marksman

22nd December 2006, 06:20 AM

I was afraid of this. You guys are quoting things you have no idea what you quoting.
You asked a question and I answered it (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2195891&postcount=69). So what's the hang-up, se7ensnakes?

i never said that the income tax was illegal..........I merely said that MOST people are not liable.

On what basis are "most people... not liable" to pay "income tax"?

Here's what you wrote in "your first post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2168142#post2168142)" on the subject: "Where is the law that requires most people to pay an income tax."

And the answer is: 26 U.S.C. § 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html), which imposes an income tax on every single and married individual in the United States with an income over a certain minimum amount (which is set forth in the statute).

On what basis do you think "most people" are not subject to the federal income tax?

Loss Leader

22nd December 2006, 06:41 AM

I'm really getting tired of posting long, detailed and entirely on-point answers to Seven's own questions just to be ignored.

Bindamel

22nd December 2006, 06:57 AM

I'm really getting tired of posting long, detailed and entirely on-point answers to Seven's own questions just to be ignored.

If it helps, I'm sure many of us here appreciate the posts, as they are very educational, and helpful to us when we encounter people with these beliefs.

fuelair

22nd December 2006, 10:15 AM

If it helps, I'm sure many of us here appreciate the posts, as they are very educational, and helpful to us when we encounter people with these beliefs.

Helpful as in keeping you from falling prey to the idjits? Maybe (though hopefully no one here is that stupid). (Oops, one or two seem to be):D
Helpful in the sense of getting them to understand "Go directly to jail, Do not pass Go!"? Not on a bet. They fail to follow two points: 1)the courts will, if pressed, and if they act on their silly beliefs, have them jailed (and fined and they will still pay tax owed) and 2)even if they were real legal experts and really found a loophole, it wouldn't matter - they would be jailed and fined and still pay the tax owed.:) :) :) :jaw-dropp :eek: :eek: :eek:

Bindamel

22nd December 2006, 12:03 PM

I was thinking more of the middle of the road folks, who latch on to things that they should know are a little too good to be true. For every die hard woo on any subject, there are a fair number who can be turned away from the dark side with a little help.

At the last company I worked at, there was an engineer who used to buy into every forward he got from his buddies. After debunking a few of the sillier ones with him, he started thinking as critically about his emails as he did about his equipment designs.

[/derail off]

Architect

23rd December 2006, 11:03 AM

You know, I've read this thread all the way through and 7 has failed completely to make any point. Where the hell is this going?

It's not our job to guess whatever crackpot "nae tax" theory bampots come up with.

Mind you, I'm dying to know how you think that central government should raise cash for pesky things like defence and so on if you think that taxes are illegal.....

Loss Leader

23rd December 2006, 11:15 AM

You know, I've read this thread all the way through and 7 has failed completely to make any point. Where the hell is this going?

My personal theory is that his reasoning goes like this:
1. Most income is earned through a transaction, the same way one might buy a humidifier.
2. Taxes on transactions are indirect.
3. Indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the US.
4. Seven's personal reading of the 16th Amendment is that we are to ignore the fact that some income taxes are direct. However, the Amendment is silent as to taxes that are indirect.
5. Seven's personal reading of "uniform" taxation has nothing to do with reality.
6. Thus, those income taxes that are indirect - which are most - cannot be collected in the manner the government is so doing.

Of course, this is just a guess. He refuses to actually state his ideas. For that matter, he refuses to even respond to me when I answer his direct questions.

Architect

23rd December 2006, 01:19 PM

Yea, but what's his point?!

And if he doesn't agree with taxes, what alternative does he espouse?

Am I going to have to chalk it up as one of these whacky American things?

fuelair

23rd December 2006, 02:08 PM

I notice 7snakesnmuhbutt has not shown up recently to enlighten us poor taxation flunkies. Maybe he decided we deserved to be taxed "illegally" or maybe he has left to play by himself!

Loss Leader

23rd December 2006, 02:55 PM

I notice 7snakesnmuhbutt has not shown up recently to enlighten us poor taxation flunkies. Maybe he decided we deserved to be taxed "illegally" or maybe he has left to play by himself!

For the sake of being sociable, I'll just assume he's enjoying the Christmas weekend away from his computer. I like to think the best of poeple.

I feel bad for his family, though - brothers in law, aunts, cousins - all subjected to him ranting about 9/11 and the IMF and whatever.

Architect

24th December 2006, 06:29 AM

Maybe he's been nicked and is in the gaol?

davefoc

24th December 2006, 10:31 AM

Maybe he's been nicked and is in the gaol?

At the risk of a digression to discuss something important in this thread I couldn't help but notice Architect's spelling of jail.

G A O L has got to be one of the weirdest spellings going of any word in the English language. Most Americans have never heard of it. How common is it in the UK? Any thoughts about the origin of this spelling? To this uninformed American's eyes it looks Welsh.

Loss Leader

24th December 2006, 12:27 PM

At the risk of a digression to discuss something important in this thread I couldn't help but notice Architect's spelling of jail.

G A O L has got to be one of the weirdest spellings going of any word in the English language. Most Americans have never heard of it. How common is it in the UK? Any thoughts about the origin of this spelling? To this uninformed American's eyes it looks Welsh.

According to this infallible source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jail), the British seem to occassionally spell it "jail" but the so-called proper spelling in the UK is maintained to be "gaol."

If I had to guess, I would imagine that the divergent spellings came about as most people emigrating to North America were illiterate. As literacy increased during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, newspapers settled on spellings. Our American papers, cut off from the European continent, came up with an entirely different spelling based (one would assume) on the incursion of the "j" sound from the Spanish. But this is just a guess based on having once read "Mother Tongue" by, let's say, Bill Bryson.

brodski

24th December 2006, 12:38 PM

According to this infallible source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jail), the British seem to occassionally spell it "jail" but the so-called proper spelling in the UK is maintained to be "gaol."

Jail is gaining wider acceptance than gaol, and I suspect that gaol will disappear in the near future.

Architect

24th December 2006, 02:50 PM

Okay, just a mo:

Maybe he's been nicked and has been sent to prison?

Satisfied? :)

Loss Leader

24th December 2006, 03:33 PM

Okay, just a mo:

Maybe he's been nicked and has been sent to prison?

Satisfied? :)

Well, now we have to talk about that word "nicked." I mean, come on. You get American TV. Did anyone on Law and Order ever get "nicked"? Third Watch? CSI? I'm pretty sure they were arrested. Arrested, it's a real word.

Of course, if you and the Spice Girls want to keep saying "nicked" and "knackered" and "cheerio," the rest of us will be very, very happy to take Hugh Laurie and leave you to whatever that rage virus was that destroyed you people in 28 Days Later.

Mashuna

25th December 2006, 02:00 PM

Well, now we have to talk about that word "nicked." I mean, come on. You get American TV. Did anyone on Law and Order ever get "nicked"? Third Watch? CSI? I'm pretty sure they were arrested. Arrested, it's a real word.

Of course, if you and the Spice Girls want to keep saying "nicked" and "knackered" and "cheerio," the rest of us will be very, very happy to take Hugh Laurie and leave you to whatever that rage virus was that destroyed you people in 28 Days Later.

Look, if you're going to put 'cheerio' in the list, we get Hugh Laurie back. Haven't you seen him in Jeeves and Wooster?

Cheerio old bean!

eta

and Spice Girls? I knew they'd disappeared from here, I thought they'd split up. Have you got them ;)

UserGoogol

25th December 2006, 08:56 PM

Okay, how about this: You don't turn into zombies, we get Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry is kept by Britain, and all future collaborations between the two are filmed in Canada.

Mashuna

26th December 2006, 03:03 PM

Okay, how about this: You don't turn into zombies, we get Hugh Laurie, Stephen Fry is kept by Britain, and all future collaborations between the two are filmed in Canada.

That's a deal.

Although just in case we do all turn into zombies, we'll keep hold of Simon Pegg.

Dr Adequate

26th December 2006, 05:05 PM

Wait! Wait! What about the spelling of aluminum?

Mashuna

27th December 2006, 01:19 AM

Wait! Wait! What about the spelling of aluminum?

Now that's opened up a whole new can of worms. An aluminium can, too.

se7ensnakes

27th December 2006, 09:00 PM

Sorry ..........I was on vacation.
But reading thru i am looking at Skeptic's post.
Skeptic
That was a long post. But there are three important points about the Brushaber decision.
1) The Income tax is inherently a direct tax.
2) The reason why the 16th amendment is constitutional is because it treats the income tax as an indirect tax.
3) The 16th Amendment could not have created a new type of tax because that would mean that it would have to contradict the rule of
Apportionment as stated in U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 4. and U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3.
4) Congress have had the power to collect indirect taxes......since the beginning, say about 1779 when it was constested.
The Reason for apportionment is this:
Problem: How could the federal government collect property taxes equitably?
if you are Mr Silverstein, an owner of 20 acres in New York City,
and if you are Mr Smith, an owner of 2000 acres in big sky montana would it be considered equitable to collect taxes directly on the acreage? of course not. This is the reason for apportionment on direct taxes, rather it is based on a population count.

The Constitution states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [ . . . . ] The Constitution further states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.According to the Brushber decision........you cannot have an opposing contradictory rule.
if you read the Brushaber decision.......you can see that this is precisely what it states.
Please dont get confuse by the initial point of analyses.
Any disagrements?

Skeptic

28th December 2006, 12:49 AM

2) The reason why the 16th amendment is constitutional is because it treats the income tax as an indirect tax.

Er, no. The 16th amendment is constitutional because it is an amendment to the constitution. As such, it becomes part of the Constitution itself, and supersedes anything that the Constitution previously said. Constitutional amendments, of course, do not have to agree with what the Constitution previously said--that's why they are amendments.

Tax deniers go to ridiculous lengths to try and explain why, even after the Constitution was actually amended to allow a tax on income "from whatever source derived" and "without regard to enumeration", that just such an income tax as the amendment explicitly allowed is, somehow, still unconstitutional.

The tax deniers' "constitutional" arguments make no sense, and, it goes without saying, were rejected 100% of the times they were actually raised in court.

The 16th Amendment could not have created a new type of tax because that would mean that it would have to contradict the rule of
Apportionment as stated in U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 4. and U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

Actually, the 16th Amendment did not in fact violate these rules, but even if it did, so what? it would simply mean that the previous rules in the Constitution were superseded and are no longer in force because of the 16th amendment. That's what an amendment to the Constitution does.

You're arguing, in effect, that an amendment to the Constitution is (a) unconstitutional, and (b) doesn't mean what it plainly says.

marksman

28th December 2006, 06:55 AM

3) The 16th Amendment could not have created a new type of tax because that would mean that it would have to contradict the rule of Apportionment as stated in U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 4. and U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

Bzzt. Wrong.

Amendments to the Constitution supercede anything previously written in the Constitution.

For example, the Twelfth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html) necessarily superceded the provisions in Article II, Section 1 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1). If Amendments could not change what had been written before, there would be little point.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 06:56 AM

Er, no. The 16th amendment is constitutional because it is an amendment to the constitution. As such, it becomes part of the Constitution itself, and supersedes anything that the Constitution previously said. Constitutional amendments, of course, do not have to agree with what the Constitution previously said--that's why they are amendments.

This is a matter of practicality
A statement in the constitution cannot contradict another statement in the constitution.

"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."

If in fact the amendment was contradictory, there are many many arguments for anyone challenging the income tax. Therefore, skeptic, you are contradicting what Justice white stated, not necessary on the first part about the amendment being constitutional, which of course it is.......but about the coherency part.
Although justice White stated that in regards to the point being argued.
Contradictory statements will cause fury of senseless court arguments. This is not something that you can simply sit back, Skeptic, and state that you can have one part of the constitution contradict another part of the constitution. The court will be challenge by illogical loopholes.

The income tax in the 16th Amendement is clearly, according to the brushaber decision, an indirect tax. The coherency of the 16th Amendment is due to the fact that the income tax referenced is an indirect tax.

Once again...........the reason why the 16th Amendement does not contradict any other part of the constitution is because the referenced income tax is an indirect tax. The Income tax therefore does not need to follow the rule of apportionment merely that of uniformity.

"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"

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 07:01 AM

marksman
We are not talking about changing but about unchallenged contradictions..........

Skeptic

28th December 2006, 07:03 AM

This is a matter of practicality
A statement in the constitution cannot contradict another statement in the constitution.

Of course it can--when it is an amendment to the Constitution. That means that the older part of the Constitution, which it contradicts, is simply no longer in force and no longer considered part of the Constitution.

Example: the Constitition says senators are elected by their state's representatives. This is contradicted by the 17th amendment that says senators are to be elected directly. Does this mean the 17th amendment is "unconstitutional" or that the Constitution "contradicts itself"? Of course not; it just means that the Constitution changed: from now on, it is constitutional to elect senators directly, and not constitutional to have them chosen by the state representatives.

marksman

28th December 2006, 07:24 AM

marksman
We are not talking about changing but about unchallenged contradictions..........

The canon of statutory interpretation for when two pieces of legislation contradict one another is that the last in time supercedes the prior. It doesn't matter if the contradiction has been challenged or unchallenged. It doesn't matter if the supercession is express or necessary from the very language of the superceding amendment.

This is known as the "Last in Time" rule and has been the law since well before the passage of the 16th amendment. I refer you to Sutherland's Statutory Construction, which discusses this rule in some detail.

In short, the 16th amendment allows Congress to impose an income tax "from whatever source derived" and this necessarily supercedes Article I apportionment requirements for direct taxes.

Loss Leader

28th December 2006, 07:35 AM

Seven, your analysis of Brushaber is amazing. Your analysis of constitutional law in general is stunning in the extreme. Not one single thing that you wrote is true. Not one.

I can understand why you've been ignoring my posts. They clearly and coherently explain Brushaber and you are absolutely dead set against bringing any clarity to the topic.

So, let's go through them:

But there are three important points about the Brushaber decision.
1) The Income tax is inherently a direct tax.

Brushaber does not say this. In summarizing the arguments of the Plaintiff, Justice White mentions that the Plaintiff argues that the income tax is a direct tax but then dismisses that argument as nonsense. What the Brushaber opinion says is that the 16th Amendment prohibits anyone from arguing that the income tax is indirect while simultaniously NOT declaring the tax direct. The decision actually says the opposite of what you contend. Here are the words of the opinion:

[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is also wholly without foundation.

You can't get any clearer than that.

2) The reason why the 16th amendment is constitutional is because it treats the income tax as an indirect tax.

Wrong. Brushaber never delves into whether the 16th Amendment is constitutional. The Supreme Court has never decided the question of whether an Amendment to the Constitution can be unconstitutional; it has never even touched the question. Brushaber takes the 16th Amendment as a given as though it had been in the Constitution all along.

I cannot cite to a place in the decision where the Court states this because, as said, the Court never even considers the idea of debating the Amendment's constitutionality.

3) The 16th Amendment could not have created a new type of tax because that would mean that it would have to contradict the rule of
Apportionment as stated in U.S. Const., art. I, § 9, cl. 4. and U.S. Const., art. I, § 2, cl. 3.

The Court doesn't say this, either. What Justice White does say is that the Amendment did not create a new tax because Congress had the authority to impose a tax on income all along. It would be like passing a law that says the sun can be bright; the sun was being bright the whole time. These are the quotes:

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.

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.

4) Congress have had the power to collect indirect taxes......since the beginning, say about 1779 when it was constested.
The Reason for apportionment is this:
Problem: How could the federal government collect property taxes equitably?
if you are Mr Silverstein, an owner of 20 acres in New York City,
and if you are Mr Smith, an owner of 2000 acres in big sky montana would it be considered equitable to collect taxes directly on the acreage? of course not. This is the reason for apportionment on direct taxes, rather it is based on a population count.

The decision does give a history lesson (a boring, boring history lesson) but it does NOT give a civics lesson. If there is some reason for apportionment of indirect taxes, the Court does not give it. The Court does, however, state the reasoning of the Court in the Pollock decision. It does this only to conclude that Pollock was utterly unworkable and is, in any case, completely overturned.

The Constitution states:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers [ . . . . ] The Constitution further states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.According to the Brushber decision........you cannot have an opposing contradictory rule.
if you read the Brushaber decision.......you can see that this is precisely what it states.
Please dont get confuse by the initial point of analyses.
Any disagrements?

Well, I guess I disagree because everything you just wrote was gibberish. Whatever your point, it is most assuredly NOT what the Court stated in the Brushaber opinion. Brushaber stands for the proposition that income taxes may be collected from the citizens by the Federal government without apportionment, that this does not render them "direct" taxes, and that the collection of the tax does not violate the 5th Amendment.

Mike B.

28th December 2006, 07:51 AM

Of course it can--when it is an amendment to the Constitution. That means that the older part of the Constitution, which it contradicts, is simply no longer in force and no longer considered part of the Constitution.

Check and Mate...

Of course, this is the case.
Therefore Seven's arguments all fail on this one CRUCIAL point.

Loss Leader

28th December 2006, 07:56 AM

Seven, you continue your unbroken streak of wrongness.

A statement in the constitution cannot contradict another statement in the constitution.

Oh, they can and do. The 21st Amendment actually repeals the 18th Amendment.

"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."

You are quoting Brushaber but you do not understand what you have quoted. Here, Justice White explains that the Plaintiff's interpretation of the 16th Amendment would be ridiculous because it would invite an ambiguity not present in the Amendment's plain words. Justice White's phrase "the proposition and the contentions under it" means the Plaintiff's arguments about how to interpret the 16th Amendment.

Justice White goes on to apply the plain language of the Amendment. He refuses to classify income tax as direct and refuses to allow income tax to be apportioned as indirect.

If in fact the amendment was contradictory, there are many many arguments for anyone challenging the income tax. Therefore, skeptic, you are contradicting what Justice white stated, not necessary on the first part about the amendment being constitutional, which of course it is.......but about the coherency part.

No court has ever been troubled in the least by the coherence of the 16th Amendment. No court has ever refused to apply the Amendment because of any supposed contradiction. This goes equally for the Supreme Court in Brushaber, the court that you believe pointed out the contradiction in the first place. The Supreme Court applied the 16th amendment to all income without being troubled in the least by the very thing you say Justice White pointed out.

Although justice White stated that in regards to the point being argued. Contradictory statements will cause fury of senseless court arguments. This is not something that you can simply sit back, Skeptic, and state that you can have one part of the constitution contradict another part of the constitution. The court will be challenge by illogical loopholes.

Your "prediction" has had 90 years to come true. Not a single court in a single jurisdiction has been convinced that any such "illogical loophole" exists. And there has been no "fury" of senseless arguments, just a slow, steady trickle of tax protesters going to jail.

The income tax in the 16th Amendement is clearly, according to the brushaber decision, an indirect tax.

Not true. The Brushaber court declared that the direct/indirect question relating to income tax is dead.

The coherency of the 16th Amendment is due to the fact that the income tax referenced is an indirect tax.

Not true. The coherency of the 16th Amendment is due to its being an Amendment to the Constitution. The Court never interprets the Amendment, it just applies it.

Once again...........the reason why the 16th Amendement does not contradict any other part of the constitution is because the referenced income tax is an indirect tax.

False. The reason why the 16th Amendment does not contradict any other part of the Constitution is because it is an Amendment to the Constitution.

The Income tax therefore does not need to follow the rule of apportionment merely that of uniformity.

False. The income tax does not need to follow the rule of apportionment because the 16th Amendment says it does not. It also does not need to follow the rule of uniformity because not being an indirect tax does NOT make it a direct tax. The Brushaber court refuses to find that the income tax is a direct tax.

You actually admit this in your very next quote:

"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"

That's what the Brushaber decision says. The contention that the income tax is a direct tax is "wholly without foundation."

Geez. I really thought your tax argument would amount to more than this.

marksman

28th December 2006, 08:04 AM

Geez. I really thought your tax argument would amount to more than this.

Agreed. They just don't make income tax deniers like they used to.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 10:19 AM

skeptic that is a change.........not a contradiction

marksman

28th December 2006, 10:40 AM

So what? The Last in Time rule applies to contradictions as well as express changes. To the extend a document is contradicted by a subsequent amendment, the amendment is deemed controlling.'

You seem to think that when there is a contradiction, the older document controls. Please present your evidence for that.

TriangleMan

28th December 2006, 11:19 AM

As an aside, I found a webpage that debunks popular tax avoidance myths in Canada (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/newsroom/myths/menu-e.html). One of them uses the Magna Carta as a common law 'proof' to not pay income tax. Top that America -- our income tax deniers are more medieval than yours! :p

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 01:25 PM

Skeptic are you then stating that the 16th Amendment destroyed the two classifications of direct and indirect? Yes, No, Maybe? Perhaps you are stating that the income tax, according to the 16th amendment formed a new classification irrespective of the traditional two?
1) "Of course it can--when it is an amendment to the Constitution. That means that the older part of the Constitution, which it contradicts, is simply no longer in force and no longer considered part of the Constitution."

Noting the two passages:
A) "The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned."

B) ...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...

These two words are not one and the same
Repeal \Re*peal"\, n. [1913 Webster]
To recall, as a deed, will, law, or statute; to revoke; to rescind or abrogate by authority, as by act of the legislature; as, to repeal a law.

Contradict \Con`tra*dict"\, v. t.
To oppose in words; to gainsay; to deny, or assert the contrary of, something.

2) Loss Leader - Are you very sure and clear as to the Brushaber decision's classification of the Income tax as an indirect tax?

Noting the three passages below:
A) [T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is also wholly without foundation.

B) The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case....

c) 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....

Please be very clear as possible............ is the income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, a direct or indirect tax?

marksman

28th December 2006, 01:39 PM

These two words are not one and the same
No, but the last-in-Time Rule applies to both repeals and to contradictions.

If you have evidence that the Rule only applies to repeals, please let us see it. I've already given you the controlling treatise on statutory construction that says you're wrong.

The Income Tax is a direct tax.
But the 16th amendment eliminated the need for direct income taxes to be proportional.
Your argument is fatally flawed on that basis.

Spindrift

28th December 2006, 01:48 PM

Please be very clear as possible............ is the income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, a direct or indirect tax?

In short, the answer is NO.

If I understand Loss Leader correctly, Brushaber basically says that "indirect vs direct" is irrelevant with respect to the income tax.

It like asking if your apple is pink or orange. If I say it's not orange, that doesn't mean that it is pink.

Kiwiwriter

28th December 2006, 01:55 PM

Well, now we have to talk about that word "nicked." I mean, come on. You get American TV. Did anyone on Law and Order ever get "nicked"? Third Watch? CSI? I'm pretty sure they were arrested. Arrested, it's a real word.

Of course, if you and the Spice Girls want to keep saying "nicked" and "knackered" and "cheerio," the rest of us will be very, very happy to take Hugh Laurie and leave you to whatever that rage virus was that destroyed you people in 28 Days Later.

No, it works...the British Army used the term when they hauled off IRA suspects and Argentine POWs in the Falklands.

Being English on me mum's side and American on my dad's, I can understand both jokes.

At the Defense Information School, the broadcasting experts said my voice was a "mix of London and The Bronx."

To which I replied, "Well, look here, old bean, what the **** are youse talkin' about?" :D

Loss Leader

28th December 2006, 02:16 PM

Please be very clear as possible............ is the income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, a direct or indirect tax?

I cannot be more clear. I will restate this for about the fourth time. The Brushaber decision stands for the proposition that the question of whether the income tax is direct or indirect is dead. Pollock and its progeny are equally dead. The income tax is not direct and it is not indirect. The question is meaningless.

Now, I'm not at all sure why we're limiting ourselves to Brushaber. This was only the first of a line of decisions that held the same thing. Moreover, Justice White was a terrible writer. He is very hard to read. There are many clearer statements of law.

However, none of them will do what you want them to do, Seven. None of them will classify the income tax as either direct or indirect so that you can apply some pre-16th Amendment argument as to whether Congress may impose such a tax. The reason none of them will do that is that the entire purpose of the 16th Amendment was to completely end that very debate. The entire concept of attempting to classify income tax as direct or indirect - which Pollock and its progeny had been trying to do for thirty years - was the reason for the 16th Amendment. Its ratification killed the argument dead. You cannot revive it. Ever. It's gone.

Learn to deal.

Architect

28th December 2006, 02:43 PM

what the **** are youse talkin' about?"

That sounds mair Glesga tae me....sorry, I mean more Glasgow to me.......:)

Architect

28th December 2006, 02:44 PM

Yea, but what's his point?!

And if he doesn't agree with taxes, what alternative does he espouse?

Am I going to have to chalk it up as one of these whacky American things?

Hey 7, any chance you might illuminate me?

Dr Adequate

28th December 2006, 02:55 PM

... are you then stating that the 16th Amendment destroyed the two classifications of direct and indirect? That's the law, yes.

"... 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."

These two words are not one and the same
Repeal \Re*peal"\, n. [1913 Webster]
To recall, as a deed, will, law, or statute; to revoke; to rescind or abrogate by authority, as by act of the legislature; as, to repeal a law.

Contradict \Con`tra*dict"\, v. t.
To oppose in words; to gainsay; to deny, or assert the contrary of, something. And the word amend is different from both.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 05:22 PM

Dr Adequate
thats a point of analyses.........please dont quote it

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 05:35 PM

No loss leader.............
I am reading one thing and you are saying another.
Additionally you are quoting the contention.

where in this sentence does the decision states that both of the classifications have been destroyed in regards to the income tax?

A) [T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is also wholly without foundation.

B) The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case....

c) 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....

here let me re-read this for you:
...recognized the fact that the taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such.......

okay so this looks very straight forward to me.........it is saying that the income tax was in its nature an excise ......

Please dont quote the synopsis of the contention.

lets see
let me re-read this
the contention that it treats the tax as a direct tax is wholly without foundation.

according to skeptic.......justice White did not really say that
but he did.........but skeptic says he did not..........but i am reading it and it says he did.
or is.........
black is white and white is black
but in my world white is white and black is black.

an income tax being called a direct tax is wholly without foundation
but for some reason skeptic does not think that what he is reading is what he is reading.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 05:44 PM

you left out IS WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION!

Read the whole thing...
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...........
justice white proceeds to explain why

But you are arguing this .......skeptic, lost leader, and you are arguing the very same thing that justice white called WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
Did he not say that?

direct tax ........relieved from apportionment..........destroying the two great classification is wholly without foundation.
Yep that is what it says..........that this amendment did not destroy the two great classes and to think otherwise is wholly wihout foundation.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 05:53 PM

This matter is not even an argument!
So you say that there are contradictions within the constitution........not a rule that has been repeal but a contradiction.
Okay.......have you ever heard of the supreme court holding an argument and state that they cannot come to a conclusion because of contradictions...........I think not.

Mashuna

28th December 2006, 06:02 PM

Please be very clear as possible............ is the income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, a direct or indirect tax?

Loss Leader has been entirely clear.

The outcome, in the vernacular, is;

PWNED

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 06:26 PM

mashuna
what is clear is that loss leader statement regarding the destruction of the two classifications is WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
dont twist words around.........
WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION
keep that as your mantra

jsfisher

28th December 2006, 06:48 PM

Yep that is what it says..........that this amendment did not destroy the two great classes and to think otherwise is wholly wihout foundation.
Your reading comprehension is not quite up to the intricacies of the passage.

It is the contention -- taken in its entirety -- that is deemed "wholly without foundation", not just a specific part of your choosing.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 07:42 PM

which part am i omitting?

jsfisher

28th December 2006, 08:03 PM

which part am i omitting?
Well, let's see. In the following, the contention is marked in italics.

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....

The bold italic part seems to have been skipped over in your statement. That would be most of the contention, by the way.

se7ensnakes

28th December 2006, 08:44 PM

jsfisher
That has been quoted about 3 times already..........
and yes i agree with all of it.......as it reads.
-treating a tax on income as a direct tax is wholly without foundation.
-if the income tax was not subject to apportionment and was a direct tax.
and.....
-destroying the two great classifications (as loss leader believes)
ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

jsfisher

28th December 2006, 09:02 PM

and yes i agree with all of it.......as it reads.
Were that true, you would not insist on restating it differently. I suspect it is less a matter of limits to your reading comprehension, though, and more a matter of intellectual dishonesty.

DevilsAdvocate

28th December 2006, 11:51 PM

"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"

What a poorly written sentence! The subject is "contention". It is "the contention" that "is…wholly without foundation". Specifically, it is "the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax" that is "without foundation".

The rest is filler. He's saying that the Amendment does not treat a tax on income as a direct tax, even though it might look like it does. The income tax might look like a direct tax because the rule of uniformity only applies to taxes that are not direct, and the income tax is not subject to the rule of uniformity because it is relieved from apportionment. Therefore, it appears that the income tax must be a direct tax. He is saying this is an incorrect inference. That incorrect inference being:

The tax on income is relieved from apportionment.
Taxes relieved from apportionment not subject to the rule of uniformity.
The rule of uniformity only applies to taxes that are not direct.

Therefore:

The tax on income is not subject to the rule of uniformity.
Because the rule of uniformity only applies to taxes that are not direct, the tax on income must not be a tax that is not direct and, therefore, is a direct tax.

The error of inference that he is trying to point out is that just because the rule of uniformity ONLY applies to taxes that are NOT direct, does not mean that all other taxes to which the rule of uniformity does NOT apply are necessarily direct. He goes on to say that to accept such an erroneous inference would destroy “the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning”. He is saying that this is not what is happening at all.

The error in logic is that if a tax is not “not direct” then it must be “direct”. This is not the case. The income tax is neither direct nor not direct. So the contention that a tax on income is direct, which you might erroneously contend because the tax is not “not direct” (with such erroneous contention destroying the two great classifications), is wholly without foundation.

The importance of this quote is that an income tax should not be presumed to be a direct tax, because it isn’t. The Amendment does not treat it as either a direct or not-direct tax. Therefore, you should not assume that the definition of the income tax in any way modifies or influences the definition of any other taxes that are classified as direct or not direct.

It is like he is saying that we used to have certain types of trashcans that we could only use outdoors, and certain types that we could only used indoors. Now, one type of trashcans that could only be used outdoors can now be used indoors. But just because it now shares some properties with indoor trashcans, you can’t call it an indoor trashcan or redefine indoor trashcans because of it or say that there is no longer any such thing as an indoor or outdoor trashcan. There are still indoor trashcans and outdoor trashcans, and we aren’t creating a new type of trashcan—we are just taking an existing type of trashcan and removing the indoor/outdoor property from it. :)

Architect

29th December 2006, 05:32 AM

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 06:04 AM

What a poorly written sentence!

<lots of good stuff>

There are still indoor trashcans and outdoor trashcans, and we aren’t creating a new type of trashcan—we are just taking an existing type of trashcan and removing the indoor/outdoor property from it. :)

Great post! I agree with every word. I adopt it as my own as though it were fully set forth herein. Thanks, DA!

marksman

29th December 2006, 06:31 AM

Okay.......have you ever heard of the supreme court holding an argument and state that they cannot come to a conclusion because of contradictions...........I think not.

Of course not, because the Last-in-Time rule resolves all contradictions in favor of the later enacted document. Yet, you seem to think that the reverse is true.

There is no legal distinction between amendments that repeal prior enacted sections of the Constitution and amendments that contradict prior enacted sections of the Constitution. Both are resolved by ruling the later-enacted portions to control.

The Sixtreenth Amendment amended Article I of the Constitution to allow income taxes that are not proportional. That was the point of enacting the Sixteenth Amendment.

Rob Lister

29th December 2006, 06:43 AM

Great post! I agree with every word. I adopt it as my own as though it were fully set forth herein. Thanks, DA!

ditto

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 06:44 AM

Seven, it is not my fault that you refuse to correctly read the Brushaber decision. It may be Justice White's fault, but it is certainly not mine.

No loss leader.............
I am reading one thing and you are saying another.
Additionally you are quoting the contention.

where in this sentence does the decision states that both of the classifications have been destroyed in regards to the income tax?

Where in that sentence? Don't know and don't care. Here's the place in the opinion that says that Pollack and its progeny (which purported to define income tax as direct/indirect/excise and everything else under the sun) are dead:

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 ....

[T]he contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax ... is also wholly without foundation.

Also true. Your post here is really unclear. I don't know what you mean to say.

B) [/COLOR] The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case....

Dead wrong. The Amendment killed the Pollock case. As Justice White said, "the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away ... with the Pollock case." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

c) 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....

Blah, blah, blah. Pollock and all of its reasoning died the moment the 16th Amendment was passed. So says Justice White in Brushaber, so say we all.

here let me re-read this for you:
...recognized the fact that the taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such.......

okay so this looks very straight forward to me.........it is saying that the income tax was in its nature an excise ......

Yes, that's what Pollock said. And the entire reasoning of Pollock is on the slab, toe tagged, next of kin called, obituary printed.

Please dont quote the synopsis of the contention.

You got it. I'll rely on this instead: "the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away ... with the Pollock case"

lets see
let me re-read this

Take your time.

the contention that it treats the tax as a direct tax is wholly without foundation.

True.

according to skeptic.......justice White did not really say that
but he did

Don't worry about that. The whole direct/indirect thing is way too confusing for anybody to keep track of. That's one of the reasons the 16th Amendment, Brushaber and 90 years of court cases have been working steadily to render the entire direct/indirect classification utterly meaningless. And it's been working. The last case to take on uniformity utterly dismantled that concept.

Just let this plain, simple fact about tax law wash over you: the government can tax anything it wants any way it wants any time it wants.

Leave the very few exceptions to that statement to the experts.

drkitten

29th December 2006, 08:01 AM

This is a matter of practicality
A statement in the constitution cannot contradict another statement in the constitution.

Er, yes, it can, and in the case of an amendement, it must. That's the whole point of a constitutional amendment; that it contradicts and supercedes another statement.

E.g. :

"Amendment XXI Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. " The twenty-first amendement directly contradicts the eighteenth.

The general legal principle is that later amendments supercede earlier text.

se7ensnakes

29th December 2006, 04:48 PM

Loss Leader.............
Dead wrong. The Amendment killed the Pollock case. As Justice White said, "the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away ... with the Pollock case." It doesn't get any clearer than that.

Dead wrong? dead wrong? You are saying that justice white is wrong?

I quote directly from the decision:
"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case...."

Marksman.........wrong yet again.
you stated:
The Sixteenth Amendment amended Article I of the Constitution to allow income taxes that are not proportional. That was the point of enacting the Sixteenth Amendment.

the sixteenth amendment did not do that........it is article 1 section 8 that did. in justice's own words:
I quote.....
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......

I State:
You see where it says that these are the two great classes of classification which have been enforced from the beginning?
that means that.....
the income tax is an indirect tax ........justice white stated that ........... if the income tax is an indirect tax then it does not need to meet the requirements of apportionment because that is only requirement of a direct tax NOT OF AN INDIRECT TAX!
secondly an indirect tax must be uniform .........if you contend that the tax is direct then it must follow the rule of apportionment and not of uniformity. The contention is of course that the income tax is in its own classification......a direct tax without the need for apportioment and since it is not indirect it does not need to follow the rule of uniformity. This is what skeptic believes......that the 16th amendment created a new type of tax.......a direct tax that does not need to be apportioned and since it is a direct tax it does not need to follow the rule of uniformity ( which it clearly does)......but this Justice White has clearly called WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION.

Still having doubts?

if you read on justice white comes right out and calls the income tax an indirect tax.
Quote:
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....

You see where justice white calls the income tax an indirect tax?
Can you read that?
Is he really saying that or do you just seeing things and not able to read it?

I am going to narrow it to make you sure you can read it......there is nothing complicated about ......
recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such.

if you come back to me again and state that:
1) the income tax, according to the Brushaber decision is a direct tax without apportionment or 2)that it is in an entirely diferent classification.........I am going to re-state this very sentence. It is very clear........so read it slowly before you answer the post
I am waiting for you to twist justice white's words that income tax is an indirect tax.

Okay i am going off to a mini-vacation
see you later

Architect

29th December 2006, 05:07 PM

Seven,

Regardless of the detail, where are you going with this?

Are you claiming that you shouldn't have to pay any taxes, under any circumstances, in which case how do you think government should be funded?

Se7en: Any chance you might answer this long-standing, polite question I keep reposting?

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 05:31 PM

if the income tax is an indirect tax then it does not need to meet the requirements of apportionment because that is only requirement of a direct tax NOT OF AN INDIRECT TAX!
secondly an indirect tax must be uniform

I'll get to some of your other inane contentions later. However, let us dispose of this one. Even if you are right that the income tax must be applied uniformly, the concept of uniformity means almost nothing. In one decision I've already quoted, the Supreme Court stated that a tax is uniform if it does not discriminate against a geographic region on its face. And that is true even if it discriminates against a geographic region in practice.

However, your entire reading of Brushaber is wrong and it does not say this.

I see why you demand that we focus on Brushaber, though. It is remarkably poorly written. Following White's prose is like reading a copy of Moby Dick held by someone else in the mirrored reflection of a subway car window. In White's tortured phrasology, you have found plenty of ambiguity in which to hide your pet theories.

It doesn't make you any less wrong.

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 05:47 PM

I quote directly from the decision:
"The Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case...."

Yeah, I knew you were wrong. You earlier accused someone of only quoting part of a sentence and failing to quote the rest which put it in context. You have done exacty the same thing. The entire original sentence reveals just how wrong you are:

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

First of all, I'd like to point out that this entire quote is ONE SENTENCE.

Here's the part you think you're quoting: "the Amendment contains nothing repudiating or challengine the rulling in the Pollock case"

But that is NOT what this sentence says. White is talking about the definition of direct taxes encompassing property taxes. He states that the Amendment is not "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." White is only talking about the part of Pollock that defines direct taxes.

White goes on in the same sentence to reitterate the fact that, when it comes to income tax, Pollock is dead. Later in the sentence, he states that the Amendment did nothing to challenge Pollock s holding "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 essence, White has said, "The Amendment didn't overturn the reasoning of Pollock, it just overturned the logical result."

The main thrust of Brushaber is undisturbed: Pollock is dead and nobody is allowed to speculate as to whether income tax is direct, indirect, excise, apportioned, uniform or anything else.

I mean, can we get away from Brushaber? I've read clearer english on fortune cookies.

marksman

29th December 2006, 06:07 PM

I can't tell if you are intentionally lying or are just an astoundingly bad reader.

Loss Leader.............
Marksman.........wrong yet again.
you stated:
The Sixteenth Amendment amended Article I of the Constitution to allow income taxes that are not proportional. That was the point of enacting the Sixteenth Amendment.

the sixteenth amendment did not do that........it is article 1 section 8 that did. in justice's own words:
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]I quote.....
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......

Man, you don't know how to read a sentence in context, do you? Let's take a look at the entire paragraph, shall we.

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. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment.

Most significantly, you use ellipses to cut out the most crucial part of the sentence you quoted: "...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"

Even you cannot be so blind as to deny what the words so clearly mean.

jsfisher

29th December 2006, 06:38 PM

I can't tell if you are intentionally lying or are just an astoundingly bad reader....Man, you don't know how to read a sentence in context, do you?
I think I know. "Intellectually dishonest" is one way to describe it; "troll" is another.

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 06:46 PM

I think I know. "Intellectually dishonest" is one way to describe it; "troll" is another.

Well, I don't think he's quite a troll. He hasn't really been offensive. And he didn't even start this thread.

I think it's more accurate to say that he started from his conclusion and built up a fairly dense web of nonsense to support it. If he were to start from honest inquiry and work towards a conclusion, he'd be better informed but probably not any happier.

jsfisher

29th December 2006, 07:09 PM

The "troll" part was mostly based on the attitude expressed at the start. If I recall correctly, he accused everyone of being unworthy of debate with him on the income tax issue. That initial ridicule followed by his "entrance exam" questions struck me has trollish -- stirring the pot to create heat while casting no light.

69dodge

29th December 2006, 08:29 PM

Well, this is rather odd, I must say.

I'm not a lawyer, and I believe Loss Leader and marksman are (?), but I've read the entire Brushaber opinion very carefully, and it seems quite clear to me that Justice White does not mean to say, as Loss Leader asserts, that "nobody is allowed to speculate as to whether income tax is direct, indirect, excise, apportioned, uniform or anything else". Quite the opposite. Direct taxes are subject to apportionment while indirect taxes are subject to uniformity, and White considers it very important that one or the other limitation apply to every tax.

My summary of his position: Any income tax is pretty obviously an indirect tax. The Pollock case uses a bit of funny reasoning to consider some incomes taxes as direct taxes instead. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is to get rid of that type of reasoning and to put all income taxes back in the category of indirect taxes where they belong.

Loss Leader

29th December 2006, 09:34 PM

Well, this is rather odd, I must say.

I'm not a lawyer, and I believe Loss Leader and markman are (?), but I've read the entire Brushaber opinion very carefully, and it seems quite clear to me that Justice White does not mean to say, as Loss Leader asserts, that "nobody is allowed to speculate as to whether income tax is direct, indirect, excise, apportioned, uniform or anything else". Quite the opposite. Direct taxes are subject to apportionment while indirect taxes are subject to uniformity, and White considers it very important that one or the other limitation apply to every tax.

My summary of his position: Any income tax is pretty obviously an indirect tax. The Pollock case uses a bit of funny reasoning to consider some incomes taxes as direct taxes instead. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is to get rid of that type of reasoning and to put all income taxes back in the category of indirect taxes where they belong.

Well, you're pretty much right. You're a heck of a lot more right than Seven, anyway. Brushaber says that income taxes are indirect and people should stop trying to argue that any part of them are direct. But it then goes further and says that whatever the hell income taxes are, Congress can levy them without apportionment, uniformity or any other thing. The effect is to kill the direct/indirect question as far as income taxes are concerned.

So, my analysis of the opinion is from its bottom line. Your analysis is from its reasoning. The end point that we both reach is the same: income taxes are not subject to apportionment or uniformity and people had better just learn to deal with it.

As I haven't mentioned in this thread that I'm a lawyer, thank you for noticing legal skill in my writing.

Loss Leader

4th January 2007, 07:34 PM

Sorry to see this thread has died. As a lawyer, it is always fascinating to me to learn how lay people view the law and the courts. I would have liked to hear more of Seven's thoughts and, of course, to have gotten answers to the many outstanding posts that received no response. Thanks to all who participated.

Architect

6th January 2007, 09:09 AM

I'm wondering if Se7en's failure to respond is in some way a tacit (hell, subconscious?) admission of defeat on his part........

Incidentally, I don't know how it works in American courts but long before now a Scottish judge would have stopped proceedings and said something like "Where are you going with this?"

Loss Leader

6th January 2007, 12:11 PM

Incidentally, I don't know how it works in American courts but long before now a Scottish judge would have stopped proceedings and said something like "Where are you going with this?"

It depends on the judge but, generally, if you have a non-lawyer proceding pro se and they appear to be a little bit nutty, a good judge will be very polite, kind and even indulgent. The person should feel that the court has heard and understood him. He should leave feeling like a proud participant in the system. Now, some judges will not have the patience and will eventually cut the person off. And, if Seven were a lawyer, he would not have been allowed to go on for a tenth the length he did.

For an interesting view of this, follow Christophera's links about his run-ins with the courts. The transcripts he has posted show a very patient - even over-indulgent court - in the beginning. By his fourth or fifth lawsuit, he's basically worn out his welcome.

Mashuna

6th January 2007, 01:10 PM

Architect

6th January 2007, 02:07 PM

Now that's what you call a vexatious litigant!

Architect

6th January 2007, 02:09 PM

It depends on the judge but, generally, if you have a non-lawyer proceding pro se and they appear to be a little bit nutty, a good judge will be very polite, kind and even indulgent. The person should feel that the court has heard and understood him. He should leave feeling like a proud participant in the system. Now, some judges will not have the patience and will eventually cut the person off. And, if Seven were a lawyer, he would not have been allowed to go on for a tenth the length he did.

Actually you have a good point there.

Here, lay people are given additional leeway because (a) the system must appear absolutely fair and so take account of their inexperience, and (b) to make sure they don't just go straight for an appeal.

To be honest, it's a real pain in the beam end at Public Inquiries (which I do a bit of) because they can tie you up in the witness box for hours with questions which - regardless of the answer - would get them nowhere.

But in my experience, there always comes a point when the judge calls them up and says "ahem....."

Architect

6th January 2007, 02:13 PM

Come to think of it, Chris' other thread is puzzling me.

As far as I can tell, he's claiming that the certificate was ultra viries because it indicated that notice has been served - he's taking this to mean already delivered, rather than posted.

That's not how it works in Scots Law; issuing the notice by a means guaranteed to reach the recipient is sufficient. However even if there was a dispute, in considering the notice (in a civil case) the Sheriff (yea, that's what we call our lower judges) would consider whether the matter had in any way compromised the plaintiff's rights and the underlying thrust of the legislation.

Which it hadn't in Chris' case, obviously.

Weird.

skeptifem

6th January 2007, 03:58 PM

*yawn* what a horrible thread. seriously. this is worse (argument wise) than the 'realistice explanation of towers' in CT, at least christophrenia said what he meant.

Loss Leader

6th January 2007, 05:10 PM

Come to think of it, Chris' other thread is puzzling me.

As far as I can tell, he's claiming that the certificate was ultra viries because it indicated that notice has been served - he's taking this to mean already delivered, rather than posted.

Not exactly. He's not claiming that the Court lacked jurisdiction because of the way the notice was handled. He's claiming that the way the notice was handled proved the psychiatrist was guilty of perjury. In his black-and-white mind, the fact that the doctor perjured himself on this matter means that every word the doctor says should be considered likely to be a lie and the court should have found against him in Christopher's nderlying suit. Since that's not what happened, the court MUST have been conspiring with the shrink to do ... something. Chris has never clearly stated what the exact NWO plan is.

That's not how it works in Scots Law; issuing the notice by a means guaranteed to reach the recipient is sufficient. However even if there was a dispute, in considering the notice (in a civil case) the Sheriff (yea, that's what we call our lower judges) would consider whether the matter had in any way compromised the plaintiff's rights and the underlying thrust of the legislation.

And everywhere. If a procedural breach caused no prejudice to the other side's rights, very few judges would bother punishing anybody for it.