NGC6205
|
Please don't fall for tax protestor rhetoric. There hasn't been a single tax protestor who has successfully won a case saying they didn't have to pay taxes. Sure, there are a few who have beaten criminal charges about income taxes, but saying that the law on income taxes doesn't exist because someone was acquitted of willful failure to file is akin to saying there isn't a law against murder because O.J. was acquitted.
BTW, the first income tax wasn't ruled unconstitutional. The first income tax was enacted in 1861 and Congress let it lapse in 1872. Also, Congress ALWAYS had the power to levy an income tax because in a Constitutional sense, income taxes are INDIRECT and therefore not subject to apportionment as I will fully explain.
The Supreme Court decision that called the constitutionality of income taxes into question was Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895). These two decisions didn't rule on income taxes in general. The first ruled on income from rental property and the second ruled on income from personal property (dividends, interest, etc.). Anyway, even the court questioned whether they were getting the Constitutional intent correct. Here is a quote from 157 U.S. 429 opinion.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized.
[END QUOTE]
Don't believe me? Look it up for yourself at http://www.findlaw.com
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=157&page=429
Because of the Pollock decision and a few other minor reasons, Congress proposed, passed and the state ratified the 16th amendment to the Constitution.
"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."
Tax protestors like to quote Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) where the court said the 16th amendment gave Congress "no new power to tax", but they take the quote COMPLETELY out of context. Here is a more complete quote from the court's opinion.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"...the previous ruling 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 [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation..."
[END QUOTE]
Again, look it up for yourself. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=240&page=103
That makes it pretty clear that Congress can levy an income tax without apportionment and always had that power. For those that claim the 16th amendment was never legally ratified, they are wrong. Bill Benson, the author of "The Law that Never Was" is wrong. He says he 'researched' his findings for over a year. It took me all of five minutes to find that he had misinterpreted the Tennessee Constitution as it was in 1909. Further debunking of Bill Benson can be found at http://www.quatloos.com/bill_benson_debunked.htm
In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
[BEGIN QUOTE]
"Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted...Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."
[END QUOTE]
Even IF it wasn't properly ratified, the 16th amendment is now a part of the Constitution and to remove it would take an act of Congress and ratification by the states.
Finally, I'll end with a reference to the excellent tax protestor faq written by Dan Evans. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
and one other site where you can get some excellent information. http://www.quatloos.com
Good luck,
Edit: To would-be tax protestors, go ahead and not file your returns, or file frivolous returns and don't pay income tax. While it does cost every honest tax payer extra taxes, I'm sure you don't care about anybody but yourself. However, I am certain that the IRS will get around to you eventually and a judge will tell you exactly how wrong you are.
BTW, the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that income taxes don't apply to labor and wages. You have probably seen an OUT-OF-CONTEXT quote from a tax protestor website. If you don't want to be called a tax protestor, then LEARN THE LAW and don't fall for misinterpretations put forth by people like Bob Schulz.
In Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930). (A Supreme Court decision)
“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
In Cheek v. U.S., 498 U.S. 192 (1991). (Another Supreme Court decision)
"It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be."
In United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).
“Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.” |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
