• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Constitutional income. Do you have any?

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#41
Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,(See the pdf for what is income with supporting CS cases) (http://www.foundationfortruthinlaw.org/Files/11-IRS-Documents/US-Supreme-Ct-Question-on-Income.pdf) without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,1 the Court initially described income as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, inclusive of the profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets;2 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

Corporate Dividends: When Taxable

Rendered in conformity with the belief that all income in the ordinary sense of the word became taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment, the earliest decisions of the Court on the taxability of corporate dividends occasioned little comment. Emphasizing that in all such cases the stockholder is to be viewed as a different entity from the corporation, the Court in Lynch v. Hornby,3 held that a cash dividend equal to 24 percent of the par value of the outstanding stock and made possible largely by the conversion into money of assets earned prior to the adoption of the Amendment, was income taxable to the stockholder for the year in which he received it, notwithstanding that such an extraordinary payment might appear to be a mere realization in possession of an inchoate and contingent interest . . . [of] the stockholder . . . in a surplus of corporate assets previously existing. In Peabody v. Eisner,4 decided on the same day and deemed to have been controlled by the preceding case, the Court ruled that a dividend paid in the stock of another corporation, although representing earnings that had accrued before ratification of the Amendment, was also taxable to the shareholder as income. The dividend was likened to a distribution in specie.

Two years later, the Court decided Eisner v. Macomber,5 and the controversy that that decision precipitated still endures. Departing from the interpretation placed upon the Sixteenth Amendment in the earlier cases, i.e., that the purpose of the Amendment was to correct the error committed in Pollock and to restore income taxation to the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged,6 Justice Pitney, speaking for the Court in Eisner, indicated that the Sixteenth Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income.7 The decision gave the term income a restrictive meaning.

Specifically, the Court held that a stock dividend was capital when received by a stockholder of the issuing corporation and did not become taxable as income until sold or converted, and then only to the extent that a gain was realized upon the proportion of the original investment that such stock represented. A stock dividend, Justice Pitney maintained, [f]ar from being a realization of profits of the stockholder, . . . tends rather to postpone such realization, in that the fund represented by the new stock has been transferred from surplus to capital, and no longer is available for actual distribution. . . . We are clear that not only does a stock dividend really take nothing from the property of the corporation and add nothing to that of the shareholder, but that the antecedent accumulation of profits evidenced thereby, while indicating that the shareholder is richer because of an increase of his capital, at the same time shows [that] he has not realized or received any income in the transaction.8 But conceding that a stock dividend represented a gain, the Justice concluded that the only gain taxable as income under the Amendment was a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being ‘derived,’ that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal;—that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description, including a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment.9

Although the Court has not overturned the principle it asserted in Eisner v. Macomber,10 it has significantly narrowed its application. The Court treated as taxable income new stock issued in connection with a corporate reorganization designed to move the place of incorporation. The fact that a comparison of the market value of the shares in the older corporation immediately before, with the aggregate market value of those shares plus the dividend shares immediately after, the dividend showed that the stockholders experienced no increase in aggregate wealth was declared not to be a proper test for determining whether taxable income had been received by these stockholders.11 The Court viewed the shareholders as essentially exchanging a stock in the old corporation for stock in the new corporation. By contrast, the Court held that no taxable income resulted from the mere receipt by a stockholder of rights to subscribe for shares in a new issue of capital stock, the intrinsic value of which was assumed to be in excess of the issuing price. The right to subscribe was declared to be analogous to a stock dividend, and only so much of the proceeds obtained upon the sale of such rights as represents a realized profit over cost to the stockholders was deemed to be taxable income.12 Similarly, on grounds of consistency with Eisner v. Macomber, the Court has ruled that a dividend in common stock paid to holders of preferred stock,13 and a dividend in preferred stock paid to holders of common stock,14 because they gave the stockholders an interest different from that represented by their prior holdings, constituted income taxable under the Sixteenth Amendment.

Corporate Earnings: When Taxable

On at least two occasions the Court has rejected as untenable the contention that a tax on undistributed corporate profits is essentially a penalty rather than a tax or that it is a direct tax on capital and hence is not exempt from the requirement of apportionment. Because the exaction was permissible as a tax, its validity was held not to be impaired by its penal objective, which was to force corporations to distribute earnings in order to create a basis for taxation against the stockholders. As to the added contention that, because liability was assessed upon a mere purpose to evade imposition of surtaxes against stockholders, the tax was a direct tax on a state of mind, the Court replied that while the existence of the defined purpose was a condition precedent to the imposition of the tax liability, . . . [did] not prevent it from being a true income tax within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.15 Subsequently, in Helvering v. Northwest Steel Mills,16 this appraisal of the constitutionality of the undistributed profits tax was buttressed by the following observation: It is true that the surtax is imposed upon the annual income only if it is not distributed, but this does not serve to make it anything other than a true tax on income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Nor is it true . . . that because there might be an impairment of the capital stock, the tax on the current annual profit would be the equivalent of a tax upon capital. Whether there was an impairment of the capital stock or not, the tax . . . was imposed on profits earned during a definite period—a tax year—and therefore on profits constituting income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.17

Likening a cooperative to a corporation, federal courts have also declared to be taxable income the net earnings of a farmers’ cooperative, a portion of which was used to pay dividends on capital stock without reference to patronage. The argument that such earnings were in reality accumulated savings of its patrons that the cooperative held as their bailee was rejected as unsound because, while those who might be entitled to patronage dividends have . . . an interest in such earnings, such interest never ripens into an individual ownership . . . until and if a patronage dividend be declared. Had such net earnings been apportioned to all of the patrons during the year, there might be . . . a more serious question as to whether such earnings constituted ‘income’ [of the cooperative] within the Amendment.18 Similarly, the power of Congress to tax the income of an unincorporated joint stock association has been held to be unaffected by the fact that under state law the association is not a legal entity and cannot hold title to property, or by the fact that the shareholders are liable for its debts as partners.19

Whether subsidies paid to corporations in money or in the form of grants of land or other physical property constitute taxable income has also concerned the Court. In Edwards v. Cuba Railroad,20 it ruled that subsidies of lands, equipment, and money paid by Cuba for the construction of a railroad were not taxable income but were to be viewed as having been received by the railroad as a reimbursement for capital expenditures in completing such project. On the other hand, sums paid out by the Federal Government to fulfill its guarantee of minimum operating revenue to railroads during the six months following relinquishment of their control by that government were found to be taxable income. Such payments were distinguished from those excluded from computation of income in the preceding case in that the former were neither bonuses, nor gifts, nor subsidies, that is, contributions to capital.21 Other corporate receipts deemed to be taxable as income include the following: (1) insiders profits realized by a director and stockholder of a corporation from transaction in its stock, which, as required by the Securities and Exchange Act,22 are paid over to the corporation;23 (2) money received as exemplary damages for fraud or as the punitive two-thirds portion of a treble damage antitrust recovery;24 and (3) compensation awarded for the fair rental value of trucking facilities operated by the taxpayer under control and possession of the government during World War II, for in the last instance the government never acquired title to the property and had not damaged it beyond ordinary wear.25

Gains: When Taxable

Although economic gain is not always taxable as income, it is settled that the realization of gain need not be in cash derived from the sale of an asset.26 Thus, when through forfeiture of a lease, a landlord became possessed of a new building erected on his land by the outgoing tenant, the resulting gain to the former was taxable to him in that same year. The fact that the gain is a portion of the value of the property received by the . . . [landlord] does not negative its realization. . . . It is not necessary to recognition of taxable gain that . . . [the landlord] should be able to sever the improvement begetting the gain from his original capital. Hence, the taxpayer was incorrect in contending that the Amendment does not permit the taxation of such [a] gain without apportionment amongst the states.27 Consistent with this holding, the Court has also ruled that, when an apartment house was acquired by bequest subject to an unassumed mortgage, and several years later was sold for a price slightly in excess of the mortgage, the basis for determining the gain from that sale was the difference between the selling price, undiminished by the amount of the mortgage, and the value of the property at the time of the acquisition, less deductions for depreciation during the years the building was held by the taxpayer. The latter’s contention that the Revenue Act, as thus applied, taxed something that was not revenue, was declared to be unfounded.28

As against the argument of a donee that a gift of stock became a capital asset when received and that therefore, when disposed of, no part of that value could be treated as taxable income to said donee, the Court has declared that it was within the power of Congress to require a donee of stock, who sells it at a profit, to pay income tax on the difference between the selling price and the value when the donor acquired it.29 Moreover, receipt in cash or property . . . not [being] the only characteristic of realization of income to a taxpayer on the cash receipt basis, it follows that one who is normally taxable only on the receipt of interest payments cannot escape taxation thereon by giving away his right to such income in advance of payment. When the taxpayer does not receive payment of income in money or property[,] realization may occur when the last step is taken by which he obtains the fruition of the economic gain which has already accrued to him. Hence an owner of bonds, reporting on the cash receipts basis, who clipped interest coupons therefrom before their due date and gave them to his son, was held to have realized taxable income in the amount of said coupons, notwithstanding that his son had collected them upon maturity later in the year.30

Income from Illicit Transactions

In United States v. Sullivan,31 the Court held that gains derived from illicit traffic were taxable income under the act of 1921.32 Justice Holmes wrote, for the unanimous Court: We see no reason . . . why the fact that a business is unlawful should exempt it from paying the taxes that if lawful it would have to pay.33 Consistent with that decision, although not without dissent, the Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax as income moneys received by an extortioner,34 and, more recently, that embezzled money is taxable income of an embezzler in the year of embezzlement. When a taxpayer acquires earnings, lawfully or unlawfully, without the consensual recognition, express or implied, of an obligation to repay and without restriction as to their disposition, ‘he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.’35

Deductions and Exemptions

The authorization contained in the Sixteenth Amendment to tax income from whatever source derived does not preclude Congress from granting exemptions.36 Thus, the fact that, nder the Revenue Acts of 1913, 1916, 1917 and 1918, stock fire insurance companies were taxed upon their income, including gains realized from the sale or other disposition of property accruing subsequent to March 1, 1913, but were not so taxed by the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926, did not prevent Congress, under the terms of the Revenue Act of 1928, from taxing all the gain attributable to increase in value after March 1, 1913, that such a company realized from a sale of property in 1928. The constitutional power of Congress to tax a gain being well-established, the Court found Congress competent to choose the moment of its realization and the amount realized; and ts failure to impose a tax upon the increase in value in the earlier years . . . cannot preclude it from taxing the gain in the year when realized . . . .37 Congress is equally well-equipped with the power to condition, limit, or deny deductions from gross incomes in order to arrive at the net that it chooses to tax.38 Accordingly, even though the rental value of a building used by its owner does not constitute income within the meaning of the Amendment,39 Congress was competent to provide that an insurance company shall not be entitled to deductions for depreciation, maintenance, and property taxes on real estate owned and occupied by it unless it includes in its computation of gross income the rental value of the space thus used.40

Also, a taxpayer who erected a $3,000,000 office building on land, the unimproved worth of which was $660,000, and who subsequently purchased the lease on the latter for $2,100,000 is entitled to compute depreciation over the remaining useful life of the building on that portion of $1,440,000, representing the difference between the price and the unimproved value, as may be allocated to the building; but he cannot deduct the $1,440,000 as a business expense incurred in eliminating the cost of allegedly excessive rentals under the lease, nor can he treat that sum as a prepayment of rent to be amortized over the 21-year period that the lease was to run.41

Diminution of Loss

Mere diminution of loss is neither gain, profit, nor income. Accordingly, one who in 1913 borrowed a sum of money to be repaid in German marks and who subsequently lost the money in a business transaction cannot be taxed on the curtailment of debt effected by using depreciated marks in 1921 to settle a liability of $798,144 for $113,688, the saving having been exceeded by a loss on the entire operation.42
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,851
Likes
7,946
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#42
The so called "income tax":is actually a voluntary bastard Article I, section 8, cl 1 merchant tax laid on the franchise of limited liability & the use of synthetic credit & legal tender federal reserve notes in lieu of gold & silver specie.
sorry as I have a problem with the duplicity of the USA; of (or) for constitution....full faith and credit the silver and gold.

You know, just when I think I gots it, it evaporates.....shucks *kicks can*
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,851
Likes
7,946
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#43
K, you pay tax on gain and that gain is called income. trading work for value is not gain nor is it income as it is BARTER. Sure this contractual barter is and has laws surrounding it BUT it is not gain nor is it income. Income is something you get on contract for something loaned. Yes you get the loaned thing back along with the gain. You can never get back the work expended in a barter.
 

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
16,794
Likes
16,212
#46
Problem is Judges dont follow the constitution. They are now legislators
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#47
Greetings Cigarlover,

I JUST GOT IT. I HAVE JUST WOKEN UP TO WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALONG! LOL!

THE BOTTOM LINE:
TAX PROTESTERS ARE CONFUSING, COMBINING, SCRAMBLING-TOGETHER AND CO-MINGLING WHAT IS NOW CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") AND WHICH HAS ONE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WITH WHAT IS NOW CHAPTER 3 (which applies to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations") AND WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT.


THAT WILL NOT WORK.

See if this makes any sense now.

YOUR COMMENT: Must have rode the short bus this morning. You continually ignore key points that I make and provide a wall of text to further obfuscate the truth.

MY RESPONSE:I apologize. I am just now realizing that there was a disconnect in our discussion and exactly what that disconnect was. I was focusing solely on applicable law as that law actually is. I did not realize until two days ago that you regarded something outside the law as a "key point" on the subject of income taxes to which I should have responded. I had never heard of this particular tax protester argument before because it does not relate to (or appear in) the law on income taxes as that law actually is. But, I am learning more about this particular tax protester argument so as to be able to intelligently communicate with you about it. See proof below.

YOUR QUOTE:

From Larry Becrafts site​
Download the searchable old tax acts: the Revenue Act of 1918 through the 1939 Code, the 1954 Code, and the 2002 version of the 1986 Code. Search these income tax acts for the phrase “gains, profits”, which will thus find all references to this phrase, “gains, profits, and income.” Why does this search demonstrate a certain pattern in the tax acts, with particular emphasis on non-resident aliens and foreign corporations?
MY RESPONSE: I now realize, for the very first time, that you regard this argument above as a "key point", even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with the law on income taxes for "citizens and residents of the United States". In reality, this argument is not only NOT a "key point", it also has nothing whatsoever to do with income taxes for "citizens and residents of the United States". This, means that whatever the law is on "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations," that unrelated law has no effect whatsoever on income taxes for"citizens and residents of the United States." See proof below.

This is why I could never understand why you regarded something completely irrelevant as a "key point" which you claimed I was "ignoring" in an effort to "obfuscate the truth" (about a completely irrelevant argument which does not apply to income taxes on "citizens or residents of the United States").

More importantly, this also explains why you regarded all of the income tax law that I provided to you (which really was directly on point) as something to"bury and obfuscate the truth" about a completely irrelevant subject which has nothing to do with income taxes for "citizens and residents of the United States." See proof below.


WHAT FOLLOWS INVOLVES AN ANALYSIS OF THE "LEGISLATIVE INTENT" TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT AS IT RELATES TO "NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS".

First, the sixteenth amendment empowered Congress to "lay and collect a tax on income".

SO, CONGRESS IMPOSED A TAX ON THE INCOMES OF "CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES" UNDER CHAPTER 1,

AND AND AND, AND, AND (NOT "OR")

CONGRESS IMPOSED A TAX ON THE INCOMES OF "NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS UNDER CHAPTER 3.


AS PROOF OF THIS REALITY (above), 26 CFR § 1.1-1 (RELIED UPON BY DAVE CHAMPION), READS AS FOLLOWS:

(BEGIN QUOTE)

(a) General rule.
(1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT ALIEN OF THE UNITED STATES AND [AND, AND, AND (NOT "OR")]... on the income of A NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUAL.



THE DEFINITION OF INCOME :

CONGRESS PROVIDED A SHORT FORMULA FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE "INCOME" FOR CHAPTER 1 PURPOSES (applicable to citizens and resident residents of the United States) IN CHAPTER 1(which applies to citizens and resident residents of the United States)

Title 26 U.S.C 63(a) OF CHAPTER 1(which applies to citizens and residents of theUnited States) reads:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FIRST:
((BEGIN QUOTE)


(a) In general
... THE TERM “TAXABLE INCOME" MEANS GROSS INCOME [SEE BELOW] MINUS THE DEDUCTIONS [SEE BELOW] ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER (other than the standard deduction).



SECOND:
Then, Title 26 U.S.C. section 61 OF CHAPTER 1(applicable to citizens and resident residents of the United States) reads:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61
((BEGIN QUOTE)

(a) General definition
... GROSS INCOME MEANS ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) the following items:


(1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES [SUCH AS WAGES AND SALARIES], including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

THIRD
THEN, CONGRESS PROVIDES A LIST OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS. CLICK HERE:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FOURTH:
THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS "TAXABLE INCOME." SEE PROOF BELOW.



65 T.C.M. 1803 (1993)T.C. Memo. 1993-29Patricia B. Farr
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 6347-91.
United States Tax Court.

Filed January 27, 1993.
Patricia B. Farr, pro se. John M. Altman, for the respondent.

..
Opinion

Issue 1. Deficiency in Income Tax

[Referring to Title 26 U.S.C.] Section 1 [Of CHAPTER 1] of subtitle A IMPOSES AN INCOME TAX ON THE TAXABLE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 1; sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. TAXABLE INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME LESS THOSE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Sec. 63(a).
...
(END QUOTE)


THIS PARTICULAR ERRONEOUS TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT:

TAX PROTESTERS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THE OLD TAX ACTS (OF 1918 THROUGH 1939 AND THOSE OF 1954 AND THE 2002 VERSION OF 1986) REFLECT A "PATTERN" OF DEFINITIONS OF "GAIN, PROFITS" (OR "INCOME") WITH RESPECT TO "NON-RESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS" UNDER CHAPTER 3 (which only applies "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations"), THAT SUCH A "PATTERN" OF DEFINITIONS UNDER TO CHAPTER 3 (which is applicable to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations") SERVE TO CHANGE OR REPLACE THE DEFINITION OF "INCOME" UNDER CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") AND WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THAT OF CHAPTER 3.

BUT, THIS IS NOT SO. A LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY PATTERN OF DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO CHAPTER 3 (which is applicable only to "nonresident aliens and foreign corporations") HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE DEFINITIONS IN CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") AND WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THAT OF CHAPTER 3.

Incidentally, this very same principle applies to the term "U.S. PERSON" UNDER CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") and "ALL PERSONS" UNDER CHAPTER 3 (which is applicable to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations"). The fact that there is a pattern of IRS regulations restricting the term "ALL PERSONS" UNDER CHAPTER 3 to"non-resident aliens and foreign corporations" under chapter 3 will not serve to restrict the term "U.S. PERSONS" UNDER CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations" under CHAPTER 3. This is because EACH CHAPTER HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE . As a result, the UNIQUE legislative intent of each chapter MUST BE UPHELD.

CONCLUSION:
THIS MEANS THAT THE SO-CALLED "LEGISLATIVE INTENT" TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT UNDER CHAPTER 3 (which applies only to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations") DOES NOT CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF "INCOME" (OR "U.S. PERSON") UNDER CHAPTER 1 (which applies only to "citizens and residents of the United States") AND WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THAT OF CHAPTER 3.

This is why there is no case law which supports this tax protester argument and why 100% of the case law reaches the opposite conclusion. The courts NEVER got this wrong. The courts knew that statutes, regulations and definitions applicable to chapter 3 DID NOT APPLY OVER IN chapter 1 WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO THAT OF CHAPTER 3. But, tax protesters (and their followers) do not know this.


YOUR COMMENT: You also simply ignore the fact that despite congress going through the trouble to pass the 16th amendment to allegedly tax everyone, they simply didn't tax 96% of the population for the next 30 something years. In fact even today the tax act does not tax us as you claim.

MY RESPONSE: Brother, I sincerely apologize. I do not intend to ignore anything of yours. You are my main man. If I had understood what you were talking about, I would have respond to it. I just did not understand what the "key point" was or why you regarded it as so important. This argument makes no sense (SWITCHING PHRASES FROM ONE CHAPTER TO THE OTHER) and is squarely contrary to the law. Nothing about it is "key" to anything.

While rules relating to legislative intent are part of the law, there is no law which says that determining the legislative intent of one statute on one subject with one legislative purpose nullifies, over-rules or replaces the legislative intent OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STATUTE ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.

The UNIQUE legislative intent OF EACH statute must be upheld. Tax protesters cannot steal the legislative intent of a statute which they like and use it to somehow nullify, over-rule or replace the legislative intent OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STATUTE ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE which they do not like. The UNIQUE legislative intent OF BOTH statutes must be upheld. In other words, "legislative intent" is not portable from one statute to another statute in order to nullify, over-rule or replace the UNIQUE legislative intent which was already there.

Just remember, tax protester arguments (of any type) are not the law. The law on income tax is limited to (and confined exclusively to) the sixteenth amendment, Title 26, the IRS regulations and post-1913 case law on FEDERAL (not state) income taxes (and not case law on other subjects which do not involve federal income taxes. like the right to enter the slaughterhouse market or the right to enter into employment contracts). If you are relying on anything else but these sources of law , you are completely lost and wasting your time.

YOUR COMMENT: It's not easy to wrap your head around and the tax codes is a maze that few can navigate. On that basis alone the income tax is void for vagueness.

MY RESPONSE: I can assure you that most of your difficulty and confusion in connection with the income tax law is the DIRECT result of your being misinformed first from the very beginning. The law is not nearly as confusing as tax protester arguments, all of which are false. As intelligent and analytical as you are, you would have "ACED" income tax law if you had only been told the truth about it right up front, from the very beginning.

Yes, some courts have agreed with you that the tax code is confusing. But, no court has held that the tax code is completely "void" for vagueness, although admittedly some courts have refused to impose criminal or civil penalties on individuals who were genuinely confused about their income tax obligations.

The tax code and the case law may be confusing to non-lawyers, especially those who have been misinformed up front, like you. This is precisely the reason that you should NOT get your income tax information from amateurs. posers or those who have already lost cases on tax protester arguments.

YOUR COMMENT: In some of my original postings I simply stated that the courts have gotten things wrong over the years. I still maintain that position. If the statutes regarding the tax act don't support the courts position then how can they make a claim to support your position that you are arguing?

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, the courts NEVER got this wrong. The courts have always gotten this right. The decisions of the courts are in perfect harmony with the statutes on income tax. Its just that the courts will not take the UNIQUE legislative intent of a statute which only applies to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations" and use it to nullify, over-rule or replace the UNIQUE legislative intent of an entirely different statute which only applies to "citizens and residents of the United States) WHICH HAS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. The courts know that the UNIQUE legislative intent of every statute must be upheld, not just the legislative intent of the statutes we like.

YOUR COMMENT: Don't the courts have to rule according to what the statute says?

MY RESPONSE: YES! When the legislative purpose is clear from the language of the statute and the words of the legislation is clear and unambiguous (as it is here), THEN THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER and no further search for OTHER legislative intent is allowed under the law. In the event of such clarity, the courts are required to simply follow the legislation to the letter (unless the legislation is unconstitutional, which is not the case with respect to income taxes, because of the sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution).

YOUR COMMENT: The fact is that they haven't ruled correctly and in accordance with what the statutes say.

MY RESPONSE: Respectfully, this is simply not so. The courts have always followed the statutes WHICH ACTUALLY APPLY TO THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE COURT. For example, the court will not "cherry pick" the phrase "non-resident alien" OUT OF CHAPTER 3 (which applies only to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations") and use it to replace the phrase "citizen or resident of the United States" OVER IN CHAPTER 1 (which applies to citizens and residents of the United States) so as to create the illusion (and fiction) that federal income taxes only apply to "non-resident aliens" and not to "citizens or residents of the United States". Likewise, the court will not "cherry pick" a definition of "income" which is applicable only to CHAPTER 3 (which applies only to "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations") and use it to replace the definition of "income" in CHAPTER 1 (which applies to "citizens and residents of the United States") to create the illusion (and fiction) that the only "income" which is subject to federal income taxes is income received from or on behalf of a "non-resident alien or foreign corporation."

However, clever you think you are, you are not as smart as any federal judge in terms of determining which statute and which definition to apply in a given case.

YOUR COMMENT: That invalidates a good portion of your case law.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. Tax protester arguments cannot "invalidate" anything. Tax protester arguments are not the law. And, just so that you know, even if the federal income tax case law was somehow inconsistent with Congress' legislative intent (and it is not), the case law would remain the law until that case law was reversed on appeal by a higher court.


I know I sound like a broken record, but your problem with understanding income tax law is your IGNORING the sixteenth amendment, your IGNORING Title 26 U.S.C. (chapter 1 in particular, which applies to "citizens and resident of the United States" and which defines "income" as shown above in this post). the IRS regulations and your IGNORING POST-1913 FEDERAL (NOT STATE) CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON THE SUBJECT INCOME TAXES (AND NOT CASE LAW ON OTHER SUBJECTS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE POST-1913 FEDERAL INCOME TAXES, LIKE THE RIGHT TO ENTER THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE MARKET OR THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#48
Hello Cigarlover, my awakening legal expert friend,

YOUR COMMENT: So what was the intent of the legislature?

MY RESPONSE: THE ACTUAL RULES FOR DETERMINING THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE ARE BELOW.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction

THE RULES FOR DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT:
Overview
1). Any question of statutory interpretation BEGINS WITH LOOKING AT THE PLAIN LANGUGAE OF THE STATUTE to discover its original intent.
2). To discover a statute's original intent, COURTS FIRST LOOK TO THE WORDS OF THE STATUTE AND APPLY THEIR USUAL AND CUSTOMARY MEANING
3). IF {AND ONLY IF] after looking at the language of the statute THE MEANING of the statute REMAINS UNCLEAR, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature BY LOOKING AT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND OTHER SOURCES. .
4). Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation THAT WOULD CREAT AN ABSURD RESULT which the Legislature did not intend.
5). Because legislators may intend different things when they vote for a bill, statutory construction is often fairly difficult.
6). Statutes are sometimes ambiguous enough TO SUPPORT MORE THAN ONE INTERPRETATION. In these cases, courts are free to interpret statutes themselves.
7). Once a court interprets the statute, other courts usually will not go through the exercise again, but rather will enforce the statute as interpreted by the other court, similar to stare decisis.

OTHER RULES FOR DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT
Rules Often Followed for Statutory Interpretation•
1). STATURES SHOULD BE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT. A particular section of the statute should not be inconsistent with the rest of the statute.
2). When the legislature enumerates an exception to a rule, ONE CAN ASSUME THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER EXCEPTIONS.•
11). When the legislature includes limiting language in an earlier version of a statute, but deletes it, IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT THE LIMITATION WAS NOT INTENDED. by the legislature.•
12). The legislature is presumed to act INTENTIONALLY AND PURPOSEFULLY when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.•
13). Where legislation and [PRIOR] case law [ON THE SAME SUBJECT] conflict, courts generally presume that legislation takes precedence over [THE PRIOR] case law.•
14). The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous [MEANS "UNCLEAR"] criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant.
15). A court may also look at: the common usage of a word, case law, dictionaries, parallel reasoning, punctuation


NOTE: WHEN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN BY THE LEGISLATURE, AS IT WAS IN THE CASE OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, THEN THESE SAME RULES ABOVE APPLY TO THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.



YOUR COMMENT: After we look at what our President proposed, the next thing we must look at to discern legislative intent are the Congressional debates on the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909. Three different written versions of the Sixteenth Amendment were proposed before the one we have now was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Below is a summary of each in written form:

Table 3-2: Versions of Proposed Sixteenth Amendment prior to approval

VersionText of proposed AmendmentVote on proposed amendment
Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 25“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances.”Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 39“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct [emphasis mine] taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population.” [44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909)]Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 40“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.” [This is the version of the Sixteenth Amendment we have now]Approved 77 to 15 on July 5, 1909. [Accepted]

The first two, obviously, were voted down, but what were they? Both versions that were voted down included proposals to levy a direct tax on the states without apportionment and one of them proposed to eliminate the apportionment requirements found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution!

Senator Brown from Nebraska wrote all three versions of the Sixteenth Amendment that were voted on by Congress, which included S.J.R. No. 25, S.J.R. No. 39, and S.J.R. No. 40, in that order. S.J.R. No. 40 was the one finally approved. The Senate voted in favor of the 16th Amendment we have now (S.J.R. No. 40) at 1 o’clock on July 5, 1909. Senator Aldrich had earlier tried to ram it through the Senate on Saturday, July 3rd, a holiday weekend, for an immediate vote without debate when only 52 senators were present. A few senators protested and the vote was set for the following Monday. As a result of the minimal debate that did take place on July 3rd, several amendments were proposed to S.J.R. No. 40 that came up for a vote at the appointed hour of 1 P.M. Monday, July 5th.

The first of these was an amendment to S.J.R. No. 40, proposed as S.J.R. No. 25 by Senator Bailey of Texas to provide that conventions of each of the several States be required to ratify the constitutional amendment as opposed to the state legislatures. This was voted down.

Next was the second amendment to the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in the form of S.J.R. No. 39. This amendment by Bailey to add the language “and may grade the same” to modify the term “income tax” as a way to provide that the tax may be graduated. Bailey proposed this language on Saturday, July 3rd. By Monday, July 5th, when this came up for a vote, Bailey realized it would fail and tried to have it withdrawn. Bailey wanted it withdrawn because, according to Bailey:

“Mr. President, I am satisfied that this amendment will be voted down; and voting it down would warrant the Supreme Court in hereafter saying that a proposition to authorize Congress to levy a graduated income tax was rejected.” [44 Cong.Rec. 4120 (1920)]

In other words, Senator Bailey understood that once Congress rejected a particular provision while amending the Constitution, Congress would be forever barred from implementing that provision by way of statute in the future. This legal principle applies to all legislation, even to income taxes. It is also why the Framers had the Constitution mandate that Congress keep a journal.

Bailey was told by the Senate’s Vice President that he could not withdraw the amendment and that it must be voted on. The rules required it. Senator Aldrich intervened and somehow the rules were suspended and the amendment was withdrawn without a vote.

Next was an amendment by Senator McLaurin of Mississippi. His proposed amendment to S.J.R. No. 40 was as follows:

“The SECRETARY. Amend the joint resolution by striking out all after line 7 and inserting the following: ‘The words ‘and direct taxes’ in clause 3, section 2, Article I, and the words “or other direct,’ in clause 4, section 9, Article I. Of the Constitution of the United States are hereby stricken out.” [44 Cong.Rec. 4109 (1909)]

Senator McLaurin’s amendment would have stricken out the requirement for apportionment of direct taxes from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and made the income tax into an unapportioned direct tax! The Senate rejected this, as this amendment failed by voice vote. Had this amendment passed, it would have provided authority for a species of income tax that was inherently a direct tax to be levied without apportionment, and it would have changed the original wording of the Constitution to forever do away with the prohibition against direct taxes.

Lastly, there was an amendment by Senator Bristow of Kansas to replace S.J.R. No. 40 with S.J.R. No. 39. S.J.R. No. 39 read:

“The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect direct[emphasis mine] taxes on income without apportionment among the several States according to population.”

This substitute amendment also included a provision to elect senators by popular vote. After some debate this was also rejected by voice vote.

Next, S.J.R. No. 40, the version of the Sixteenth Amendment that we have now, was voted on and passed 77 to 15. So what can we conclude from all of this? Well, first of all we can conclude that the Senate understood it was the practice of the Supreme Court at the proceedings of Congress to see what the intent of the Congress was. If Congress voted on a measure and rejected it, then the Supreme Court would interpret that vote as a clarification of the intent and purpose of Congress. Here is how Sutherland’s rules on statutory construction explains it:

“One of the most readily available extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutes is the action of the legislature on amendments which are proposed to be made during the course of consideration in the legislature. Both the state and federal courts will refer to proposed changes in a bill in order to interpret the statute as finally enacted. The journals of the legislature are the usual source for this information. Generally the rejection of an amendment indicates that the legislature does not intend the bill to include the provisions embodied in the rejected amendment.” [Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 48.18 (5th Edition)]

We also learned that twice the Senate was offered the opportunity to vote on a measure to provide that the income tax being considered by the 16th Amendment would provide for a direct tax within the constitutional meaning of the term “direct tax.” Twice in the hour or so prior to the final Senate vote on the income tax amendment, the Senate rejected the opportunity to bring direct taxes within the scope of the 16th Amendment. This issue was squarely before the Congress, and Congress rejected it.

“It is plain, then, that Congress had this question presented to its attention in a most precise form. It has the issue clearly drawn. The first alternative was rejected. All difficulties of construction vanish if we are wiling to give to the words, deliberately adopted, their natural meaning.” [U.S. v. Pfitsch, 256 U.S. 547, 552 (1921)]

“When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of the Congress.” [Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)]

I think the intent of the legislature is clear.).

MY RESPONSE: YES. NOW, LET'S USE THESE SAME RULES OF DETERMINING LEGISLATIVE INTENT (AT THE VERY TOP) WITH RESPECT TO THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY CONGRESS AND WHICH HAS BEEN PART OF THE CONSTITUTION SINCE 1913.

FOR EASY REFERENCE, THE WORDS OF THE FINAL VERSION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT WHICH CONGRESS ACTUALLY PASSED ARE BELOW. THEY ARE:

“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.”

The author of the cut-and-paste article above CITED FOUR CASES in support of his argument. So, the author of this article above does not view case law with the same measure of contempt and disdain that you do. To the contrary, the author of this article above ACTUALLY RELIES ON CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS.

HERE'S HOW TO APPLY THESE FOUR CASES (THAT THE AUTHOR CITED ABOVE) TO THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT:

CASE #1:Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied IN HARMONY WITH AND NOT TO THWART THE PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION [HERE, THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT].” [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)].

APPLICATION: Since the stated "PURPOSE" of the sixteenth amendment (THE "CONSTITUTION") IS TO PROVIDE CONGRESS WITH THE POWER TO"LAY AND COLLECT A TAX ON INCOMES" (without apportionment and without regard to any census or enumeration), THE COURTS MUST GIVE EFFECT TO THE FOLLOWING UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS. "The Congress shall have power TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOMES". This interpretation would be "IN HARMONY WITH" the Constitution (here, the sixteenth amendment). Any other construction would THWART the "PURPOSE" of the Constitution (here, the sixteenth amendment). Thus, case #1 above is consistent with all other post-1913 case law on the subject of income taxes, not the other way around.

CASE #2:COURTS should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is NO UNCERTAINTY as to the legislative purpose TO TAX POST-1913 CORPORATE EARNINGS. We must NOT give effect to any contrivance WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE. " [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)].

APPLICATION: Here, with respect to the sixteenth amendment, there is "NO UNCERTAINTY" that the legislative PURPOSE of the sixteenth amendment was to empower Congress 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).” So here, "We must NOT give effect to any contrivance WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX [THE INCOME TAX] CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE." That means, when it comes to the sixteenth amendment, We must NOT give effect to any contrivance [such as tax protester argument] WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX [THE INCOME TAX] CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE." Thus, case #2 above is consistent with all other post-1913 case law on the subject of income taxes, not the other way around.

CASE #3: “It is plain, then, that Congress had this question presented to its attention in a most precise form. It has the issue clearly drawn. The first alternative was rejected. All difficulties of construction vanish IF WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE TO THE WORDS [OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT], DELIBERATELY ADOPTED, THEIR NATURAL MEANING.” [U.S. v. Pfitsch, 256 U.S. 547, 552 (1921)].

APPLICATION: Yes, Congress rejected other proposed versions of the sixteenth amendment (and other proposed amendments to some proposed version of the sixteenth amendment) which related to whether the reach of the sixteenth amendment should extend to ALL "DIRECT TAXES," RATHER THAN TO JUST "INCOME TAXES' ALONE, and so forth. BUT, ALL OF THESE PROPOSALS EMPOWERED CONGRESS "TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME". SEE PROOF IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE! THIS MEANS THAT WHATEVER DIFFERENCES THERE WERE IN ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS, NONE OF THEM RELATED TO WHETHER CONGRESS' INTENDED TO LAY AND COLLECT A TAX ON INCOME! ALL OF THEM DID! SO, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT CONGRESS INTENDED TO LAY AND COLLECT A TAX ON INCOMES. Regardless, under the rules of determining legislative intent (at the very top), WE MUST GIVE THE WORDS OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT (AS IIT WAS ACTUALLY ADOPTED) THEIR "DELIBERATELY ADOPTED" AND "NATURAL MEANING". Under this rule of determining legislative intent, THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT EMPOWERS CONGRESS 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).” Thus, case #3 above is consistent with all other post-1913 case law on the subject of income taxes, not the other way around.

CASE #4: “When A COURT reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue [HERE, WHETHER CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME]. If the intent of Congress is clear, THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of the Congress [TO GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME].” [Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)].

APPLICATION: This is, in fact, the very first rule of statutory construction, (SEE PROOF ABOVE) IF THE WORDS OF CONGRESS ARE CLEAR, THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER! (This means, resorting to legislative history to determine a different meaning IS AGAINST THE LAW unless the words of Congress ARE UNCLEAR, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE!). So, in the case of the sixteenth amendment, A COURT would ask itself whether the words of the sixteenth amendment spokedirectly to the question at issue, "NAMELY, WHETHER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT EMPOWERS CONGRESS TO LAY AND COLLECT A TAX ON INCOME". The answer to that question is an unequivocal , "YES", because the sixteenth amendment reads, “THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE 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 THE INTENT OF CONGRESS IS CLEAR [FROM THE WORDS OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT THEMSELVES, AS IT IS HERE, THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER, FOR THE COURT, AS WELL AS FOR THE AGENCY. SO, UNDER THESE FACTS, THE COURTS, AS WELL AS THE AGENCY, MUST GIVE EFFECT TO THE UNAMBIGUOUSLY EXPRESSED INTENT OF THE CONGRESS [TO GIVE GONGRESS THE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME].”Thus, case #4 above is consistent with all other post-1913 case law on the subject of income taxes, not the other way around.

On a related subject, I remind you that I did not use "my" case law in debunking this premises (that because the sixteenth amendment is so vague, ambiguous and confusing, we should look to the legislative history to find an entirely different legislative purpose and intent to the purpose and intent reflected by the words which Congress actually used in the sixteenth amendment). Instead, I used "the author's" own case law to debunk this premises. This should finally put the matter to rest.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#49
CASE #2:COURTS should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is NO UNCERTAINTY as to the legislative purpose TO TAX POST-1913 CORPORATE EARNINGS. We must NOT give effect to any contrivance WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE. " [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)].

APPLICATION: Here, with respect to the sixteenth amendment, there is "NO UNCERTAINTY" that the legislative PURPOSE of the sixteenth amendment was to empower Congress 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).” So here, "We must NOT give effect to any contrivance WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX [THE INCOME TAX] CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE." That means, when it comes to the sixteenth amendment, We must NOT give effect to any contrivance [such as tax protester argument] WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX [THE INCOME TAX] CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE." Thus, case #2 above is consistent with all other post-1913 case law on the subject of income taxes, not the other way around.
Thanks for the inclusion of the Foster versus US case. I had not known of that case before. But in the case the judge clearly defines the definition of incomes from whatever source derived as corporate earnings. The 16th amendment had it foundation and context within the corporate income tax act of a few years prior.

If a person becomes a voluntary 14th amendment US corporal/federal/dc itizen while in full knowledge and awareness of The facts of the matter, then their earnings could also be construed as corporate earnings. They have become slaves to the master.

That is why there is a non u.s. citizen antidote to almost every u.s.citizen tax filing document . I. E a w-8 rather than W-9, IE at 10:42 , 1040nr and so forth.

Thanks again very very much for pointing out the judges definition of income from whatever source derived.

For a US citizen those are almost every source derived weather within or without a federal distrct.

For a NRA the similar sources within a US territory or district such as even a federal post office or if outside the u.s (federal area) only certain specific sources of income and/or non employee contract work effectively connected with a US performance of the functions of a federal public office. Such as being a contract worker for any federal extension office..

The fact that you've changed the wording of corporate earnings above and glossed over it by repeating the words in the 16th amendment (income) may have been innocent, cognitive dissonance, but I hope not intentional.

I'll maybe post a series of articles that I found very helpful about 15 years ago and were posted on the old forum and might still be in the archives but I'll repost them again here after I find them shortly.

Nice to see a bunch of familiar names. I haven't been on for maybe 5 or 6 years.
 
Last edited:

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#50
Irwin Schiff argued along similar lines.

He died in prison.
.
.
I don't think shifts argument was anything as detailed and complex as cigar lover has gone into. I think if not mistaken he was simply stating show me the law.

He never claimed to be a NRA he never as far as I know performed an act of expatriation.. I think what actually got h arrested or convicted was cashing in S.S. checks.
 

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#51
This website, usa-the-republic.com has some of the best information around. Hidden in the website and not readily findable is about 14 chapters of a collection of commentaries on various topics related to inalienable rights and the income tax situation. It's titled the truth about. Here is the link to the index. Six are likely most applicable to our discussion.

Snoop, I noticed that in several of your references to statements made by judges when the judge appeals to the Constitution you insert the words now including the 16th amendment into them. As cigar lover and barnacle Bob and others have pointed out all statutes are to be subordinate to the original statute which is a Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. The 16th amendment did not and could not change the original intent of the founding document. Neither could the 14th amendment change the original intent of the inalienable rights. That is why it is well known that a 14th amendment citizen is a federal corporal citizen owing allegiance to the United States not to his township, his church, his neighborhood, his County or his state, but to the collective decisions of people often living up to 3,000 or more miles away.


http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Contents.html
True History

On the homepage for usa-the-republic there is an article on the left hand side title of the history of the 16th amendment.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,281
Location
Northern Arizona
#52
I don't think shifts argument was anything as detailed and complex as cigar lover has gone into. I think if not mistaken he was simply stating show me the law.

He never claimed to be a NRA he never as far as I know performed an act of expatriation.. I think what actually got h arrested or convicted was cashing in S.S. checks.
Irwin refused to pay the taxes that the IRS (wrongly) demanded from him.

At his trial, the judge refused to allow Irwin to cite the US constitution in his defense.

Peter Schiff has always maintained that his father was a "political prisoner."
.
.
 

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#53
Irwin refused to pay the taxes that the IRS (wrongly) demanded from him.

At his trial, the judge refused to allow Irwin to cite the US constitution in his defense.

Peter Schiff has always maintained that his father was a "political prisoner.".
.
I don't know if the taxes were wrongly demanded or not. Simply not filing doesn't necessarily mean that you're not liable to file in my understanding.

In the usa-the-republic.com website there is an article title liens and levies. The writer of that article brings out the fact that in order to affect a lien or Levy a court order or a warrant of distinct is necessary before lien or Levy is to be enforced. (sect-7403)

Five things are supposed to be determined during a adjudication and warrant of the distraint is issued..

Number five of those things is:

  1. Facts establishing that probable cause exists to believe that the taxpayer is liable for the tax assessed.
Note the words probable cause. Which one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights do these words coorelate to? It is that amendment which the irs code is confessing to subordinate to, as well as the taxing;clauses.

What are some of the things that might create liability and probable cause?

I don't know if Irwin Schiff ever contested on lack of probable cause or liability.

May he r.I.p though and all respects to his sons.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#54
Thanks for the inclusion of the Foster versus US case. I had not known of that case before. But in the case the judge clearly defines the definition of incomes from whatever source derived as corporate earnings. The 16th amendment had it foundation and context within the corporate income tax act of a few years prior.

If a person becomes a voluntary 14th amendment US corporal/federal/dc itizen while in full knowledge and awareness of The facts of the matter, then their earnings could also be construed as corporate earnings. They have become slaves to the master.

That is why there is a non u.s. citizen antidote to almost every u.s.citizen tax filing document . I. E a w-8 rather than W-9, IE at 10:42 , 1040nr and so forth.

Thanks again very very much for pointing out the judges definition of income from whatever source derived.

For a US citizen those are almost every source derived weather within or without a federal distrct.

For a NRA the similar sources within a US territory or district such as even a federal post office or if outside the u.s (federal area) only certain specific sources of income and/or non employee contract work effectively connected with a US performance of the functions of a federal public office. Such as being a contract worker for any federal extension office..

The fact that you've changed the wording of corporate earnings above and glossed over it by repeating the words in the 16th amendment (income) may have been innocent, cognitive dissonance, but I hope not intentional.

I'll maybe post a series of articles that I found very helpful about 15 years ago and were posted on the old forum and might still be in the archives but I'll repost them again here after I find them shortly.

Nice to see a bunch of familiar names. I haven't been on for maybe 5 or 6 years.
Hello Tony G (Sounds like an Italian Mafia gangster. LOL!).

Interesting post.

And, I thought Cigarlover was the only truly literate, critical thinking, legal scholar on GIM2. LOL!

YOUR COMMENT: Thanks for the inclusion of the Foster versus US case.

MY RESPONSE: Thanks, but I did not include the Foster case here. It was one of four cases included by the author of an article that Cigarlover posted here. I was simply responding to the cases which the author included in that particular article case by case and point by point. The Foster case was merely one of four cases picked by the author to illustrate the principle of determining legislative intent IN CONNECTION WITH STATUTES (not in connection with the sixteenth amendment). The exercise above in using those same rules to determine the legislative intent OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT was all my idea to show that the true legislative intent of the sixteenth amendment was to empower Congress to lay and collect a tax on income from whatever source derived.

YOUR COMMENT: I had not known of that case before.

MY RESPONSE: Neither had I.

YOUR COMMENT: But in the case the judge clearly defines the definition of incomes from whatever source derived as corporate earnings.

MY RESPONSE: The Revenue Act of 1928 had a section which taxed individuals and an entirely different section which taxed corporations. CLICK HERE. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/70th-congress/session-1/c70s1ch852.pdf
.
(BEGIN QUOTE)

SEVENTIETH CONGRESS. SESS. I. CH. 852. 1928. 791
CHAP. 852.-An Act To reduce and equalize taxation, provide revenue, and My 29,1928.
for other purposes. [Public, No. 562.]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act,
divided into titles and sections according to the following Table
of Contents, may be cited as the "Revenue Act of 1928 ":
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE I-INCOME TAX
SUBTITLE A-INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
Sec. 1 . Application of title.
Sec. 2. Cross references.
Sec. 3. Classification of provisions.
Sec. 4. Special classes of taxpayers.


SUBTITLE B-GENERAL PROVISIONS
PART I--RATES OF TAX

Sec. 11. normal tax ON INDIVIDUALS.
Sec. 12. surtax ON INDIVIDUALS.

Sec. 13. Tax on corporations.
Sec. 14. Taxable period embracing years with different laws.



PART II-COMPUTATION OF INCOME
Sec. 21. Net income.
Sec. 22. Gross income.
Sec. 23. Deductions from gross income.
Sec. 24. Items not deductible.
Sec. 25. Credits of INDIVIDUAL against income
Sec. 26. Credits of corporation against income


PART III-CREDITS AGAINST Tax
Sec. 31. Earned income credit.
Sec. 32. Taxes of foreign countries and possessions of United States.
Sec. 33. Taxes withheld at source.
Sec. 34. Erroneous payments.


PART IV-ACCOUNTING PERIODS AND METHODS OF ACCOUNTING
Sec. 41. General rule.
Sec. 42. Period in which items of gross income included.
Sec. 43. Period for which deductions and credits taken.
Sec. 44. Installment basis.
Sec. 45. Allocation of income and deductions.
Sec. 46. Change of accounting period.
Sec. 47. Returns for a period of less than twelve months.
Sec. 48. Definitions.


PART V-RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX
Sec. 51. INDIVIDUAL returns.
Sec. 52. Corporation returns.
Sec. 53. Time and place for filing returns.
Sec. 54. Records and special returns.
Sec. 55. Publicity of returns.
Sec. 56. Payment of tax.
Sec. 57. Examination of return and determination of tax.
Sec. 58. Additions to tax and penalties.
Sec. 59. Administrative proceedings.


(END QUOTE)

MY RESPONSE (CONTINUED) It is true that Foster v. United States involved a dispute over that portion of the Revenue Act of 1928 which only related to an income tax on corporations (directly above in small red letters) and not that portion of the act which related to income tax on individuals )directly above in LARGE READ LETTERS). Here is the full case. It is short. CLICK HERE https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4079175946424788011&q="Foster+v.+United+States"+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006#[1]

YOUR COMMENT: The 16th amendment had its foundation and context within the corporate income tax act of a few years prior.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The sixteenth amendment was a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision in the Pollock case several years before the tax act of 1909.

YOUR COMMENT: If a person becomes a voluntary 14th amendment US corporal/federal/dc citizen while in full knowledge and awareness of The facts of the matter, then their earnings could also be construed as corporate earnings. They have become slaves to the master.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. The individual income tax in what is now CHAPTER 1 of Title 26 U.S.C. does NOT just apply to "citizens," IT ALSO APPLIES TO ALL "RESIDENTS" OF THE UNITED STATES (WHETHER THEY ARE "CITIZENS" OR NOT)!

65 T.C.M. 1803 (1993)T.C. Memo. 1993-29Patricia B. Farr
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 6347-91.
United States Tax Court.

Filed January 27, 1993.
Patricia B. Farr, pro se. John M. Altman, for the respondent.​

..
Opinion

Issue 1. Deficiency in Income Tax

[Referring to Title 26 U.S.C.] Section 1 [Of CHAPTER 1] of subtitle A IMPOSES AN INCOME TAX ON THE TAXABLE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 1; sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. TAXABLE INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME LESS THOSE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Sec. 63(a).
...
(END QUOTE)


YOUR COMMENT That is why there is a non u.s. citizen antidote to almost every u.s.citizen tax filing document . I. E a w-8 rather than W-9, IE at 10:42 , 1040nr and so forth.

MT RESPONSE: Not so. There would only be an "antidote" IF THERE WAS ALSO A "NON-RESIDENT" "antidote" to tax filing requirements.

YOUR COMMENT: Thanks again very very much for pointing out the judges definition of income from whatever source derived.

MY RESPONSE: The judge in the Foster case did not provide a definition of income from whatever source derived. Indeed, the judge was not even construing the sixteenth amendment in the first place. Instead, the judge was construing a portion of the Revenue Act of 1928 (to which I have provided a link above) which related to income tax on corporations instead of individuals (which involves an entirely different part of the same act) . (See proof above.). The exercise above of my using the same rules of determining legislative intent on the sixteenth amendment was my own idea to show that the true intent of the sixteenth amendment was unquestionably to tax income. In construing that portion of the Revenue Act of 1928 which related to corporations (rather than to individuals), the judge in the Foster case actually wrote.

COURTS should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is NO UNCERTAINTY as to the legislative purpose TO TAX POST-1913 CORPORATE EARNINGS. We must NOT give effect to any contrivance WHICH WOULD DEFEAT A TAX CONGRESS PLAINLY INTENDED TO IMPOSE. "
[Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)].
Nothing about these words above nullify income taxes on individuals or provides a definition of income from whatever source derived.


YOUR COMMENT: For a US citizen those are almost every source derived whether within or without a federal district.

MY RESPONSE: What about a U.S. "RESIDENT"?

YOUR COMMENT: For a NRA the similar sources within a US territory or district such as even a federal post office or if outside the u.s (federal area) only certain specific sources of income and/or non employee contract work effectively connected with a US performance of the functions of a federal public office. Such as being a contract worker for any federal extension office..

MY RESPONSE: These claims are not the law. The law is directly to the contrary. These limitations are imaginary and make believe. Nothing in the law prevents an income tax on the income of every "citizen OR RESIDENT of the United States" from whatever source derived. Claims to the contrary are hoaxes.

YOUR COMMENT: The fact that you've changed the wording of corporate earnings above and glossed over it by repeating the words in the 16th amendment (income) may have been innocent, cognitive dissonance, but I hope not intentional.

MY RESPONSE: I intentionally refuse to pretend that a revenue act which imposes an income tax on corporations in one section and which imposes an income tax on individuals in another section only results in an income tax on corporations. I intentionally refuse to pretend that a revenue act which imposes an income tax on all "citizens OR RESIDENTS of the united States" in one section and which imposes an income tax on all "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations" in another section only results in an income tax on "non-resident aliens and foreign corporations".

YOUR COMMENT: I'll maybe post a series of articles that I found very helpful about 15 years ago and were posted on the old forum and might still be in the archives but I'll repost them again here after I find them shortly..

MY RESPONSE: Articles are not the law. Only the law is the law. Perhaps you should post the law here, instead. The law is the sixteenth amendment, Title 26, IRS regulations and post-1913 federal (not state) case law directly on the subject of federal income taxes (not case law on other subjects like the right to enter the slaughterhouse market or the right to enter into employment contracts).

YOUR COMMENT: Nice to see a bunch of familiar names. I haven't been on for maybe 5 or 6 years.

MY RESPONSE: Agreed.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#55
What about a resident, if you are a bona fide voluntary in full knowledge and awareness of the options and facts a us citizen, giving your allegiance unreservedly too the Federal citizenry and federal zone then you are a citizen of the United States and a resident of the federal zone no matter where you reside in Portugal in Washington and Texas and whatever. These were parts of the reasons for the ZIP code districts from my readings anyhow.

A alien, by nature of his alienage, is presumed to be a non-resident alien. That is from the code. But I don't know the number.

If you're an alien to Federal citizenry and do not live within a original Federal zone of the town square miles of DC or needful lands granted too the federal government by the states, such as military post or so forth, then there is an argument that you are not a resident of the United states.

I'm sure you've been informed about book titled cracking the federal zone. If not it's readily available and searchable. There and in the code the definition of United States can be shown for certain purposes to refer to the 10 square miles of district of Columbia and it's territories or land areas that were seated by States for federal purposes, again such as military bases and needful land.

I had not heard of The tax act of 1928 before. I may have to do a little research into that. But the fact that it occurred after 1913 would not allow it to be a constitutional amendment but rather a act that likely applies to specific persons such as US citizens of the 10 square miles of DC and or 14th amendment citizens.

When you read the tax code and it says who is liable. It almost verbatim quotes the 14th amendment saying all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction as one of the primary causes of liability. That is what the code claims but States constitutions will declare that a person born within the jurisdiction of their state cannot be compelled to be a participant in a religion or administration against their conscience.

To support the United States jurisdiction over all states, they claim that the civil war was a international war therefore they impose international law over all states. The term person originally applied to freed slaves from the south.

The 14th amendment should be considered treason because it's Crafter and writer by his own admission declared that it was part of an attempt to reorganize the government. That's the 14th amendment is the foundational element of what they hope to be a new government which confession would also be self-confessing of a treasonous act.

I really don't want to go round and round on this. Others have apparently giving you quite a bit of information. I'm offering just a little bit more. I'm sure you have already been exposed to the book called The Right amendment. There's lots and lots of good information there actually bad information because it's so contrived..

Whether or not a person believes that the 14th and 16th amendment applies to them also partly depends upon how they read Romans 13. if one believes that Romans 13 instructs people to be submissive to whatever cause itself government declares then they will likely fight for a literal reading of the amendments. they also will be less inclined to acknowledge their god-given inalienable rights.

At 6 or 8 years ago I wrote an article on a inductive research of the better meaning of Romans 13 and of Jesus telling Pharisees to render to Caesar what is Caesars. if you search under the name AGG. I think it is likely still in the archives.

This speak to type software isn't perfect. Sorry for the words printed out as period when I intend for a DOT to appear. Lol.
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,891
Likes
4,180
#56
Snoop, without quoting entire statutes of questionable legitimacy, are you able to articulate what gives those that are presented to the country as the government (bureaucracy included) their legitimacy?
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#57
Snoop, without quoting entire statutes of questionable legitimacy, are you able to articulate what gives those that are presented to the country as the government (bureaucracy included) their legitimacy?
Hello Cheiftain,

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop, without quoting entire statutes of questionable legitimacy, are you able to articulate what gives those that are presented to the country as the government (bureaucracy included) their legitimacy?

MY RESPONSE: Their legitimacy is determined directly or indirectly BY ELECTIONS. Our elected officials occupy all of the top tiers of government power. The President appoints the heads of all agencies under the executive branch of government. These agency heads oversee (and hire and fire) all of the lower tier government workers (career bureaucrats). So, directly through elections and indirectly through appointments by by elected officials, we the people determine the identity of every person in government. That means that these people get their legitimacy from us through elections.

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,172
Likes
35,283
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#58
Poor Snoop, doesnt realize yet that s/he has never anticipated the question of "Does law merchant exist to protect people from government & their so called laws" or "Does government & their so called law exist to protect people from comnerce & merchants"???

All these cases he cites are private law merchant cases and not stare decisis...
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,172
Likes
35,283
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#59
Hello Cheiftain,

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop, without quoting entire statutes of questionable legitimacy, are you able to articulate what gives those that are presented to the country as the government (bureaucracy included) their legitimacy?

MY RESPONSE: Their legitimacy is determined directly or indirectly BY ELECTIONS. Our elected officials occupy all of the top tiers of government power. The President appoints the heads of all agencies under the executive branch of government. These agency heads oversee (and hire and fire) all of the lower tier government workers (career bureaucrats). So, directly through elections and indirectly through appointments by by elected officials, we the people determine the identity of every person in government. That means that these people get their legitimacy from us through elections.

Best Regards,

Snoop
Pure nonsense, you dont know what your talking about!
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#60
This website, usa-the-republic.com has some of the best information around. Hidden in the website and not readily findable is about 14 chapters of a collection of commentaries on various topics related to inalienable rights and the income tax situation. It's titled the truth about. Here is the link to the index. Six are likely most applicable to our discussion.

Snoop, I noticed that in several of your references to statements made by judges when the judge appeals to the Constitution you insert the words now including the 16th amendment into them. As cigar lover and barnacle Bob and others have pointed out all statutes are to be subordinate to the original statute which is a Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. The 16th amendment did not and could not change the original intent of the founding document. Neither could the 14th amendment change the original intent of the inalienable rights. That is why it is well known that a 14th amendment citizen is a federal corporal citizen owing allegiance to the United States not to his township, his church, his neighborhood, his County or his state, but to the collective decisions of people often living up to 3,000 or more miles away.


http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Contents.html
True History

On the homepage for usa-the-republic there is an article on the left hand side title of the history of the 16th amendment.
Hello TonyG,

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop, I noticed that in several of your references to statements made by judges when the judge appeals [do you mean "refers"] to the Constitution you insert the words now including the 16th amendment into them. [I do not know what this means}

MY RESPONSE: I am unable to makes heads or tails out of this sentence.

YOUR COMMENT: As cigar lover and barnacle Bob and others have pointed out all statutes are to be subordinate to the original statute which is a Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

MY RESPONSE: All statutes are subordinate to the Constitution . The Constitution includes THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS (also called the Bill of Rights) AND EVERY ADDITIONAL (and unrepealed) AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION SINCE THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT. Statutes are not subordinate to "the original statute." The Constitution is not a statute.

YOUR COMMENT: The 16th amendment did not and could not change the original intent of the founding document.

MY RESPONSE: You are mistaken. That is PRECISELY what a Constitutional amendment does. The term "amendment" means a "change" and a "correction." THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION IS PRECISELY THE CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT AN AMENDMENT DOES!

YOUR COMMENT: Neither could the 14th amendment change the original intent of the inalienable rights.

MY RESPONSE: You are confused. FIRST, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT GUARANTEES ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION (TO ALL PERSONS BORN AND NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING FORMER SLAVES) AND REQUIRES ALL OF THE STATES HONOR ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AS WELL. SECOND, EVERY AMENDMENT ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION CHANGES AND CORRECTS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE WORDS OF THE AMENDMENT. IN THIS SENSE, CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE MORE POWERFUL THAN THE PORTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH THEY AMENDED (WHICH THEY CHANGED AND CORRECTED). THE END RESULT IS THAT AN AMENDMENT IS EQUAL IN POWER TO ALL REMAINING PORTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH ARE NOT AMENDED (NOT CHANGED AND CORRECTED) BY THE AMENDMENT. ALL AMENDMENTS BECOME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR ALL PURPOSES AND ALL AMENDMENTS MUST BE TREATED EXACTLY THE SAME AS ANY OTHER PORTION OF THE CONSTITUTION NOT AMENDED (NOT CHANGED AND CORRECTED) BY THE AMENDMENT.

YOUR COMMENT: That is why it is well known that a 14th amendment citizen is a federal corporal citizen

MY RESPONSE: This false statement IS NOT "WELL KNOWN" in the law and the legal system. This false statement IS ONLY "WELL KNOWN" in amateur legal theory, all of which is only intended to incite blind hatred and violence against innocent Americans and the elected government of "We the People".

YOUR COMMENT: owing allegiance to the United States not to his township, his church, his neighborhood, his County or his state, but to the collective decisions of people often living up to 3,000 or more miles away.

MY RESPONSE: That is not so. Our republic operates under the principle of "DUAL SOVEREIGNTY'. In our republic, Americans are bound by the laws of his/her STATE and local governments AND is also bound by the laws of the FEDERAL government (to which the STATES expressly delegated certain powers to the FEDERAL government in the United States Constitution, including the power to tax in Article 1, Section 8 AND AS AMENDED (CHANGED AND CORRECTED) later by the sixteenth amendment).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
13,914
Likes
77,313
Location
third cove on the right
#61
What about a resident, if you are a bona fide voluntary in full knowledge and awareness of the options and facts a us citizen, giving your allegiance unreservedly too the Federal citizenry and federal zone then you are a citizen of the United States and a resident of the federal zone no matter where you reside in Portugal in Washington and Texas and whatever. These were parts of the reasons for the ZIP code districts from my readings anyhow.

A alien, by nature of his alienage, is presumed to be a non-resident alien. That is from the code. But I don't know the number.

If you're an alien to Federal citizenry and do not live within a original Federal zone of the town square miles of DC or needful lands granted too the federal government by the states, such as military post or so forth, then there is an argument that you are not a resident of the United states.

I'm sure you've been informed about book titled cracking the federal zone. If not it's readily available and searchable. There and in the code the definition of United States can be shown for certain purposes to refer to the 10 square miles of district of Columbia and it's territories or land areas that were seated by States for federal purposes, again such as military bases and needful land.

I had not heard of The tax act of 1928 before. I may have to do a little research into that. But the fact that it occurred after 1913 would not allow it to be a constitutional amendment but rather a act that likely applies to specific persons such as US citizens of the 10 square miles of DC and or 14th amendment citizens.

When you read the tax code and it says who is liable. It almost verbatim quotes the 14th amendment saying all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction as one of the primary causes of liability. That is what the code claims but States constitutions will declare that a person born within the jurisdiction of their state cannot be compelled to be a participant in a religion or administration against their conscience.

To support the United States jurisdiction over all states, they claim that the civil war was a international war therefore they impose international law over all states. The term person originally applied to freed slaves from the south.

The 14th amendment should be considered treason because it's Crafter and writer by his own admission declared that it was part of an attempt to reorganize the government. That's the 14th amendment is the foundational element of what they hope to be a new government which confession would also be self-confessing of a treasonous act.

I really don't want to go round and round on this. Others have apparently giving you quite a bit of information. I'm offering just a little bit more. I'm sure you have already been exposed to the book called The Right amendment. There's lots and lots of good information there actually bad information because it's so contrived..

Whether or not a person believes that the 14th and 16th amendment applies to them also partly depends upon how they read Romans 13. if one believes that Romans 13 instructs people to be submissive to whatever cause itself government declares then they will likely fight for a literal reading of the amendments. they also will be less inclined to acknowledge their god-given inalienable rights.

At 6 or 8 years ago I wrote an article on a inductive research of the better meaning of Romans 13 and of Jesus telling Pharisees to render to Caesar what is Caesars. if you search under the name AGG. I think it is likely still in the archives.

This speak to type software isn't perfect. Sorry for the words printed out as period when I intend for a DOT to appear. Lol.

I firmly believe you are dealing with an Artificial Intelligent Bot

You will never get anything other than a wall of BullSh-t Statutory Law
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#62
I provided you the information you need on the 16th in post 41. You have your beliefs on it based on flawed case law that says anything that comes in is income derived. If you cant understand what derived means I can no longer help you. :)

Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,1 the Court initially described income as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, inclusive of the profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets;2 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.
It's clear that this had to do with corporate income taxes. The income derived from labor. How do you derive income from labor in reference to corporations? You employ people and make money off of their labor.
It also would make sense that this was an excise tax since a corporation is a privilege.

It is very clear right there snoop. Your just trying to confuse the issue with later case law that attempted to make ordinary citizens fall under the 16th.
Congress has the ability to tax people via apportionment. Why would they need to create the 16th to tax them in some other manner?
Then after doing so decided not to tax them in that manner for at least the next 30 years.

The tax acts make it clear who was to be taxed and who was responsible for collecting the tax.

In reference to wage withholding, the Revenue Act of 1918 limited such withholding to non-resident aliens and foreign corporations:

(a) That all individuals, corporations and partnerships, in whatever capacity acting, including lessees or mortgagors of real or personal property, fiduciaries, employers, and all officers and employees of the United States, having the control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment, of interest, rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable annual or periodical gains, profits, and income, of any nonresident alien individual (other than income received as dividends from a corporation which is taxable under this title upon its net income) shall (except in the cases provided for in subdivision (b) and except as otherwise provided in regulations prescribed by the Commissioner under section 217) deduct and withhold from such annual or periodical gains, profits, and income a tax equal to 8 per centum thereof:
So how could the case law you provide pertain to average citizens living and working in the US earning domestic sourced income? It cant since no tax was imposed upon them. So if the courts are trying to impose standards on people that the tax was never imposed upon, how is that legit?
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#63
I firmly believe you are dealing with an Artificial Intelligent Bot

You will never get anything other than a wall of BullSh-t Statutory Law
Snoop wants us to believe we are all slaves and only congress can tell us how much of our labor we can keep. I simply don't buy that argument as it's unconstitutional. Slavery was abolished.
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
21,053
Likes
42,536
Location
ORYGUN
#64
I provided you the information you need on the 16th in post 41. You have your beliefs on it based on flawed case law that says anything that comes in is income derived. If you cant understand what derived means I can no longer help you. :)



It's clear that this had to do with corporate income taxes. The income derived from labor. How do you derive income from labor in reference to corporations? You employ people and make money off of their labor.
It also would make sense that this was an excise tax since a corporation is a privilege.

It is very clear right there snoop. Your just trying to confuse the issue with later case law that attempted to make ordinary citizens fall under the 16th.
Congress has the ability to tax people via apportionment. Why would they need to create the 16th to tax them in some other manner?
Then after doing so decided not to tax them in that manner for at least the next 30 years.

The tax acts make it clear who was to be taxed and who was responsible for collecting the tax.



So how could the case law you provide pertain to average citizens living and working in the US earning domestic sourced income? It cant since no tax was imposed upon them. So if the courts are trying to impose standards on people that the tax was never imposed upon, how is that legit?

THEREIS NO LAW REQUIRING YOU TO PAY AN INCOME TAX ON YOUR WORK INCOME !!!! :2 thumbs up::angry then happy::finished::finished::winks2:
 

TAEZZAR

LADY JUSTICE ISNT BLIND, SHES JUST AFRAID TO WATCH
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
21,053
Likes
42,536
Location
ORYGUN
#65
Irwin Schiff argued along similar lines.

He died in prison.
.
.

I once sat at a dinner table with Larry Becraft & his , THEN, partner, Jeffrey Dickstein. Dickstein was the real deal, Becraft was a fucking, money grabbing, talking head, that NEVER let you know the whole story. He and Sheriff Mack are 2 peas in a pod !!
I found this & I believe it is as accurate as can be ! She also mentions Bill Benson, he too died in federal gulag, & his book - "The Law That Never Was". I lost a signed copy in the fire.:angry then happy::reading::shit happens:

BTW, Jeffrey Dickstein was banned from many fed court rooms for being too dramatic. He was winning over the jury with his personality.

The Truth About Larry Becraft and the "Federal Income Tax"
http://annavonreitz.com/truthaboutlarrybecraft.pdf
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,891
Likes
4,180
#66
MY RESPONSE: Their legitimacy is determined directly or indirectly BY ELECTIONS. Our elected officials occupy all of the top tiers of government power. The President appoints the heads of all agencies under the executive branch of government. These agency heads oversee (and hire and fire) all of the lower tier government workers (career bureaucrats). So, directly through elections and indirectly through appointments by by elected officials, we the people determine the identity of every person in government. That means that these people get their legitimacy from us through elections.
That doesn't actually answer the question. In the US, if not a single vote was cast anywhere in the land, these people would still be presented to the country as "the government". So keeping that in mind, where would their claim to authority come from?

Remember, even if you don't vote, the system still wants you to comply.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
13,914
Likes
77,313
Location
third cove on the right
#67
“Federal Reserve Bank notes, and other notes constituting a part of common currency of country, are recognized as good tender for money, unless specially objected to.”
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925), 159 La. 244, 105 S. 305.


--------------

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII> § 411
§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

--------------

Read the text on upper left of the bill


1612584026430.png



-------------------



The 9th Circus has determined that a FRN is a dual purpose note..

Notice the dual seals on the note

Choose wisely


---------------



Involuntary Servitude
UNITED STATES V. KOZMINSKI, 487 U. S. 931 (1988)
“For purposes of criminal prosecution under § 241 or § 1584, the term "involuntary servitude" necessarily means a condition of servitude in which the victim is forced to work for the defendant by the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or by the use or threat of coercion through law or the legal process. This definition encompasses cases in which the defendant holds the victim in servitude by placing him or her in fear of such physical restraint or injury or legal coercion.”
 

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#68
You employ people and make money off of their labor.
It also would make sense that this was an excise tax since a corporation is a privilege
I would like to learn more about what it is about a corporation that makes it a privilege subject to tax. Is it that it is a US corporation? I had read a website maybe 15 years ago that was teaching people how to set up State corporations and state businesses. One stipulation is that you couldn't be involved in an occupation that required a license. At least that was my understanding. That was 15 to 20 years ago. I think it was in Pennsylvania or I wouldn't have been quite interested but I thought he also used the word corporation for the business entity.

What is it about a corporation that makes it a privilege and subject to tax. If you want to reply in a PM that would be fine. I'm just trying to gather a little more grasp of what this corporate income tax act of 1909 was about. Thanks
 

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#69
My understanding on original intent is partly as follows

The 14th amendment because it uses the word subject to its jurisdiction must refer to the jurisdiction of the United states. That would mean either the United States of Congress or the United States of the government for the city of the district of columbia. Of those two options, I think it is the first because the Constitution gave exclusive jurisdiction to Congress for the 10 square mile area of dc.

Thus, the 14 th amendment citizenship is a citizenship of exclusive jurisdiction of that 10 square mile area. Since the 14th amendment also added the phrase, and the state in which they reside, those 14th amendment citizens, (originally slaves freed from plantations but not yet given a state nationality since the country was in reconstruction), have a secondary Federal-state citizenship in a state wherein they reside.

Congress decided that the civil war was a international war and they therefore impose international law and their jurisdiction over the states.

The 16th amendment also must be understood in the context of constitutional taxing authority. if the 16th amendment changed the Constitution it would have been included in the amendment. Since it is not included in the amendment to change the taxing clauses of the Constitution or the inelitable rights of the State national. There are instances where an amendment changes a previous amendment. An example is the repeal of prohibition. The 16th amendment is not one of those. Thus, the 16th amendment is still subordinate too the taxing clauses in the organic or original Constitution.

Aside from the context of the corporal tax act of 1909, one can read the 16th amendment as if it were affirming it's right to tax incomes already outside of the application for the rule of a portionment and without regard to census. . Meaning they would have been indirect federally sourced income or incomes from physically within within a federal district.

One time I was doing delivery work for a man that made live edge tables and other rustic, manly looking furniture. He was stationed in Brooklyn but got the work done in central Pennsylvania. Since I'm from central Pennsylvania and was doing delivery work with my pickup and trailers and was nearby to the carpenter shop we connected on some deliveries into NYC and surrounding areas.

One time he asked me to do a delivery to a restaurant within DC. Afterwards when I gave him the bill I gave him two bills. One was for mileage and transportation from central Pennsylvania to DC and back which would have been outside the federal district. The second bill was for work that I performed within the United States or within DC. There was two or so hours of setup and some minimal other mileage maybe 10 miles total. It was a weird feeling to do that but I knew that I was in a federal district and my labor would be taxed if it would go over $600. And it didn't.

It's good to see that these topics are still exposed and discussed. But it's a little disheartening that there are still antagonistic disbelievers and detractors. We may have limited time for continuous argument.
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,281
Location
Northern Arizona
#71
As I wrote above, but this thread proves it in spades, laws and regulations are written by pinhead lawyers with the express intent of being so vague, confusing or otherwise impossible to comprehend that it takes their $500 an hour brethren to decipher them and argue over them.

Last night I was researching some of the IRS regulations for taxation of our family LLC business. Just unbelievable undecipherable gobbledygook. It was even worse than usual because it involves foreign sourced income and foreign tax credits.

There's no good reason why laws and regulations can't be so clear and simple that everybody with a room temperature IQ can understand them. For example the Ten Commandments.
.
.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
8,481
Likes
14,478
#72
For example the Ten Commandments.
...or the Ten Bill of Rights.

...that the federal regime ignores.

1612618871006.png


...unless you can get some asshole lieyers to twist, bend, and break the laws using legalese gibberish, which is then signed off on by other members of the BAR criminal cartel called...judges.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,375
#73
“Federal Reserve Bank notes, and other notes constituting a part of common currency of country, are recognized as good tender for money, unless specially objected to.”
MacLeod v. Hoover (1925), 159 La. 244, 105 S. 305.


--------------

TITLE 12 > CHAPTER 3 > SUBCHAPTER XII> § 411
§ 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues.

--------------
key.jpg
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#75
I would like to learn more about what it is about a corporation that makes it a privilege subject to tax. Is it that it is a US corporation? I had read a website maybe 15 years ago that was teaching people how to set up State corporations and state businesses. One stipulation is that you couldn't be involved in an occupation that required a license. At least that was my understanding. That was 15 to 20 years ago. I think it was in Pennsylvania or I wouldn't have been quite interested but I thought he also used the word corporation for the business entity.

What is it about a corporation that makes it a privilege and subject to tax. If you want to reply in a PM that would be fine. I'm just trying to gather a little more grasp of what this corporate income tax act of 1909 was about. Thanks
A corporation is different because it is in effect a shield around people who run it. Thats why you see corporations get fined or sued but you seldom hear of anyone running the corporation going to jail for any reason.
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#76
https://givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/usatoday.htm

Re: Proposition #2

Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax return cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any law or regulation that requires it.
An increasing number of employers have stopped withholding taxes from their workers, and stopped filing W-2s and 1099s for the same reason.
Unless one is a foreigner working in the U.S., or a U.S. citizen earning money abroad, one is not liable for the federal income tax.
The OMB Number on Form 1040 is cross-referenced in the Code of Federal Regulations to the section covering taxes by resident aliens, which, therefore, doesn't apply to most Americans.
Responding to an inquiry by a constituent who was a tax consultant, Sen. Daniel Inouye told him that based on research performed by the Congressional Research Service, no provision of the Internal Revenue Code requires an individual to pay income taxes. He then went on to warn that Section 7201 sets forth numerous penalties for not paying income taxes owed. However -
The failure-to-file law applies to alcohol-tobacco-firearms taxes, (Section 7201), not to income taxes, and convictions are based on the mis-application of the alcohol-tobacco- firearm regulations.
No law requires employees to provide a Social Security Number to an employer, nor for an employer to demand one from an employee.
Re: Proposition #3

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the filing of an income tax return (Form 1040) and the information on the 1040 is not compelled, and, therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to waive their 5th amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not applicable to federal income tax returns.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
6,210
Likes
9,375
#77
All the above is correct.

But simpler than that is the basic question, what is the legal definition of income. It is my understanding that income, according to the private corporation pretending to be gov, irs's own (zillion page for the purposes of complication) manual states income is funds returned on investment. In otherwards, betting and winning in the casino.

Renumeration for the rest of us who trade their time and expertise is not income. Period.
 

TonyG

Formerly Agg
Joined
Feb 2, 2021
Messages
158
Likes
163
Location
Pa.
#78
A corporation is different because it is in effect a shield around people who run it. Thats why you see corporations get fined or sued but you seldom hear of anyone running the corporation going to jail for any reason.
I had read that establishing a corporation allows that corporation to continue beyond the ownership or life of the founding or owning individual. But I would think that a partnership could be passed along in a similar way? Know anything about those ideas?
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,281
Location
Northern Arizona
#79
I had read that establishing a corporation allows that corporation to continue beyond the ownership or life of the founding or owning individual. But I would think that a partnership could be passed along in a similar way? Know anything about those ideas?
The partnership agreement normally has provisions for death of a partner. Often the surviving partner has an option to buy out the deceased's interest, paid to the estate. Or the deceased's will has provisions for inheritance.

.Partnerships can also be totally dissolved and the assets liquidated and distributed to the owners or inheritors.
 
Last edited:

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#80
Snoop wants us to believe we are all slaves and only congress can tell us how much of our labor we can keep. I simply don't buy that argument as it's unconstitutional. Slavery was abolished.
Hello, Cigarlover, my old legal scholar friend,

You are still, by far, the most literate, the most educated ,the most analytical and the best critical thinker on GIM2.

Nobody else even comes close.

That is a fact.

Are you and I cool now on the "legislative intent" argument as it relates to "nonresident aliens and foreign corporations" under chapter 3 when compared to the entirely different "legislative intent" of chapter 1 on "citizens and residents of the United States" ?

All My Best,

Snoop
 
Last edited: