Taxation, Please Explain

[fmooy]

I tried asking this in another thead but didn't get much of a response. I realize thread hijacking is bad form so I thought I'd start my own. Here it is:

So the topic of taxation seems to come up frequently on this board and the discussions always leaves me a bit confused. Clearly there are more than a few here who feel that the income tax is unconstitutional but I can never understand the rationale. I am no great fan of the income tax and I am willing to entertain the idea that it could be unconstitutional if I heard an argument that makes sense, but the 16th amendment seems pretty straight forward (its only 30 words long):

"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."

If someone has a clear and straightforward argument as to why congress doesn't "have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" although the Constitution says exactly that, I'd love to hear it. As I said before, I am open to a reasonable argument but please don't respond with any of those bogus "I don't know what a dollar is" or some other clearly non-colorable claim.

Thanks,

[2BFree]

I tried asking this in another thead but didn't get much of a response. I realize thread hijacking is bad form so I thought I'd start my own. Here it is:

So the topic of taxation seems to come up frequently on this board and the discussions always leaves me a bit confused. Clearly there are more than a few here who feel that the income tax is unconstitutional but I can never understand the rationale. I am no great fan of the income tax and I am willing to entertain the idea that it could be unconstitutional if I heard an argument that makes sense, but the 16th amendment seems pretty straight forward (its only 30 words long):

"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."

If someone has a clear and straightforward argument as to why congress doesn't "have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" although the Constitution says exactly that, I'd love to hear it. As I said before, I am open to a reasonable argument but please don't respond with any of those bogus "I don't know what a dollar is" or some other clearly non-colorable claim.

Thanks,

Try this on for size and see if it answers any of your questions about the 16th Amendment.

What Did The 16th Amendment Do?

The 16th Amendment was an attempt to overturn, by Constitutional Amendment, the supposed tax limitations placed on the national government by the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 US 429 (1895). [While we see the 16th Amendment as being wholly unnecessary as a response to the Pollock decision, that discussion would require an entire separate article.]

Here is what the 16th Amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's it! That's the entire text of the Amendment that has caused so much confusion and trouble.

Historically, Americans of yesteryear were aware that a direct tax was upon their person, or their real property (including slaves), or their exercise of other fundamental rights. They were also aware that a tax on the fruits of one's property (such as receiving payment from renting a piece of real property) was also a direct tax unless those earnings where in the course of a privileged activity, and then they were subject to an excise tax.

In Pollock, the US Supreme Court stated that a tax upon earnings derived from one's existing property (real or personal) must be considered a direct tax subject to the rule of apportionment. This gave rise to concern in banking and government circles because they felt (and we agree) that corporations are something that is legislated into existence by the government and therefore the fruits therefrom is properly subject to an excise tax.

In other words, the Pollock decision made no distinction between a man earning rent from his private property, and a man earning a return on his investment in a corporation. The former must properly be considered a direct tax, while the latter should rightly be considered an excise. The rent from a man's private property is his "private affairs", and thus outside government's authority to lay any tax except a direct tax subject to apportionment.

However, profit or gain (to a shareholder) from a corporate enterprise should properly be income subject to taxation as an excise taxable activity - after all, there would be no opportunity for said profit if the state hadn't granted the corporation into existence.

We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution's tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished.

The US Supreme Court has ruled on the meaning of the 16th Amendment many times. However, because each case has had different particulars, it is sometimes difficult to understand the decisions in a cohesive fashion or to give all the cases one settled meaning. Fortunately, we don't need to spend a lot of time reconciling all the various particulars of each case because the Court has been very clear as to the definition of "income" as used in the 16th Amendment. Since the Amendment only grants Congress the power to "to lay and collect taxes on incomes", that definition is rather critical.

Let's look at what the various courts have said about "income" and the 16th Amendment:

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575

The last part of that quote is crucial to a proper understanding of the impact 16th Amendment, and indeed the entire tax structure of the federal government. It is essential that you understand that only "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936)

From these two decisions alone, we can pinpoint some very crucial information.

* All property (which includes income) other than "16th Amendment income" can only be taxed if the tax is constitutionally apportioned.

* "16th Amendment income" can be taxed without apportionment.

* Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income".

* A Citizen's property (which includes ordinary income) cannot be taxed as an excise.

Do you feel like we're narrowing in on the meat of the issue? Good, because we are!

Now that we know the points indicated above, what we really need to know is what is "16th Amendment income". Once we know that, we should be getting a pretty good handle on what is Constitutionally taxable and under what rules! Interestingly, in order to find the meaning of the word "income", as used within 16th Amendment, we must first explore the meaning of the word "income" as it is used within the 1909 Corporate Tax Act.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)

As an indirect (excise) tax, the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 was not a tax upon property, but was a tax upon the privilege [enjoyed by the shareholders] of doing business in the corporate form, and the tax to be paid for exercising that privilege was determined by how much profit each shareholder took from the corporation.

So why is the 1909 Corporate Tax Act so important?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court".
Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

By this decision, the Court stated that it would accept only one definition of "income" [under the 16th Amendment] and that any tax law that Congress wanted to pass under the authority of the 16th Amendment would have to use just that one definition of "income" - and that definition was the one Congress used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act! In short, the Court was telling Congress that since the 16th Amendment was a part of the Constitution [the non-ratification issue had not yet been raised] its meaning must be fixed and permanent, and since Congress could not be trusted to stick to one single definition, the Court was giving Congress one single definition with which to work if it wished its income tax acts to pass Constitutional scrutiny by the Court.

So now that we know the "form" of the tax being laid in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, and we know that its definition must be used in every income tax act Congress might create, what has the Court said about the definition of "income" in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act?

"[Income is] derived--from--capital--the--gain--derived--from--capitol, etc. Here we have the essential matter--not gain accruing to capitol, not growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value...severed from capitol however invested or employed and coming in, being "derived", that is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit and disposal--that is the income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description...". [emphasis in original]
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

O.K...so now we know the "form" of the 16th Amendment income tax, the fact that all 16th Amendment income taxes must use the same definition of "income", and we have the formula for determining what "16th Amendment income" is. The only thing we're really missing at this point is specifically what activity is taxable under the 16th Amendment!

"Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities."
Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)

In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:

"...I therefore recommend an amendmentimposing on all corporationsan excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity"
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:

* They honestly felt that the Pollock decision could be a threat to taxing corporate investment profits and so they moved to overturn the Pollock decision's holding that a tax upon the gains from existing property was a direct tax.
* They did not think Pollock was a threat, but it made a convenient excuse to attempt to undermine the constitutional rule of apportionment on direct taxes, which many greedy politicians found terribly restrictive to their goal of robbing the American people through taxation.
* They felt that shareholder's profits from state-charted corporations could not be reached by the federal government for tax purposes without the Amendment.

Because item #3 is the least well recognized, we'll take moment to explain that theory (items #1 & 2 needing no explanation).

The vast majority of corporations that existed (then as now) were corporations chartered by the legislatures of the states of the Union. While the federal government had the power to lay excise taxes, such power was limited to certain subjects that were traditionally and historically within the purview of the federal government for excise purposes. There was no historical, traditional, or constitutional basis for the United States to assume it had the power to lay an excise tax on Citizens of the states of the Union who were enjoying a privilege which was sought solely from their state governments. The 1909 Corporate Tax Act had authority over corporations created by Congress, corporations created in a federal possession or territory, and corporations operating in interstate commerce, but not plain old state-charted corporations generally. Under this theory, the 16th Amendment was necessary only to bring the profits of state-charted corporations within the Constitutional reach of the federal government.

How Does The Corporate Tax Act and the 16th Tie Together?

"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)

Immediately at the end of that passage from Merchant, the very first citation provided by the Court is, Doyle. And how did the Doyle court define "income"?

"...gain or increase arising from corporate activities."

We wonder how much more clear the Court has to be before people will understand that "16th Amendment income" is only related to the privilege of profiting from investing in corporations.

Let's take this a bit further and explore this statement from a US Supreme Court decision:

"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)

While a "cash dividend" represents profit to the shareholder, and is thus "income" under the 16th Amendment, a "stock dividend" is not profit that been "severed from capital" as is required to meet the definition of income under the 16th Amendment (ibid, Eisner). The Eisner quote featured above clearly illustrates that the apportionment clause of the Constitution is alive and well and has not been repealed or substantially altered by the 16th Amendment.

Let's take a moment to evaluate where we are:

* The Constitutional question we really need to be asking is whether a particular tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. What label that tax wears, such as "income tax", has basically become irrelevant due to misapplication of the phrase for the last 90 years.
* In historical terms, an income tax (pre-16th Amendment) was always considered to be a tax that was direct.
* In historical terms, and in the words of the US Supreme Court, the 1909 Corporate Tax Act was not an "income tax" [direct tax].
* The 1909 Corporate Tax Act was an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business in the corporate form. This is confirmed by both Congress and the US Supreme Court.
* Profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") is not that which the tax is laid upon, but merely a "yardstick" by which is computed the amount of tax that is due in exchange for exercising the privilege. In other words, profit from corporate business ("16th Amendment income") determines the value of the privilege, and thus the amount of tax to be paid.
* The US Supreme Court has said that the definition of "income", as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, must be used by Congress for all its (16th Amendment) income tax acts.
* The US Supreme Court has stated that the definition of income used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is what the American people had in mind when they adopted the 16th Amendment.
* The definition of "income" as used in the 1909 Corporate Tax Act is the exact same definition that the US Supreme Court has said must be used when applying the 16th Amendment.

[fmooy]

Thanks for the response 2BFree,

Where did that case analysis come from? Its an interesting argument but it flies in the face of the ordinary cannons of Constitutional construction. Normally, I believe the rule is that a word should be given its ordinary meaning unless the adoption record indicates a clear intent that the word have some other, special meaning. The author of the above argument seems to concede that the intended meaning of the word "income" is at least unclear:

We may never know whether the framers of the 16th Amendment had a legitimate concern about Pollock being used to challenge the 1909 Corporate Tax Act, or whether it simply provided a convenient excuse to try and alter the Constitution's tax regulation (i.e. apportionment for direct taxes). Fortunately, it matters not what their intentions may have been; it only matters what was actually accomplished.

In such a case, "income" should be given its ordinary meaning, which to me would be anything that comes in, i.e. any payment (I believe the Supreme Court in Glenshaw Glass defined it as "any accession to wealth from whatever source derived, clearly realized and available to the the taxpayer." (or something close to that)).

Further, it is also a cannon of construction that each word or phrase be interpreted so that each word or phrase is operative. I.e. so that no word or phrase is redundant, without meaning, or required to have a forced or irregular meaning. In this case, if "income" is given the meaning proposed by the above argument, the phrase "from whatever source derived" doesn't make sense. That is, if the framers of the amendment intended "income" to have the narrow definition proposed above, the phrase "from whatever source derived" would at least be redundant and more realistically would require an unnatural definition.

Lastly, the cannon's of construction also suggest that where it can be shown that the drafters were aware of a potential ambiguity and of language that would limit the possible interpretations, their choice not to use such language should indicate their decision that that language not control. (Ok I admit that that was not very clear ). The point is that the framers of the amendment were certainly aware of the controversy over what "income" was taxable. They were equally capable of stating specifically that the "income" to which the amendment refers was only corporate income, or capital gains income, etc. However, that isn't what they said. Thus, the cannons of construction would suggest that these cannot be the definitions they intended.

All of this isn't to say that I like the income tax, I don't. If I heard an argument against it that I thought was colorable enough to withstand summary judgment I'd bring the case myself. But any such argument would have to at least pass the above three hurdles. Admittedly I haven't read the cases cited in your argument so maybe there is something in there that would answer what I've said here. I'll read them tonight and see what shakes out. In the meantime, I'd love to hear other views or comments on my post.

Thanks,

[2BFree]

This is a quote from a guy named Dave Champion. Here's a link to the whole piece for your reference.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

Apparently you've made up your mind already without reading all the quote I posted. You seem quite knowledgeable as to the law and the "cannon of construction" issue. If you had read just a little further in the quote I posted you would have found that Dave does address the "income" definition quite thoroughly. But of course you really don't want to know this information and you're just trolling for any one out here who might have an opposing view to your existing stance for any nefarious reasons that I can only guess what they might be. After reading your initial post and then your response to my post your inquiry seems very suspicious and a bit disingenuous so I won't be participating in this discussion any further. Good luck.

[Noah]

For the latest case on the 16th amendment and the definition of income check out Murphy vs IRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._IRS

You can access the decisions from the site. Dave Champion's definition of income is totally destroyed by this case in my opinion.

I do not believe you will find a credible argument that the taxes imposed upon income is unconstitutional. To avoid taxation I believe it must be done by legal means without disagreement or perversion with any law or regulation currently on the books.

[2BFree]

For the latest case on the 16th amendment and the definition of income check out Murphy vs IRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._IRS

You can access the decisions from the site. Dave Champion's definition of income is totally destroyed by this case in my opinion.

I do not believe you will find a credible argument that the taxes imposed upon income is unconstitutional. To avoid taxation I believe it must be done by legal means without disagreement or perversion with any law or regulation currently on the books.

This case is very interesting and I appreciate your providing the link. As I see it, this case is specific to Murphy and her award for compensatory and emotional damages which this appellate court ruled was initially was not to be included as gross income then they overturned their own ruling saying that it should be included as gross income and eligible for the income tax as possible taxable income. What was interesting to me is that they determined that the income tax to be imposed on the award to be an "indirect tax" or excise tax rather than a "direct" tax.

that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 9, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 8, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States;

Thus making the tax imposed on such an award to be an indirect or "privilege" tax and can be avoided if desired. I really don't see by the decision of this appellate court 1) how this applies to all of us when appellate or lesser court decisions don't apply across the board to all citizens only USSC decisions do that, and 2) how this specific decision on an award for damages has any bearing on my personal compensation/wages/remuneration for work provided where there is no "gain" or "profit" only compensation for my time/property. The one thing it does help me see is that this court understands what the income tax is which is very reassuring and that it is an "indirect" tax which is also synonymous with a "privilege" tax and can be avoided if one does not want to participate in the "privilege".

Now as to your assertion that I have said that the taxes on income are unconstitutional, I have never said that the income tax is unconstitutional and I don't know why you keep saying that I have. The code is very clear and specific (which it has to be by law) as to who is liable for the tax, what type of income is taxable and from what SOURCE the income is required to be derived from to be considered taxable. There can be no ambiguity or assumptions on these matters. If you do a search in section A or C for the word "liable" or "liability" you will find that there is only one place the law applies liability and it happens to be the "withholding agent". There is no where in the code that specifies that citizens' wages/compensation/personal income to be liable for the tax.

[Noah]

For the latest case on the 16th amendment and the definition of income check out Murphy vs IRS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy_v._IRS

You can access the decisions from the site. Dave Champion's definition of income is totally destroyed by this case in my opinion.

I do not believe you will find a credible argument that the taxes imposed upon income is unconstitutional. To avoid taxation I believe it must be done by legal means without disagreement or perversion with any law or regulation currently on the books.

This case is very interesting and I appreciate your providing the link. As I see it, this case is specific to Murphy and her award for compensatory and emotional damages which this appellate court ruled was initially was not to be included as gross income then they overturned their own ruling saying that it should be included as gross income and eligible for the income tax as possible taxable income. What was interesting to me is that they determined that the income tax to be imposed on the award to be an "indirect tax" or excise tax rather than a "direct" tax.

that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the recovery is restoration of "human capital," and therefore the tax does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 9, that capitations or other direct taxes must be laid among the states only in proportion to the population; (4) that the income tax imposed on an award for non-physical injuries does not violate the constitutional requirement of Article I, section 8, that all duties, imposts and excises be uniform throughout the United States;

Thus making the tax imposed on such an award to be an indirect or "privilege" tax and can be avoided if desired. I really don't see by the decision of this appellate court 1) how this applies to all of us when appellate or lesser court decisions don't apply across the board to all citizens only USSC decisions do that, and 2) how this specific decision on an award for damages has any bearing on my personal compensation/wages/remuneration for work provided where there is no "gain" or "profit" only compensation for my time/property. The one thing it does help me see is that this court understands what the income tax is which is very reassuring and that it is an "indirect" tax which is also synonymous with a "privilege" tax and can be avoided if one does not want to participate in the "privilege".

Now as to your assertion that I have said that the taxes on income are unconstitutional, I have never said that the income tax is unconstitutional and I don't know why you keep saying that I have. The code is very clear and specific (which it has to be by law) as to who is liable for the tax, what type of income is taxable and from what SOURCE the income is required to be derived from to be considered taxable. There can be no ambiguity or assumptions on these matters. If you do a search in section A or C for the word "liable" or "liability" you will find that there is only one place the law applies liability and it happens to be the "withholding agent". There is no where in the code that specifies that citizens' wages/compensation/personal income to be liable for the tax.

2BFree, The post I made was for Fmooy not you. There is nothing in my post here on this thread that was about you or was meant for you. Sorry if I confused you.

[fmooy]

This is a quote from a guy named Dave Champion. Here's a link to the whole piece for your reference.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/consttax.php

Apparently you've made up your mind already without reading all the quote I posted. You seem quite knowledgeable as to the law and the "cannon of construction" issue. If you had read just a little further in the quote I posted you would have found that Dave does address the "income" definition quite thoroughly. But of course you really don't want to know this information and you're just trolling for any one out here who might have an opposing view to your existing stance for any nefarious reasons that I can only guess what they might be. After reading your initial post and then your response to my post your inquiry seems very suspicious and a bit disingenuous so I won't be participating in this discussion any further. Good luck.

2BFree, I did read your post in its entirety. I even read the cases. You apparently didn't read mine or you would have gathered that my point was that the cannons of construction simply don't permit such a convoluted definition of the word income. I am an attorney, I know some things about the cannons but I know very little about tax law (Only what I remember from my 1 law school class). Since I've followed this site for some time and it appears that some here have thought about this question quite a bit I thought I'd ask. My request was genuine but I wasn't impressed with your response, thanks anyway.

Noah, your response was much more helpful. I haven't had a chance to look at the case you cited but I will. I wouldn't be so quick to say that there is no argument against the income tax however. What would be helpful would be to know more about the actual adoption debate. Overall I found that Dave Champion piece to be a real hatchet job since he badly misstates the holding in more that a few of those cases he cited but there is one thing he alludes to that could potentially be teased out. It is this part:

In June of 1909 President Taft made a speech before Congress. After commenting on the Pollock decision, he stated:

"...I therefore recommend an amendment imposing on all corporations an excise tax measured by 2% in the net income of such corporations. This is an excise on the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity"
Congressional Record, June 16, 1909, Pg. 3344

Two months later Congress drafted the Corporate Tax Act of 1909.

So, if Congress could pass a tax bill laying a tax on the profits of corporations prior to the 16th Amendment, why was the 16th Amendment needed? We may never know what the true intention of the framers of the 16th Amendment were, but there are three prevailing opinions:

Dave apparently doesn't realize the the significance of what he has here because he doesn't develop this tidbit to its potential. Taft proposed both the corporate tax and the amendment at the same time and both in response to the Pollock decision. It follows, then, that Taft believed the amendment necessary to accomplish enactment of the tax. This is at least some evidence that the framers intended a specialized meaning to attach to the word "income." That alone is probably not enough to get around the usual application of the cannons but it might survive summary judgement . One thing that might strengthen the argument would be if the congressional record relating to passage of the 1909 tax act indicates whether congress felt the constitutionality of the tax was in any way dependent upon adoption of the co-proposed amendment. Dave speculates that passage of the tax was constitutional without the 16th amendment. I can't say if that is right or not and in a sense it misses the point. Its not important whether it was or wasn't only what congress thought about it. If they believed that the act required the passage of the 16th amendment to make it valid (i.e. they were banking that the amendment would be adopted before any legal challenge to the act had a chance to wind its way through the courts) then that is VERY strong evidence that the framers intended the word "income" in the amendment to refer corporate income.

I may just pop on down to the library of congress and look up the record of that floor debate and see what shakes out. This is the very type of case I would just LOVE to bring assuming I had an argument that wasn't going to get booted pre-trial.

[Noah]

Fmooy,
As a suggestion you may want to research Murphy first as that case may clear up the definition of income. The 1909 tax was repealed. It was my guess that the tax was only valid as against corporations registered in Washington D.C. and or its territories as a priviledge tax. The priviledge granted by a State could not legally be taxed by the Federal Government.

[fmooy]

Fmooy,
As a suggestion you may want to research Murphy first as that case may clear up the definition of income. The 1909 tax was repealed. It was my guess that the tax was only valid as against corporations registered in Washington D.C. and or its territories as a priviledge tax. The priviledge granted by a State could not legally be taxed by the Federal Government.

Absolutely. I'll read it tonight.

Thanks

[2BFree]

2BFree, The post I made was for Fmooy not you. There is nothing in my post here on this thread that was about you or was meant for you. Sorry if I confused you.

Well excuuuuuuuse me...I'll just go play somewhere else since it seems my views don't hold water with you lawyerly types.

[fmooy]

2BFree, The post I made was for Fmooy not you. There is nothing in my post here on this thread that was about you or was meant for you. Sorry if I confused you.

Well excuuuuuuuse me...I'll just go play somewhere else since it seems my views don't hold water with you lawyerly types.

2BFree, I don't think that Noah was trying to offend you. I certainly wasn't and if I did I hope you'll be able to look past it. You apparently don't value my input either, which is perfectly fine. In my line of work there really is no such thing as a good or bad argument only arguments that are or are not likely to convince the judge, so that's how I tend to approach these matters. Anyway, best wishes.

[2BFree]

No problem. It's great that a liberty minded attorney such as yourself is seriously looking at this issue. If there is anything that I can provide in my own layman's way I will try. Did you read my thoughts on the Apellate Court desicion of Murphy that Noah posted? He feels it is the last word as to the definition of income but I would appreciate any feedback from your point of view as an attorney.

[fmooy]

2BFree, I did read your comments but I haven't had time to read the Murphy case yet so I can't really make an intelligent statement one way or the other. I'd like to discuss it when I've had a chance to read the case though.

Thanks,

[ConDef]

2BFree, The post I made was for Fmooy not you. There is nothing in my post here on this thread that was about you or was meant for you. Sorry if I confused you.

Well excuuuuuuuse me...I'll just go play somewhere else since it seems my views don't hold water with you lawyerly types.

There is no reason to be so rude. They were merely addressing the fact that the comments were not for you. You seem to be searching for offense so you can jump down everyone's throat.

[2BFree]

2BFree, The post I made was for Fmooy not you. There is nothing in my post here on this thread that was about you or was meant for you. Sorry if I confused you.

Well excuuuuuuuse me...I'll just go play somewhere else since it seems my views don't hold water with you lawyerly types.

There is no reason to be so rude. They were merely addressing the fact that the comments were not for you. You seem to be searching for offense so you can jump down everyone's throat.

I guess I need to work a little bit on my sourcasm. Sorry about that. I will try to be more civil and indicate my intent better.

[MolonL]

Dave Champion has his definitive book (see email below) on income tax coming out soon. It should answer the matter once and for all (except for dishonest or biased persons). I for one have bought several copies and plan on reading and studying it in depth. People who have no experience with the tax honesty position (test readers) have reported that they had no trouble understanding the crystal clear material and conclusions in the book. I hope it becomes a turning point for truth in this area as the government has been maliciously applying tax law to people and circumstances which cannot be constitutionally supported.

-M. L.
______________________________________________________________

From: Dave Champion ([email protected])
Sent: Fri 3/12/10 5:01 PM

Friends, Clients, and Supporters,

I am pleased to announce that Income Tax: Shattering The Myths is now available for advance sales!

Income Tax: Shattering The Myths is the most comprehensive book ever written concerning the true limited nature of the U.S. income tax. Not only does Income Tax: Shattering The Myths give you rock-solid proof - right form the government's own mouth - that the income tax does not apply to most Americans, but it tells you how to stop participating in a tax system that has nothing to do with you, as well as how - and why - to stop forcing it upon your fellow Americans!

With your help this book can change America and begin the process of restoring our property rights! I encourage you to forward this message to anyone and everyone you know. Income Tax: Shattering The Myths will forever change the way they see the U.S. government. Do your part to end "the largest financial crime in the history of the world."

The book should be available for delivery in roughly 5 weeks. If you would like to be the first to receive a copy, now is the time to buy! Additionally, I will autograph every copy that is purchased during this advance sales period!

We've not set up any bank/merchant accounts yet, so for the next several weeks these advanced sales will be "cash only." The book is $89.00 and $11.00 shipping, making the total $100.00. To make an advance purchase of the book, place $100.00 in an envelope along with your name (or the name of the person the book is to go to), and the shipping address. Your payment can be in the form of either "green folding money" or a money order with the payee field left blank. At this time we are NOT accepting personal checks.

Mail your payment to:

Dave Champion
150 S Hwy 160, Unit C-8/232
Pahrump, NV 89048

Once your payment has been received you will be placed on the list to receive the very first books that come in the door!

I know you will be amazed by what you discover in Income Tax: Shattering The Myths.

Thank you for all your support!

Dave Champion

[Noah]

Fmooy, Have you had a chance to look at Murpy vs IRS yet? Income is one of the question which Murphy deals with in depth.

Correct understanding of the three incomes ( gross income, taxable income and income ) is a critical starting point to understanding our system of taxation. I agree with Murphy as I understand it.

[Wiikwajio]

It is 100% legal for the government to have an INTERNAL revenue tax on its federal personnel.

When you claim you have a Social Security Number, (something only a federal officer can legally have) you are involved in a government retirement program and are Federal personnel by law.

Federal personnel owe the income tax. No 16th AMendment was ever needed.

The is nothing unconstitutional about giving the government a gift voluntarily.

The income tax is an INTERNAL revenue tax. It is also 100% voluntary.

The 16th Amendment, although never properly ratified, did not give Congress any new taxing powers according the the USSC.

Income taxes are voluntary. A temple Recommend holding Senator explains that for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

I stopped volunteering 32 years ago. But you all have your agency and if you choose to be a voluntary slave that is your eternal choice.

[Noah]

Here is the latest on Dave Champion:

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/Febr ... x-170.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[iamse7en]

The only contribution I would make, is to say I agree with Joel Skousen and other libertarians that the only just tax that can be used to fund the enumerated powers of the federal government is a head tax. Research it on LRC, FFF, Mises, etc.

[fegunz]

Regardless of what the Constitution says taxation is incompatible with "the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2) and thus is in conflict with doctrine of the Church.

[iamse7en]

Regardless of what the Constitution says taxation is incompatible with "the right and control of property" (D&C 134:2) and thus is in conflict with doctrine of the Church.

Unless it were a voluntary tax, like a head tax. We see eye to eye on this one. It's too bad the statist media and politicians have influenced the LDS so much that they don't understand this principle anymore. Most LDS, in my estimation, would disagree with us - and they praise the imperial warfare state. I know I used too...

I know I've posted this before, but it's perfect for this thread:

[Noah]

..... Unless it were a voluntary tax, like a head tax.....

IMHO the phrase "voluntary tax" is a contradiction of terms. There is no such animal.

[iamse7en]

It is, somewhat of a contradiction. But, a head tax, capitation tax, or poll tax - is a fixed amount that a person can freely choose to pay if he wishes to vote and have a say in who will be in charge for those specific and enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. People who choose not to vote need not pay it, which was a mainstream view in the 19th century. In that sense, it is voluntary.