I have often wondered what they would do if people started refusing to pay taxes en masse. Even if just 5% of Americans did so, what are they going to do throw 15 million people in jail?
Cites Federal Statute - "applicable to the case, defines the income of 'a taxable person' as including 'gains, profits, and income derived from ... sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property ... or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.'
"As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Irwin Schiff is currently serving 12 years in jail. He won't make it through his sentence because of his age. While I do agree with a lot of the premises of Mr. Schiff, it's difficult to fight, essentially, a full scale military (local police, state police, IRS, F.B.I.,....and the list goes on).
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
I went to Schiff's site, read his arguments and I don't think the man is insane. To go to prison for violating a law, there must be a law to violate. So where is the law stating that income tax is 1) relating to personal wages gained through services rendered and 2) taxable through personal earnings when the law 1) states that income taxes relate to corporate profits and 2) there is no law allowing the IRS the ability to recover 'undisclosed' earnings if there is no law to tax personal income?
@megadethmonk There was no law to violate. There's no section of the code that says anyone is required to pay the tax. It's not until you file a tax confession (a return), that you become liable. What Schiff was convicted of was being attacking the money. Government gets very upset when you try to take "their" money away.
Judges would get his briefs. The government would not reply. And the judge would rule for the government. He never had a chance. Game was rigged.
"Defendant-Appellant Irwin Schiff is a tax protester who was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government for the purpose of impeding and impairing the Internal Revenue Service, assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, tax evasion, and filing false income tax returns."
United States v. Irwin A. Schiff, No. 2:04-CR-00119-1
@RetSquid That is a load of legal mumbo jumbo. It's typical of appeals courts in these kinds of cases. They don't actually address the issues; they cite other case law.
@RetSquid Wow, where'd you get your law degree? Court Decisions are erroneously seen as law because they use the term Case LAW to define it. However, vis-a-vis the US Constitution, only the only body empowered to make law is the Congress. Common law is defined by two basic doctrines: Do no harm and Accomplish what you promise.
@RetSquid If that were true, it would violate the Constitution. Even Marbury v. Madison has no constitutional basis. It is a usurped authority. Only Congress can make law. The Courts were initially going to be included in the legislative process, but the Framers voted against that idea.
Irwin Schiff is in prison serving a 13-year prison sentence for not paying taxes. Mr. Schiff was held in contempt-of-court for furnishing the Constitution during a judicial proceeding when he is not a party to the compact. So long as you maintain United States citizenship, you are liable to file and pay an income tax.
And you might want to do some also, because my statement is correct. If you live or work in the U.S. or are a Citizen overseas, your income is taxable.
@thnksmarter There is no section of the IRS Code that says WHO is required to pay taxes. Because they know the Income Tax is unconstitutional, they purposely word it to obfuscate the fact that no one is required to pay.
@thnksmarter Okay, I'm going to try to give this to you in terms you might be able to comprehend. Regardless of the fact that they are imposing and collecting the tax, it does not mean it is valid. There is still NO section of the IRS Code, Title 26, that establishes who is REQUIRED to pay the illegal tax. Do you know what the 5th Amend. says? Well, can you be REQUIRED to give the gov. info that can be used against you in court? You do that when you file a tax return. Seriously. Bad things.
@fanadfilms You never answered my question - do you maintain a tax id/SSN? When you are an employee your employer withholds funds from your paycheck and reports that to the IRS. When you do not file, the IRS submits a temporary tax return on your behalf until you do. They have all of the information they need. When you do not file a tax return, you receive a notice from the state franchise tax board. Why? Because everyone with a tax id is a franchise to the federal government.
@RetSquid If you don't have an SSN and you work to earn a wage under the table, if it doesn't get reported by the employer and you don't file, you don't pay. What am I misunderstanding?
@RetSquid I never said it was legal. The bottom-line was not paying income taxes. The best way to reduce the amount of income taxes legally is really to own your own business and operate within that tax system.
@RetSquid Actually, you are wrong. I've read the IRS Code cover to cover, and there is no law that says you are required to file a tax return on pay the tax. The problem is that the judges are criminals and they find people guilty who've committed no crime.
@RetSquid Hmmm, well, that law does not say WHO is REQUIRED to file a tax return. "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax..." It does not say who is required. It just says any person REQUIRED. Who's required? Even sec. 6020 does not say who is required. I've gone over the code and nothing says that anyone is required to file a tax return or pay tax. Try again.
@RetSquid I don't know who Jackson is. However, it must use the word "Required". The way they word these regulations is clearly designed to obfuscate the fact that they know that no one can be required to file a return or pay the tax. Also, to be required to file a return would violate your 5th Amendment RIGHTS and your Fourth. If you could be required to file, nothing you say on the return could be used against you in court, and it clearly is being used.
@RetSquid "The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness" as that term is used herein." Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648."
Need I crash your illusions anymore? Just looking at the situation would tell someone with a brain that if you are forced to file a tax return, and it can be used against you, it's a violation of your 5th.
"If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."
Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).
You have to report your income, not the source of that income. The 5th does not cover the amounts.
@RetSquid LOL, I was not sure of which Jackson you were speaking. Could have been Andrew or Stonewall. But that idiot? You're going to use her as a source for law? She's a left of Lenin idiot. And I'm curious why you would hold up Courts. They get it wrong so many times, we should just laugh at them. Remember Dred Scott? Bad. Busing? Bad. Separate But Equal? Kelo v. City of New London? District of Columbia v. Heller (4 idiots voted against; and it was decided poorly). Let's not forget Roe.
If you don't like her, why are YOU using all of her failed arguments?
Wrong or not, the Court's decisions are still the law. If you want to protest that decision, then do so, just don't LIE and claim the law doesn't even exist!
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—every married individual...every surviving spouse...every head of a household...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns...Estates and trusts...
@RetSquid Look at sec 6020. It does not say who is required to file a return because no one is. Also, law must be written in an active voice. That is written in a passive voice. They do that specifically to show that it is not required. There is no definitive language. Remember, to file a tax return is a tax confession. You can be prosecuted for information on that form. You can't be required to do that. If you say you can, you have no comprehension of the Constitution.
6020 "Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary"
That has nothing to do with the original obligation fo file a return.
6012 "Returns...shall be made ..."
The Constitution says that Congress "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", that includes income tax.
@RetSquid Ah, the socialist catch-all. The Necessary and Proper Clause. You need to know that it does not mean that they can do anything. They can't violate your rights. The income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, did not give the government any new taxing authority. They were basically saying that the income tax is unconstitutional. And it is. You cannot execute the "regulations" without violating our rights. Unconstitutional.
@RetSquid REALLY? OMG!!! Wait, if Clinton can lie in a deposition (perjury) and not be impeached and removed, how could I for enforcing the Constitution? If W can lie about the cause for the Gulf War and not be impeached, or for that matter, not acquiring a Declaration of War, how could I for enforcing the Constitution? And for that matter, show me in the constitution where the Court has the power it's usurped?
@RetSquid You are correct; he was impeached. I was on the phone when I wrote that and was giving only a bit of attention to it. And you are correct; he should have been removed and indicted and jailed. However, what I would be doing would be enforcing the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the Court to do what it has been doing. Ergo, I may be impeached (I doubt it), but I would not be removed.
Yes, if you ignored the Court's ruling you would be impeached and removed. Due to Common Law/precedent, the Court DOES have the legal/legitimate power it has now.
@RetSquid Usurped power is not legitimate power. I'd be on firm legal grounds, especially since I'd be filing impeachment against at least four of the sitting justices.
@RetSquid Even if a situation has been in practice, such as the abolition of Gold and Silver as money, it has no legal weight. It can be overturned instantly by an Executive Order. The President has standing and would prevail. A president that had the balls to impose the Constitution would be a very popular president, except within the fiat government.
@RetSquid I can't, as president, terminate a cabinet position. I can, however, refuse to forward a new cabinet secretary, and then lay off every employee of that cabinet.
@RetSquid All cabinet secretaries and employees serve at the pleasure of the president. The CabSecs are appointed by the president, approved by the Senate, but beyond that, the president is the boss. All employees of those cabinet secretaries are at will employees. And they work for the President. He can hire and fire as he pleases.
@thegeneraltheory well then if this is all BS and you know the answers then find the LAW and get your $50,000
the offer is still out there,,if you can show them whe actual law that says that the average working person is bound by law to pay then find it and show it and collect your money
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—every married individual...every surviving spouse...every head of a household...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns...Estates and trusts..."
@thegeneraltheory It doesn't matter what the law say, if the man with the badge and gun say its legal, its LEGAL! Why do you think "BIG BUSINESS" are taking their talents to Asia and elsewhere?
Wake up people. Not one single penny you pay the IRS goes to roads,education, healthcare,etc. It ALL goes to the federal reserve and the central banks. Do your research. I wouldn't even mind paying taxes that much if it was going to the U.S. infrastructure and not the pockets of the fat international banks.
Too bad you have no facts to support your claim here, huh? The Federal Income Tax covers almost half of the Federal budget, the interest on the debt is onlt about 10% of that. None of the Federal Reserve is owned by international banks, that would be illegal.
@RetSquid Looks like you don't have ur facts right either, Federal Reserve is owned by several private banks, income tax on our wages only pays the interest of the national debt. The rest is done by printing and borrowing and yet, we still have a huge deficit. Irwin is simply saying, the supreme court defines income as corporate gains and not wages and labor. Imagine if no one use the dollar and we all trade other things like gold? Actually no, you'd be arrested for counterfeiting. Wake up man!
1. Income tax is over $1.2 trillion, the debt payment is about $260 billion.(2009)
2. The Supreme Court in Eisner said, "“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets."
3. Counterfeiting only works if you try to copy currency, not create your own.
@RetSquid 1. Research Grace Commission. Same thing is going on now except there's more interest and relatively less income tax received.
2. Research Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921), Supreme Court defined income tax as the same as "Corporation Excise Tax". Read everything and don't take anything out of context please.
3. What's the difference between copying and creating if neither has value? What gave FED's printed paper money value? Think!! Can you print gold?!
I was stupid on thinking that taxes were good. Government just takes money from the poor,middle class and rich to fund their stupid wars which benefit a few. My thinking is this "If your rich you earned your money and if your poor you need your money."
Ret Squid is a USMC idiot! He wants to help the Illegal actions of the IRS to get non-legal tender out of the American people by force. That's right, the US Dollar is backed by NO gold or silver. It is therefore WORTHLESS as a currency! The Federal Reserve just prints it and the American people think it's real. It's no more real than monopoly money! Scared yet? You should be if you're American! You have no money and therefore own nothing! You're assets of the US Corporation. NOT FREE!!!
You don't know the difference between the USN and the USMC do you? If you don't want your "worthless" dollars send them to me, I'll take them, I'll even pay you 10% of the face value.
@SadegoGG You seem to be arguing a lot about tax and the US Constitution. Are you aware that the US Constitution does NOT apply to the American People? The, 'We The People' part is only in reference to those that signed it and those they represented. If you did not sign it then you're not 'a party' to it. US Supreme Court judgement! Besides, the USA does not exist anymore. It went bankrupt nearly a century ago (3rd time) and is now the USC (United States Corporation) Don't believe me?
LOL!!! No, the Constitution does not apply to you, it applies to the States and the Federal Government. The U.S.A. is still here and has never gone bankrupt. It is a coporpation, just like every State, City County and town in the U.S.
Despite Schiff's age (approximately 78 years old), on February 24, 2006, Schiff was sentenced to 151 months (12 years and 7 months) in prison and was ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service; Schiff was also sentenced to 12 additional months for contempt of court. OWNED!
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 62 > Subchapter A > § 6151
Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax.
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s),
Wow, are you a grounds keeper around here or something? I'm flattered you put in so much effort. Unfortunately you have yet to prove your point even out of all that drivel.
Only two or less States properly ratified the proposed Amendment. In February 1913 Secretary of State Knox falsely declared the 16th Amendment ratified and the government has been unlawfully demanding taxes ever since.
I addressed that statement...perhaps if you would have read my entire comment you would understand that. And by the way, the conspiracy theorists typically say its 4 states, not less than two. Can you explain to me why you believe only two states passed the 16th amendment, who should be the ones to judge whether or not the amendment is law or void, and have you ever read Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892) in full?
IF you're going to just discredit everything I say (Even though its all sourced and well documented) at least attempt to back your statements up with some sort of evidence. In terms of court cases and whatnot. Just to say "Even though you document and source everything...its wrong. I'm right, just trust me and don't look at court cases or what professional lawyers are saying" isn't a very strong argument, in my opinion.
Again, you completely ignore the fact of the failure to ratify the 16th, is that precedence under Common Law now exists because the IRS has been mugging the public for so long.
However, the U.S. Constitution is higher law than the precedence of Common Law, which in itself represents the will of the people and not the will of the government. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution dictates that the IRS and the local County Tax collector are collecting tax unlawfully.
The 16th Amendment is not a matter of common law, as it was ratified by the states and the Secratary of State ratified it. None of the states have ever protested that they did not approve of the amendment, and the Secretary of State took the small differences in words and/or capitalization into consideration. Its up to the states and Congress to discuss Amendment issues, and there is no debate. Please, read my entire comment.
The fact is that the attempt to ratify the 16th Amendment horribly failed to receive the necessary 3/4 of the States approval. The U.S. Constitution, ratification of an Amendment is extremely important and is not an exact copy of the Amendment is utterly unacceptable. So, if truth is something that matters to you, then you cannot argue against facts. Then again, if you don't care about lying, deceiving, and misleading others, then you can obviously do and say whatever you want
No, you might as well bring Wesley Snipes into this because your spouting BS. Your not reading my comments so therefore I will ignore yours. Case closed...
I have read your comments, and I have already went into details, along with supplying court cases, answering just about all of them. Most of them were answered prior to you even asking. You haven't provided any court cases or any information that I have not already discusses and analyzed. You replied to my comments 6 minutes after I left it, so I highly doubt you've read a single one of the cases.
United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986);
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986);
United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980);
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985);
Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987);
Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996);
United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
So please, read my comments and read at least 2-3 of those Supreme Court Cases. I don't know what more I can do for you. I can give you 100s of court cases and you still won't listen! Do you want to argue that the 19th amendment also wasn't adopted?
It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement for all taxes on incomes.
Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
Whether or not an income tax should have been considered to be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned will be discussed below, but the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, removed all doubt about apportionment because it clearly states that: “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.”
And so, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted an unapportioned income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “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.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
The arguments that tax protesters make about the validity and meaning of the 16th Amendment will be dealt with in other sections of this FAQ. (See “Related Topics,” below.)
But because tax protesters continue to insist that a tax on incomes was a “direct tax” both before the ratification of the 16th Amendment and even afterwards, a brief history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “direct tax” is appropriate.
MEANING OF "DIRECT TAX" BEFORE THE 16TH AMENDMENT!
Exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant by “direct Taxes” has been subject of much debate.
The phrase “direct taxation” appears many times in James Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, because the convention had agreed that representation in Congress and “direct taxes” should both be apportioned among the states in the same way, according to population, but with
slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person. (By contrast, the power of Congress to impose duties, imposts, and excises received very little discussion, except to agree that those kinds of taxes should be “uniform throughout the United States.”) And yet, on August 20, 1787, on the same day that the convention approved the final version of the Constitution, Madison reports that “Mr King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation. No one answered.”
To understand the context of the debates about “direct taxes” in the constitutional convention, it is important to note that, under Article VII of the Articles of Confederation that were in force before the Constitution was ratified, the states were required to supply the funds that Congress required “in proportion to the value of all land within each State,” and yet each state had only one vote,
so the larger states were required to contribute more to the defense of the United States and yet could be outvoted by smaller states on how the contributions would be spent.
An early draft of the new Constitution, proposed to the convention by William Paterson of New Jersey, provided for the apportionment of “requisitions” among the states using the same language eventually adopted for the apportionment of “direct Taxes.”
This suggests that “direct Taxes” were considered to be substitutes for, or perhaps equivalent to, the requisitions previously exacted by Congress from the states.
Taking the debates reported in Madison’s Notes as a whole, it appears that the required apportionment of “direct Taxes” was intended to address the concerns of the relatively wealthy southern states of the new United States,
with large plantations owned by relatively few people and larger number of slaves than the northern states, that taxes imposed by a certain amount per person (i.e., capitations and poll taxes) should be adjusted for slaves, and that taxes on land should be allocated among the states in proportionate to their populations, not their values.
There are several statements in the Federalist Papers in which “direct taxes” are equated with taxes on wealth.
For example, in Federalist #12, Alexander Hamilton (who had been a delegate to the constitutional convention) wrote: “In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts,
and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.”
(Emphasis added.)
And, in Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton wrote:
“Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.”
(Emphasis added.)
And, in Federalist #54, Hamilton or Madison wrote that the apportionment of taxes “has reference to the proportion of wealth,” and is applied “to the relative wealth and contributions of the States.”
Each of these statements is consistent in their understanding that a “direct taxes” were (a) capitations and poll taxes, and (b) taxes on wealth (primarily the value of land).
Only nine years after the constitutional convention, the Supreme Court affirmed this understanding in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
Three of the four justices who decided the case wrote opinions (separate opinions was the usual practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that “direct tax” did not apply to an annual tax on the private ownership of carriages.
Justice Chase wrote that: “I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND. I doubt whether a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis in original).
Justice Paterson (who was a delegate to the constitutional convention and, as discussed above, presented one of the first drafts of the constitution, including a provision for the apportionment of “requisitions”), expressed a similar opinion:
@FoxifiedNutjob “Whether direct taxes, in the sense of the Constitution, comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax, and tax on land, is a questionable point. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson).
Finally, Justice Iredell (who was not a delegate to the constitutional convention, but was a delegate to the North Carolina convention that debated ratification of the Constitution) expressed his opinion that: “Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil: Something capable of apportionment under all such circumstances. A land or a poll tax may be considered of this description.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell).
Justice Wilson, who was also a member of the constitutional convention, wrote a brief opinion joining in the decision, but did not explain his decision beyond saying that he “had before expressed a judicial opinion on the subject, in the Circuit Court of Virginia” in which he upheld the constitutionality of the tax. (No copy of his opinion in the Circuit Court of Virginia survives.)
The question of whether a tax on income was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution, or a “duty,” “impost,” or “excise,” did not arise until the Civil War began, when the Union enacted additional taxes, some on incomes, in order to pay for the war.
The first of these new taxes to reach the Supreme Court was a tax on the gross amounts of premiums received by insurance companies. Writing for a unanimous court,
Justice Swayne quoted from the opinions of Chase and Paterson in Hylton case, as well as other authorities on the meaning of “duties,” “imposts,” and “excises,” and concluded that: “If a tax upon carriages, kept for his own use by the owner, is not a direct tax, we can see no ground upon which a tax upon the business of an insurance company can be held to belong to that class of revenue charges.”
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433 (1868) (holding that a tax on insurance company income was a “duty or excise”).
In 1869, reviewing the acts of Congress that had imposed “direct taxes” since the Hylton decision, as well as the opinions in the Hylton case itself, the Supreme Court confirmed that:
“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.”
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869).
And: “[I]t may further it may further be taken as established upon the testimony of Paterson, that the words direct taxes, as used in the Constitution,
comprehended only capitation taxes, and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes on personal property by general valuation and assessment of the various descriptions possessed with the several States.”
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 546 (1869).
Finally, in a challenge to a general income tax imposed on individuals,
the Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an “excise or duty,” and not a “direct tax,” and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
That would seem to have settled the issue, except that the Supreme Court decided to re-examine the question of whether an income tax was a “direct tax”
just 14 years later, and decided to limit (or “distinguish” ) the Hylton and Springer decisions.
In the first Pollock decision, a majority of the court (7 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since (and repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)).
The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a “direct tax” and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, a narrower majority (5 of the 9 justices) decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (i.e., property other than land)
was also a “direct tax” and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
As will be discussed in more detail below, the Pollock court was very clear that it was only a tax on the incomes from property that was a “direct tax,” and other forms of income could be taxed without apportionment.
This was confirmed in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Nevertheless, the Pollock decisions limited the ability of Congress to impose a taxes on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends,
and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes “from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
I have often wondered what they would do if people started refusing to pay taxes en masse. Even if just 5% of Americans did so, what are they going to do throw 15 million people in jail?
DukeofWellington91 3 days ago
Merchant's Loan and Trust Co v Smeitkanka (1921)
Cites Federal Statute - "applicable to the case, defines the income of 'a taxable person' as including 'gains, profits, and income derived from ... sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property ... or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.'
LexPhilogus 3 days ago
Stratton's Independence v Howbert (1909)
"As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
LexPhilogus 3 days ago
Irwin Schiff is currently serving 12 years in jail. He won't make it through his sentence because of his age. While I do agree with a lot of the premises of Mr. Schiff, it's difficult to fight, essentially, a full scale military (local police, state police, IRS, F.B.I.,....and the list goes on).
1czelaya 2 weeks ago
@1czelaya
You do know that he claimed 'mental defect' as a defense at his trial?
RetSquid 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
taxes on wages not "income" is against the constitution.
akaknocksville 1 month ago
@akaknocksville
OK, show where in the Constitution is says that.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
I went to Schiff's site, read his arguments and I don't think the man is insane. To go to prison for violating a law, there must be a law to violate. So where is the law stating that income tax is 1) relating to personal wages gained through services rendered and 2) taxable through personal earnings when the law 1) states that income taxes relate to corporate profits and 2) there is no law allowing the IRS the ability to recover 'undisclosed' earnings if there is no law to tax personal income?
megadethmonk 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@megadethmonk
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@megadethmonk There was no law to violate. There's no section of the code that says anyone is required to pay the tax. It's not until you file a tax confession (a return), that you become liable. What Schiff was convicted of was being attacking the money. Government gets very upset when you try to take "their" money away.
Judges would get his briefs. The government would not reply. And the judge would rule for the government. He never had a chance. Game was rigged.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
"Defendant-Appellant Irwin Schiff is a tax protester who was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the government for the purpose of impeding and impairing the Internal Revenue Service, assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, tax evasion, and filing false income tax returns."
United States v. Irwin A. Schiff, No. 2:04-CR-00119-1
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid That is a load of legal mumbo jumbo. It's typical of appeals courts in these kinds of cases. They don't actually address the issues; they cite other case law.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
Case law is Common Law. and it's still Law.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid Wow, where'd you get your law degree? Court Decisions are erroneously seen as law because they use the term Case LAW to define it. However, vis-a-vis the US Constitution, only the only body empowered to make law is the Congress. Common law is defined by two basic doctrines: Do no harm and Accomplish what you promise.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
Case law is Common Law and has been for centuries. Where did you find your information? A Cracker-Jack box?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid If that were true, it would violate the Constitution. Even Marbury v. Madison has no constitutional basis. It is a usurped authority. Only Congress can make law. The Courts were initially going to be included in the legislative process, but the Framers voted against that idea.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
"It is a usurped authority."
No branch of Government agrees with you.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid Like I care? The government is GOVERNED by the Constitution, not the other way around.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
"The government is GOVERNED by the Constitution,"
EXACTLY, it specifically say that Congress can levy taxes on your income.
RetSquid 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fanadfilms
"If that were true, it would violate the Constitution"
Really? Where does the Constitution negate all Common Law?
RetSquid 3 months ago
Fox News 5 should get an emmy for covering this
HollywoodSheen 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen
Why? It's just a story about a guy in prison who claimed 'insanity' at his tax evasion trial...and lost.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Irwin Schiff is in prison serving a 13-year prison sentence for not paying taxes. Mr. Schiff was held in contempt-of-court for furnishing the Constitution during a judicial proceeding when he is not a party to the compact. So long as you maintain United States citizenship, you are liable to file and pay an income tax.
thnksmarter 4 months ago
@thnksmarter
"So long as you maintain United States citizenship, you are liable to file and pay an income tax."
Or if you live/work in the States.
RetSquid 4 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Sorry, that is not correct. That is not the law.
FRTothus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRTothus
Really? What do YOU think the law is?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid You might want to actually do some research before you make such incorrect statements.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
And you might want to do some also, because my statement is correct. If you live or work in the U.S. or are a Citizen overseas, your income is taxable.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid Really? Show me the section of the code (USC Title 26) that says you are REQUIRED to pay income taxes.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fanadfilms
Here is 'the law': Title 26
Section 1, imposes the tax
Section 61 defines Gross income
Section 63 defines Taxable income.
Section 6012 requires you to file a tax return if you have income of more than the exemption amount, and
Section 6151 requires you to pay the tax at the time and place fixed for the filing of your return.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@thnksmarter Incorrect.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms "incorrect" what?
thnksmarter 3 months ago
@thnksmarter There is no section of the IRS Code that says WHO is required to pay taxes. Because they know the Income Tax is unconstitutional, they purposely word it to obfuscate the fact that no one is required to pay.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms Do you have a tax id number otherwise known as a social security number?
thnksmarter 3 months ago
@thnksmarter Okay, I'm going to try to give this to you in terms you might be able to comprehend. Regardless of the fact that they are imposing and collecting the tax, it does not mean it is valid. There is still NO section of the IRS Code, Title 26, that establishes who is REQUIRED to pay the illegal tax. Do you know what the 5th Amend. says? Well, can you be REQUIRED to give the gov. info that can be used against you in court? You do that when you file a tax return. Seriously. Bad things.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms You never answered my question - do you maintain a tax id/SSN? When you are an employee your employer withholds funds from your paycheck and reports that to the IRS. When you do not file, the IRS submits a temporary tax return on your behalf until you do. They have all of the information they need. When you do not file a tax return, you receive a notice from the state franchise tax board. Why? Because everyone with a tax id is a franchise to the federal government.
thnksmarter 3 months ago
@thnksmarter
You are required to have an SSN to work legally in the U.S., even if you weren't, it would have no effect on you owing income tax on your wages.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid If you don't have an SSN and you work to earn a wage under the table, if it doesn't get reported by the employer and you don't file, you don't pay. What am I misunderstanding?
thnksmarter 3 months ago
@thnksmarter
If you do that you are comitting a few felonies, as is your employer. And it still has no effect on you owing income tax.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid I never said it was legal. The bottom-line was not paying income taxes. The best way to reduce the amount of income taxes legally is really to own your own business and operate within that tax system.
thnksmarter 3 months ago
@RetSquid Actually, you are wrong. I've read the IRS Code cover to cover, and there is no law that says you are required to file a tax return on pay the tax. The problem is that the judges are criminals and they find people guilty who've committed no crime.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
Well, obviously you are wrong because I just posted the law.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
“The statutory requirement to file an income tax return does not violate a taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination.”
United States v. MacLeod, 436 F.2d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 1971), cert. den. 402 U.S. 907 (1971).
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid Hmmm, well, that law does not say WHO is REQUIRED to file a tax return. "Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax..." It does not say who is required. It just says any person REQUIRED. Who's required? Even sec. 6020 does not say who is required. I've gone over the code and nothing says that anyone is required to file a tax return or pay tax. Try again.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
It clearly says "Every Individual" in Section 1. From that you can figure out who is required.
You sound like Jackson, maybe you should learn from her prison time and find a new excuse to be too stupid to understand what an "individual" is?
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid I don't know who Jackson is. However, it must use the word "Required". The way they word these regulations is clearly designed to obfuscate the fact that they know that no one can be required to file a return or pay the tax. Also, to be required to file a return would violate your 5th Amendment RIGHTS and your Fourth. If you could be required to file, nothing you say on the return could be used against you in court, and it clearly is being used.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
No, there is nothing on the forms that violate either the 5th or the 4th, this is settled law.
"Any person required under this title..." There is your "required'.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid "The information revealed in the preparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a "witness" as that term is used herein." Garner v. U.S., 424 U.S. 648."
Need I crash your illusions anymore? Just looking at the situation would tell someone with a brain that if you are forced to file a tax return, and it can be used against you, it's a violation of your 5th.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
"If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."
Sullivan v. United States, 274 U.S. 259, 263-264 (1927).
You have to report your income, not the source of that income. The 5th does not cover the amounts.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
You don't know who Sheila Jackson is? Go look her up and find all of your arguments have been proven wrong and worthless in court.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@RetSquid LOL, I was not sure of which Jackson you were speaking. Could have been Andrew or Stonewall. But that idiot? You're going to use her as a source for law? She's a left of Lenin idiot. And I'm curious why you would hold up Courts. They get it wrong so many times, we should just laugh at them. Remember Dred Scott? Bad. Busing? Bad. Separate But Equal? Kelo v. City of New London? District of Columbia v. Heller (4 idiots voted against; and it was decided poorly). Let's not forget Roe.
fanadfilms 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
If you don't like her, why are YOU using all of her failed arguments?
Wrong or not, the Court's decisions are still the law. If you want to protest that decision, then do so, just don't LIE and claim the law doesn't even exist!
RetSquid 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
Title 26, Section 1, imposes the tax on 'every individual'. That is the "who'.
RetSquid 3 months ago
@fanadfilms
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—every married individual...every surviving spouse...every head of a household...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns...Estates and trusts...
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Look at sec 6020. It does not say who is required to file a return because no one is. Also, law must be written in an active voice. That is written in a passive voice. They do that specifically to show that it is not required. There is no definitive language. Remember, to file a tax return is a tax confession. You can be prosecuted for information on that form. You can't be required to do that. If you say you can, you have no comprehension of the Constitution.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
6020 "Returns prepared for or executed by Secretary"
That has nothing to do with the original obligation fo file a return.
6012 "Returns...shall be made ..."
The Constitution says that Congress "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", that includes income tax.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Ah, the socialist catch-all. The Necessary and Proper Clause. You need to know that it does not mean that they can do anything. They can't violate your rights. The income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, did not give the government any new taxing authority. They were basically saying that the income tax is unconstitutional. And it is. You cannot execute the "regulations" without violating our rights. Unconstitutional.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
"The income tax, according to the Brushaber decision, did not give the government any new taxing authority"
Read the rest of it, Congress already HAD the authority to tax all incomes.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I have read it. Congress had the power to do it constitutionally. And Brushaber was not even a well-written decision.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
So you agree that Congress can tax your income from any source? Good, what's next?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Actually, no. It must be apportioned. It's one of the things in the Constitution that cannot be amended.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Really? And just where in the Constitution is the list of things that can't be changed?
RetSquid 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid Let me ask you this? Do you think you can amend the Bill of Rights?
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
"Congress already had the power to tax all incomes."
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I have complete disdain for the Courts. They rarely get it right.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Too bad, whatever they decide is the law, unless Congress changes it.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Actually, if I were the Congress or the President, I'd ignore them. They're morons anyway.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Then you wouldn't be in Office for very long, deservedly.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Yes, I would. The Court has overstepped its charge. I'd bring at least four of the current crop up for impeachment.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
No, you would be impeached and removed from office for violating both the law and your oath.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid REALLY? OMG!!! Wait, if Clinton can lie in a deposition (perjury) and not be impeached and removed, how could I for enforcing the Constitution? If W can lie about the cause for the Gulf War and not be impeached, or for that matter, not acquiring a Declaration of War, how could I for enforcing the Constitution? And for that matter, show me in the constitution where the Court has the power it's usurped?
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Clinton was impeached and should have been removed, but that was the Senate, not SCOTUS. Bush was authorized by Congress for both wars.
Who do you think should decide if a law is Constitutional or not?
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid You are correct; he was impeached. I was on the phone when I wrote that and was giving only a bit of attention to it. And you are correct; he should have been removed and indicted and jailed. However, what I would be doing would be enforcing the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution empowers the Court to do what it has been doing. Ergo, I may be impeached (I doubt it), but I would not be removed.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Yes, if you ignored the Court's ruling you would be impeached and removed. Due to Common Law/precedent, the Court DOES have the legal/legitimate power it has now.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Usurped power is not legitimate power. I'd be on firm legal grounds, especially since I'd be filing impeachment against at least four of the sitting justices.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Too bad that precedent and case law/Common Law outweigh what you think personally about any SCOTUS Justice.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid Even if a situation has been in practice, such as the abolition of Gold and Silver as money, it has no legal weight. It can be overturned instantly by an Executive Order. The President has standing and would prevail. A president that had the balls to impose the Constitution would be a very popular president, except within the fiat government.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
No, the President has no authority to do what you want to do. He is not the dictator you want to be.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid I can't, as president, terminate a cabinet position. I can, however, refuse to forward a new cabinet secretary, and then lay off every employee of that cabinet.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
"then lay off every employee of that cabinet."
The President does not have that authority.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@RetSquid All cabinet secretaries and employees serve at the pleasure of the president. The CabSecs are appointed by the president, approved by the Senate, but beyond that, the president is the boss. All employees of those cabinet secretaries are at will employees. And they work for the President. He can hire and fire as he pleases.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
"All employees of those cabinet secretaries are at will employees"
Sorry, that hasn't been true since 1883.
RetSquid 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
Why don't you go back to your original incorrect post about there being "no law"? Why keep chnaging subjects?
RetSquid 2 months ago
Respond to this video... All officers and employees in the executive branch work at the pleasure of the President. He can fire whomever he wishes.
fanadfilms 2 months ago
@fanadfilms
No he can't, not since 1883. Go research the Civil Service.
RetSquid 2 months ago
I think this is the father of Peter Schiff. I read his book Crash Proof and he tells a story about his father getting jailed for not paying taxes.
Riddlerx333x 5 months ago
Yeah you don't want craziness in your life just submit to the unjust so everything will stay calm and normal...
inshepherdswetrust 5 months ago 2
Holy shit fox reported on this?
inshepherdswetrust 5 months ago
@YesWeTan
Withholding has nothing to do with an individual's income tax liability. BTW, Irwin was insane.
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Irwin Schiff is in Jail until 2016
Salvysahagun 5 months ago
@thegeneraltheory well then if this is all BS and you know the answers then find the LAW and get your $50,000
the offer is still out there,,if you can show them whe actual law that says that the average working person is bound by law to pay then find it and show it and collect your money
ace1sod 5 months ago
@
The offer to pay is bogus. Title 26, Section 1 imposes the income tax on every individual.
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid You have obviously not read the law, for that is not what it states.
FRTothus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FRTothus
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—every married individual...every surviving spouse...every head of a household...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns...Estates and trusts..."
RetSquid 2 months ago
@thegeneraltheory It doesn't matter what the law say, if the man with the badge and gun say its legal, its LEGAL! Why do you think "BIG BUSINESS" are taking their talents to Asia and elsewhere?
sga86 6 months ago
Wake up people. Not one single penny you pay the IRS goes to roads,education, healthcare,etc. It ALL goes to the federal reserve and the central banks. Do your research. I wouldn't even mind paying taxes that much if it was going to the U.S. infrastructure and not the pockets of the fat international banks.
sleepyhead38 8 months ago
@sleepyhead38
Too bad you have no facts to support your claim here, huh? The Federal Income Tax covers almost half of the Federal budget, the interest on the debt is onlt about 10% of that. None of the Federal Reserve is owned by international banks, that would be illegal.
RetSquid 7 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Looks like you don't have ur facts right either, Federal Reserve is owned by several private banks, income tax on our wages only pays the interest of the national debt. The rest is done by printing and borrowing and yet, we still have a huge deficit. Irwin is simply saying, the supreme court defines income as corporate gains and not wages and labor. Imagine if no one use the dollar and we all trade other things like gold? Actually no, you'd be arrested for counterfeiting. Wake up man!
sga86 6 months ago
@sga86
Wrong!
1. Income tax is over $1.2 trillion, the debt payment is about $260 billion.(2009)
2. The Supreme Court in Eisner said, "“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets."
3. Counterfeiting only works if you try to copy currency, not create your own.
RetSquid 6 months ago
@RetSquid 1. Research Grace Commission. Same thing is going on now except there's more interest and relatively less income tax received.
2. Research Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921), Supreme Court defined income tax as the same as "Corporation Excise Tax". Read everything and don't take anything out of context please.
3. What's the difference between copying and creating if neither has value? What gave FED's printed paper money value? Think!! Can you print gold?!
sga86 6 months ago
@sga86
1) Grace commision: taxes: 1/3 not collected, 1/3 government waste, 1/3 spent on welfare,SS, etc.
2) Income "is a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."
3) Creating has value, copying is fake and has no value.
RetSquid 6 months ago
I was stupid on thinking that taxes were good. Government just takes money from the poor,middle class and rich to fund their stupid wars which benefit a few. My thinking is this "If your rich you earned your money and if your poor you need your money."
Hitman49 8 months ago
@Hitman49
The poor don't pay any income tax and the middle class only pays a fraction of the amount the 'rich' pay.
RetSquid 8 months ago
@RetSquid True but there still shouldn't be any income tax even if it is a small fraction.
Hitman49 8 months ago
@Hitman49
Well, first you would have to cut the Federal budget by 2/3rd's, that is pretty hard to do.
RetSquid 8 months ago
Ret Squid is a USMC idiot! He wants to help the Illegal actions of the IRS to get non-legal tender out of the American people by force. That's right, the US Dollar is backed by NO gold or silver. It is therefore WORTHLESS as a currency! The Federal Reserve just prints it and the American people think it's real. It's no more real than monopoly money! Scared yet? You should be if you're American! You have no money and therefore own nothing! You're assets of the US Corporation. NOT FREE!!!
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
You don't know the difference between the USN and the USMC do you? If you don't want your "worthless" dollars send them to me, I'll take them, I'll even pay you 10% of the face value.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@SadegoGG You seem to be arguing a lot about tax and the US Constitution. Are you aware that the US Constitution does NOT apply to the American People? The, 'We The People' part is only in reference to those that signed it and those they represented. If you did not sign it then you're not 'a party' to it. US Supreme Court judgement! Besides, the USA does not exist anymore. It went bankrupt nearly a century ago (3rd time) and is now the USC (United States Corporation) Don't believe me?
Itsmeeman1 9 months ago
@Itsmeeman1
LOL!!! No, the Constitution does not apply to you, it applies to the States and the Federal Government. The U.S.A. is still here and has never gone bankrupt. It is a coporpation, just like every State, City County and town in the U.S.
RetSquid 9 months ago
Schiff's crucial mistake was in thinking that the government has to do what the law tells it to do.
anti0918 10 months ago
@anti0918
No, his real error was that he has a mental defect.
RetSquid 10 months ago
Despite Schiff's age (approximately 78 years old), on February 24, 2006, Schiff was sentenced to 151 months (12 years and 7 months) in prison and was ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service; Schiff was also sentenced to 12 additional months for contempt of court. OWNED!
deathrowjoeblog 10 months ago
RetSquid is obviously and employee of the IRS. Not one place in Federal law does it state you have to pay a tax on your income.
RetSquid is full of sh!t, has not shown a valid argument and is a liar and a fraud...
FoxifiedNutjob 10 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 62 > Subchapter A > § 6151
Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1
Tax imposed
...There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual...(2) every surviving spouse...Unmarried individuals...
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:...
RetSquid 10 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Anything else, nutjob?
RetSquid 10 months ago
@RetSquid
Plenty, learn to read...
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
You are one sad individual. You have not read a single argument here.
RetSquid 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Have you read the 16th Amendment? Anyways, Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax incomes.
SadegoGG 10 months ago
@SadegoGG
16th was never ratified but keep collecting your bogus paycheck, you fvcking criminal...
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Although the Constitution describes how to ratify amendments, it doesn’t say who is supposed to keep track of the ratification process and let us know when the required three-fourths of the states have ratified an amendment. After some confusion about the status of some amendments (including the infamous “Titles of Nobility” amendment that fell at least one state short of ratification, but appeared in numerous copies of the Constitution in the early and middle 1800s),
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG
Wow, are you a grounds keeper around here or something? I'm flattered you put in so much effort. Unfortunately you have yet to prove your point even out of all that drivel.
Only two or less States properly ratified the proposed Amendment. In February 1913 Secretary of State Knox falsely declared the 16th Amendment ratified and the government has been unlawfully demanding taxes ever since.
But I think you already knew that...
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
I addressed that statement...perhaps if you would have read my entire comment you would understand that. And by the way, the conspiracy theorists typically say its 4 states, not less than two. Can you explain to me why you believe only two states passed the 16th amendment, who should be the ones to judge whether or not the amendment is law or void, and have you ever read Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892) in full?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
IF you're going to just discredit everything I say (Even though its all sourced and well documented) at least attempt to back your statements up with some sort of evidence. In terms of court cases and whatnot. Just to say "Even though you document and source everything...its wrong. I'm right, just trust me and don't look at court cases or what professional lawyers are saying" isn't a very strong argument, in my opinion.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG
Again, you completely ignore the fact of the failure to ratify the 16th, is that precedence under Common Law now exists because the IRS has been mugging the public for so long.
However, the U.S. Constitution is higher law than the precedence of Common Law, which in itself represents the will of the people and not the will of the government. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution dictates that the IRS and the local County Tax collector are collecting tax unlawfully.
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
The 16th Amendment is not a matter of common law, as it was ratified by the states and the Secratary of State ratified it. None of the states have ever protested that they did not approve of the amendment, and the Secretary of State took the small differences in words and/or capitalization into consideration. Its up to the states and Congress to discuss Amendment issues, and there is no debate. Please, read my entire comment.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG
The fact is that the attempt to ratify the 16th Amendment horribly failed to receive the necessary 3/4 of the States approval. The U.S. Constitution, ratification of an Amendment is extremely important and is not an exact copy of the Amendment is utterly unacceptable. So, if truth is something that matters to you, then you cannot argue against facts. Then again, if you don't care about lying, deceiving, and misleading others, then you can obviously do and say whatever you want
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Have you not read my comments? Do you just read the first one and ignore all the others?
Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892)
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922)
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986)
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939)
U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@SadegoGG
No, you might as well bring Wesley Snipes into this because your spouting BS. Your not reading my comments so therefore I will ignore yours. Case closed...
FoxifiedNutjob 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
You are so closed minded...
I have read your comments, and I have already went into details, along with supplying court cases, answering just about all of them. Most of them were answered prior to you even asking. You haven't provided any court cases or any information that I have not already discusses and analyzed. You replied to my comments 6 minutes after I left it, so I highly doubt you've read a single one of the cases.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
I'd think if you were really a concerned citizen and you really cared about this issue...you would take the time to
a) Read my comments in full
b) Review at least a few court cases I provide you
c) If you wanted to critique what I said, you would provide evidence backing your claims
However, you don't care about America, you don't care about studying the income tax, and you certainly don't respect the Constitution.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1991);
Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994), reh. den. 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22014;
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 888;
United State v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 1988);
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 239-41 (7th Cir. 1989);
Biermann v. Commissioner, 769 F.2d 707 (11th Cir. 1985);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
United States v. Buckner, 830 F.2d 102 (1987);
United States v. Dube, 820 F.2d 886, 891 (7th Cir. 1986);
Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70-71 (7th Cir. 1986);
United States v. Moore, 627 F.2d 830, 833 (7th Cir. 1980);
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (1984) (“Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it.”), cert. den. 474 U.S. 830 (1985);
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
United States v. Matheson, (9th Cir. 1986);
Lysiak v. Commissioner, 816 F.2d 311, 312 (7th Cir. 1987);
Quijano v. United States, 93 F.3d 26, 30 (1st Cir. 1996);
United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir. 1994).
So please, read my comments and read at least 2-3 of those Supreme Court Cases. I don't know what more I can do for you. I can give you 100s of court cases and you still won't listen! Do you want to argue that the 19th amendment also wasn't adopted?
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Regarding apportionment:
It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement for all taxes on incomes.
Before the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the constitutionality of an income tax was determined under Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 of the Constitution, which states that:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
The reference to the “Census or Enumeration” was a reference to Article I, Section 2, of the Constitution, which directs that:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”
(“All other Persons” meant slaves.)
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Whether or not an income tax should have been considered to be a “direct tax” that must be apportioned will be discussed below, but the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1913, removed all doubt about apportionment because it clearly states that: “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.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
And so, following the ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress enacted an unapportioned income tax, and the constitutionality of that tax was challenged, but the Supreme Court held unanimously that the income tax was constitutional because “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.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
The arguments that tax protesters make about the validity and meaning of the 16th Amendment will be dealt with in other sections of this FAQ. (See “Related Topics,” below.)
But because tax protesters continue to insist that a tax on incomes was a “direct tax” both before the ratification of the 16th Amendment and even afterwards, a brief history of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “direct tax” is appropriate.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
MEANING OF "DIRECT TAX" BEFORE THE 16TH AMENDMENT!
Exactly what the framers of the Constitution meant by “direct Taxes” has been subject of much debate.
The phrase “direct taxation” appears many times in James Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, because the convention had agreed that representation in Congress and “direct taxes” should both be apportioned among the states in the same way, according to population, but with
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
slaves being counted as three-fifths of a person. (By contrast, the power of Congress to impose duties, imposts, and excises received very little discussion, except to agree that those kinds of taxes should be “uniform throughout the United States.”) And yet, on August 20, 1787, on the same day that the convention approved the final version of the Constitution, Madison reports that “Mr King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation. No one answered.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
To understand the context of the debates about “direct taxes” in the constitutional convention, it is important to note that, under Article VII of the Articles of Confederation that were in force before the Constitution was ratified, the states were required to supply the funds that Congress required “in proportion to the value of all land within each State,” and yet each state had only one vote,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
so the larger states were required to contribute more to the defense of the United States and yet could be outvoted by smaller states on how the contributions would be spent.
An early draft of the new Constitution, proposed to the convention by William Paterson of New Jersey, provided for the apportionment of “requisitions” among the states using the same language eventually adopted for the apportionment of “direct Taxes.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
This suggests that “direct Taxes” were considered to be substitutes for, or perhaps equivalent to, the requisitions previously exacted by Congress from the states.
Taking the debates reported in Madison’s Notes as a whole, it appears that the required apportionment of “direct Taxes” was intended to address the concerns of the relatively wealthy southern states of the new United States,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
with large plantations owned by relatively few people and larger number of slaves than the northern states, that taxes imposed by a certain amount per person (i.e., capitations and poll taxes) should be adjusted for slaves, and that taxes on land should be allocated among the states in proportionate to their populations, not their values.
There are several statements in the Federalist Papers in which “direct taxes” are equated with taxes on wealth.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
For example, in Federalist #12, Alexander Hamilton (who had been a delegate to the constitutional convention) wrote: “In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description.”
(Emphasis added.)
And, in Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton wrote:
“Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment.”
(Emphasis added.)
And, in Federalist #54, Hamilton or Madison wrote that the apportionment of taxes “has reference to the proportion of wealth,” and is applied “to the relative wealth and contributions of the States.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Each of these statements is consistent in their understanding that a “direct taxes” were (a) capitations and poll taxes, and (b) taxes on wealth (primarily the value of land).
Only nine years after the constitutional convention, the Supreme Court affirmed this understanding in Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Three of the four justices who decided the case wrote opinions (separate opinions was the usual practice of that day), and all four justices agreed that “direct tax” did not apply to an annual tax on the private ownership of carriages.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Justice Chase wrote that: “I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND. I doubt whether a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Chase; emphasis in original).
Justice Paterson (who was a delegate to the constitutional convention and, as discussed above, presented one of the first drafts of the constitution, including a provision for the apportionment of “requisitions”), expressed a similar opinion:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob “Whether direct taxes, in the sense of the Constitution, comprehend any other tax than a capitation tax, and tax on land, is a questionable point. ... I never entertained a doubt, that the principal, I will not say, the only, objects, that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land.”
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Paterson).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Finally, Justice Iredell (who was not a delegate to the constitutional convention, but was a delegate to the North Carolina convention that debated ratification of the Constitution) expressed his opinion that: “Perhaps a direct tax in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil: Something capable of apportionment under all such circumstances. A land or a poll tax may be considered of this description.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), (opinion of Justice Iredell).
Justice Wilson, who was also a member of the constitutional convention, wrote a brief opinion joining in the decision, but did not explain his decision beyond saying that he “had before expressed a judicial opinion on the subject, in the Circuit Court of Virginia” in which he upheld the constitutionality of the tax. (No copy of his opinion in the Circuit Court of Virginia survives.)
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
The question of whether a tax on income was a “direct tax” within the meaning of the Constitution, or a “duty,” “impost,” or “excise,” did not arise until the Civil War began, when the Union enacted additional taxes, some on incomes, in order to pay for the war.
The first of these new taxes to reach the Supreme Court was a tax on the gross amounts of premiums received by insurance companies. Writing for a unanimous court,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Justice Swayne quoted from the opinions of Chase and Paterson in Hylton case, as well as other authorities on the meaning of “duties,” “imposts,” and “excises,” and concluded that: “If a tax upon carriages, kept for his own use by the owner, is not a direct tax, we can see no ground upon which a tax upon the business of an insurance company can be held to belong to that class of revenue charges.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 74 U.S. 433 (1868) (holding that a tax on insurance company income was a “duty or excise”).
In 1869, reviewing the acts of Congress that had imposed “direct taxes” since the Hylton decision, as well as the opinions in the Hylton case itself, the Supreme Court confirmed that:
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
“This review [of the history of Congressional impositions of “direct taxes”] shows that personal property, contracts, occupations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax.”
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 543 (1869).
And: “[I]t may further it may further be taken as established upon the testimony of Paterson, that the words direct taxes, as used in the Constitution,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
comprehended only capitation taxes, and taxes on land, and perhaps taxes on personal property by general valuation and assessment of the various descriptions possessed with the several States.”
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533, 546 (1869).
Finally, in a challenge to a general income tax imposed on individuals,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
the Supreme Court followed the opinions from the Hylton decision and ruled unanimously that an income tax was an “excise or duty,” and not a “direct tax,” and did not need to be apportioned among the states. Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
That would seem to have settled the issue, except that the Supreme Court decided to re-examine the question of whether an income tax was a “direct tax”
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
just 14 years later, and decided to limit (or “distinguish” ) the Hylton and Springer decisions.
In the first Pollock decision, a majority of the court (7 of the 9 justices) began with the premise that a tax on the income from property is the same as a tax on the value of the property itself, a premise completely inconsistent with every other Supreme Court decision before or since (and repudiated by the Supreme Court in New York v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308 (1937)).
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
The Court then concluded that a tax on rents received from real property was a “direct tax” and unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894). On rehearing, a narrower majority (5 of the 9 justices) decided that a tax on dividends, interest, and other income from personal property (i.e., property other than land)
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
was also a “direct tax” and so unconstitutional unless apportioned. Pollock v. Farmers Bank and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
As will be discussed in more detail below, the Pollock court was very clear that it was only a tax on the incomes from property that was a “direct tax,” and other forms of income could be taxed without apportionment.
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
This was confirmed in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Nevertheless, the Pollock decisions limited the ability of Congress to impose a taxes on incomes, because it was necessary to determine the source of the income. Wages, salaries, and other earned incomes could be taxed, and income from manufacturing and other business activities could be taxed, but rents, interest, dividends,
SadegoGG 9 months ago
@FoxifiedNutjob
and other incomes from property could not be taxed without apportionment (a very awkward process). The 16th Amendment was therefore proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states, so that Congress could tax incomes “from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
SadegoGG 9 months ago