Show Me Where Congress Passed a Law Regarding Income Tax


B

bcpg

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com


READER: question regarding movie (Freedom to Fascism)
so i watched the movie and right after i went online to check out this
16th amendmend. here is what i found :

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 16
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
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 was accepted by 38 states.

how come none of the IRS agents couldnt find this? i dont get it.


WRH webmaster's comment:


WRH: The claim that 38 states ratified it is, like Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction, unproven and apparently unprovable. Also, check the
wording. The 16th amendment says Congress has the power, but so far,
nobody can find where Congress actually passed a law which was then
signed by the President that places a direct unappportioned tax on
wages and salaries. The US Supreme Court has ruled that "income" is
gain or profit from business activity, not the straight trade of
payment for labor. The problem is that the court system is itself
dependent on tax revenues, creating an conflict of interest that is as
obvious as it is unacknowledged.
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

Shawn Hirn

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com


READER: question regarding movie (Freedom to Fascism)
so i watched the movie and right after i went online to check out this
16th amendmend. here is what i found :

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 16
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
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 was accepted by 38 states.

how come none of the IRS agents couldnt find this? i dont get it.
The job of an IRS is to understand tax code, not Constitutional law.
Although the 16th Amendment refers to taxes, it is not realistic to
expect an accountant such as an IRS auditor to be fluent in
Constitutional law.
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Shawn said:
The job of an IRS is to understand tax code, not Constitutional law.
Although the 16th Amendment refers to taxes, it is not realistic to
expect an accountant such as an IRS auditor to be fluent in
Constitutional law.
Would he then still be required to act within the constitution by not
violating the constitutional rights of others or does he have an
ignorant right to ignore it?
 
A

Abbot

Jimmy_For_Freedom said:
Would he then still be required to act within the constitution by not
violating the constitutional rights of others or does he have an
ignorant right to ignore it?
Abbot) The usual detax presumption. So far you and your running mate
haven't proven the premise behind that question, Jimmy.
 
A

Abbot

Abbot) Educating you is a full time job, MoRon.

In the early 1920's the U.S. House of Representatives recodified
U.S. statutes resulting in a new code, including tax statutes, in 1926.

The income tax statutes were again re-codified by an act of Congress on
February 10, 1939 in the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939". The 1939
Code was published as volume 53, Part I, of the United States Statues
at Large and as title 26 of the United States Code.

Later tax laws enacted by Congress updated and amended the 1939 Code
in 1954 and again in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

A pity for you neither you nor your new guru, Anthony Russo, can read.
 
R

Richard Macdonald

Abbot said:
Abbot) Educating you is a full time job, MoRon.

In the early 1920's the U.S. House of Representatives recodified
U.S. statutes resulting in a new code, including tax statutes, in 1926.

The income tax statutes were again re-codified by an act of Congress on
February 10, 1939 in the "Internal Revenue Code of 1939". The 1939
Code was published as volume 53, Part I, of the United States Statues
at Large and as title 26 of the United States Code.

Later tax laws enacted by Congress updated and amended the 1939 Code
in 1954 and again in the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

A pity for you neither you nor your new guru, Anthony Russo, can read.
The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, Part II.

Of course it did not place an unapportioned direct tax as the Income
Tax is clearly an indirect tax since the XVI Amendment seperated
income from sources. Ergo, your assertion is meaningless.

Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:

"The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found
in recent decisions of this Court.

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112),
was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup.
Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285)."

Cited in: MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA,
255 U.S. 509 (1921)

Note the definition of Income is:
"A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Nothing there about where it is from or into what form.

The entire Court syatem has always ruled that wages and salaries are taxable
by an Income Tax as an indirect tax, see Pollack where it says that if only
the tax on income from property was struck down, it would leave the
burden to be carried by trades and employments. So instead of striking
down the parts the SC determined to be a direct tax, the SC struck down
the entire law since it was not the desire of Congress to have trades and
employments bear the entire burden of the tax.
 
T

Tim

Richard said:
The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, Part II.


Of course it did not place an unapportioned direct tax as the Income
Tax is clearly an indirect tax since the XVI Amendment seperated
income from sources. Ergo, your assertion is meaningless.


Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:

"The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found
in recent decisions of this Court.

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112),
was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup.
Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285)."

Cited in: MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA,
255 U.S. 509 (1921)

Note the definition of Income is:
"A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."

Nothing there about where it is from or into what form.


The entire Court syatem has always ruled that wages and salaries are taxable
by an Income Tax as an indirect tax, see Pollack where it says that if only
the tax on income from property was struck down, it would leave the
burden to be carried by trades and employments. So instead of striking
down the parts the SC determined to be a direct tax, the SC struck down
the entire law since it was not the desire of Congress to have trades and
employments bear the entire burden of the tax.
(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
direct tax
A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.

The Federal income tax is a direct tax. Congress' constitutional
authority for the Federal income tax does not derive from article 1,
section 8, clause 1. What the Court said in Pollock is therefore
inconsequential.


--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory


www.nontaxpayer.net
mailto:tim@nontaxpayer.net

Why the Citizens of the Several States
Are Not Generally Liable for the
Federal Income Tax
http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
 
C

cpt banjo

Tim said:
(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
direct tax
A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.
The IRS website is wrong on this point.
The Federal income tax is a direct tax.
No, it isn't, as the Supreme Court has ruled. See Springer v. U.S.
Congress' constitutional authority for the Federal income tax does not derive from article
1, section 8, clause 1.
Yes, it does, as the Supreme Court has consistently stated.
 
R

Richard Macdonald

Tim said:
(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
direct tax
A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.
Meaningless drivel as it is not consistent with decisions of the Supreme
Court,
and the above is consistent with the IRS's abysimal question accuracy rate.
See Springer, Pollack, Brushaber and others.
The Federal income tax is a direct tax.
As shown in other messages, the Income Tax is clearly NOT a direct tax.

Otherwise cite a Supreme Court oppinion of current authority that says
the the Income Tax is a Direct Tax.
(BTW, the XVI Amendment overturned the Pollack decision)
 
T

Tim

Richard said:
Meaningless drivel as it is not consistent with decisions of the Supreme
Court,
and the above is consistent with the IRS's abysimal question accuracy rate.
See Springer, Pollack, Brushaber and others.


As shown in other messages, the Income Tax is clearly NOT a direct tax.

Otherwise cite a Supreme Court oppinion of current authority that says
the the Income Tax is a Direct Tax.
(BTW, the XVI Amendment overturned the Pollack decision)
(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
indirect tax
A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.

I am sure the information on the IRS website has been gone over with a
fine toothed comb by government lawyers and it is right on the money.
It is just that you ignorant bunch of people don't have a clue as to the
nature of the Federal income tax. The Federal income tax is not
pursuant to article 1, section 8, clause 1. It is pursuant to article
4, section 3, clause 2. The IRS was not created by Congress pursuant to
article 1, section 8, clause 18 and is therefore constitutionally
incompetent to collect a tax pursuant to article 1 , section 8. You
ignorant bunch of idiots don't have the least clue about your
Constitution. Officers of the United States, i.e., collectors, within
internal revenue districts within the States would be required to
collect internal revenue taxes. There are none.

Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall,
to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to
administer the internal revenue laws within the several States.
--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory

www.nontaxpayer.net
mailto:tim@nontaxpayer.net

Why the Citizens of the Several States
Are Not Generally Liable for the
Federal Income Tax
http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Abbot said:
Abbot) The usual detax presumption. So far you and your running mate
haven't proven the premise behind that question, Jimmy.
What's there to prove? IRS agents acting contrary to constitutional law
is their right regardless of whether they are aware or not of what they
are doing?
 
A

Abbot

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
What's there to prove?
Abbot 2) What's to prove? Your premise, which you have stated as your
conclusion.

If I were talking to an honest man I'd ask a clarifying question to
advance the debate. But since you can't give a straight answer to any
question, no matter how simple, I won't bother.
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Abbot said:
Abbot 2) What's to prove? Your premise, which you have stated as your
conclusion.

If I were talking to an honest man I'd ask a clarifying question to
advance the debate. But since you can't give a straight answer to any
question, no matter how simple, I won't bother.

Simply put, what you like to advance is not for the benefit of mankind.
So, to shut up is one of the wisest things you could do.
 
A

Abbot

Jimmy_For_Freedom said:
Simply put, what you like to advance is not for the benefit of mankind.
So, to shut up is one of the wisest things you could do.
Abbot 3) You know what I stand for? I think not. You are the out of
touch idiot who thinks I am a Jesuit.

Now, will you prove your premise? Or will *you* shut up?
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Abbot said:
Abbot 3) You know what I stand for? I think not. You are the out of
touch idiot who thinks I am a Jesuit.
You think? Do your masters know you've taken forbidden liberties?
Now, will you prove your premise? Or will *you* shut up?
I thought said you were the one who is going to shut up.
 
R

Richard Macdonald

Tim said:
(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
indirect tax
A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.

I am sure the information on the IRS website has been gone over with a
fine toothed comb by government lawyers and it is right on the money.
Not by my experience.
It is just that you ignorant bunch of people don't have a clue as to the
nature of the Federal income tax. The Federal income tax is not pursuant
to article 1, section 8, clause 1. It is pursuant to article 4, section
3, clause 2. The IRS was not created by Congress pursuant to article 1,
section 8, clause 18 and is therefore constitutionally incompetent to
collect a tax pursuant to article 1 , section 8. You ignorant bunch of
idiots don't have the least clue about your Constitution. Officers of the
United States, i.e., collectors, within internal revenue districts within
the States would be required to collect internal revenue taxes. There are
none.

Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the
world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to
administer the internal revenue laws within the several States.
So by your own assertions above the IRS cannot possibly be
authoritative and their site is not reliable for supporting your assertions.

Only Supreme Court cases are relatively reliable and none have
stated that the Income Tax is a direct tax since income was
separated from its source by the XVI Amendment in its reversal
of the Pollack decision.
 
A

Abbot

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
You think? Do your masters know you've taken forbidden liberties?


I thought said you were the one who is going to shut up.
Abbot) I thought you were leaving.

Okay Jimmyshitforbrains, prove your premise/conclusion! Tell us
exactly how IRS agents consistently violate our rights, as you claim.

We are all ears!
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Abbot said:
Abbot) I thought you were leaving.

Okay Jimmyshitforbrains, prove your premise/conclusion! Tell us
exactly how IRS agents consistently violate our rights, as you claim.
Sure!. It's a whole easier telling you how they're not.























I can't tell you how they are not, can you?

We are all ears.
 
T

Tim

Richard said:
Not by my experience.


So by your own assertions above the IRS cannot possibly be
authoritative and their site is not reliable for supporting your assertions.
Your statement does not compute. There are thousands of Federal areas
(territory) throughout the several States. There are millions of
individuals who work for the Federal Government, who work within these
Federal territories, and residents and citizens of the United States who
live within these territories within the several States. They are all
subject to the article 4, section 3, clause 2 legislative jurisdiction
of Congress. The United States is taxing them just as a State could tax
those within its legislative jurisdiction. The Federal income tax is
not a national income tax. It is in the nature of a state income tax.
The "state" just happens to be the United States whose territory, and
legislative jurisdiction over such territory, happens to be quite
extensive and is spread throughout the several States, insular
possessions, and other parts of the world.


Only Supreme Court cases are relatively reliable and none have
stated that the Income Tax is a direct tax since income was
separated from its source by the XVI Amendment in its reversal
of the Pollack decision.
The following is a quote from the Russo's "Freedom to Fascism" web page.
"At every turn, he is rebuffed by IRS officials, with one notable
exception. Aaron did secure an interview with former IRS Commissioner
Sheldon Cohen who makes the amazing statement that US Supreme Court
rulings are irrelevant when it comes to interpretation and enforcement
of the IRS code, and moreover chides Aaron for refusing to "believe"
that he owes taxes."

Now to understand what the Commissioner said above, you need to go read
here.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art3.html
Specifically, you need to read the section on legislative courts
starting at page 604. Pay particular attention to the below sections.
Please also note what it states in the last paragraph that I have posted
below. Most of your Supreme Court decisions don't mean squat where the
enforcement of the internal revenue laws are concerned. The Federal
income tax is not pursuant to article 1, section 8. It is pursuant to
article 4, section 3, clause 2. That clause gives Congress plenary
authority over its territory and other property. The only time the
Supreme Court could exercise jurisdiction is if there is some
constitutional question or right involved. Otherwise, Congress'
authority over its territory and other property is absolute. Congress
can do anything there that the Constitution does not forbid.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/art3.html
Power of Congress Over Legislative Courts.


Review of Legislative Courts by Supreme Court.--Chief Justice
Taney's view, that would have been expressed in Gordon,\58\ that the
judgments of legislative courts could never be reviewed by the Supreme
Court, was tacitly rejected in DeGroot v. United States,\59\ in which
the Court took jurisdiction from a final judgment of the Court of
Claims. Since the decision in this case, the authority of the Court to
exercise appellate jurisdiction over legislative courts has turned not
upon the nature or status of such courts but rather upon the nature of
the proceeding before the lower court and the finality of its judgment.
The Supreme Court will neither review the administrative proceedings of
legislative courts nor entertain appeals from the advisory or
interlocutory decrees of such a body.\60\ But in proceedings before a
legislative court which are judicial in nature, admit of a final
judgment, and involve the per
formance of judicial functions and therefore the exercise of judicial
power, the Court may be vested with appellate jurisdiction.\61\


The ``Public Rights'' Distinction.--A major delineation of the
distinction between Article I courts and Article III courts was
attempted in Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.\62\ In
this case was challenged a summary procedure, without benefit of the
courts, for the collection by the United States of moneys claimed to be
due from one of its customs collectors. It was objected that the
assessment and collection was a judicial act carried out by nonjudicial
officers and thus invalid under Article III. Accepting that the acts
complained of were judicial, the Court nonetheless sustained the act by
distinguishing between any act, ``which, from its nature, is the subject
of a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty,'' which, in
other words, is inherently judicial, and other acts which Congress may
vest in courts or in other agencies. ``[T]here are matters, involving
public rights, which may be presented in such form that the judicial
power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of
judicial determination, but which congress may or may not bring within
the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem
proper.''\63\ The distinction was between those acts which historically
had been determined by courts and those which historically had been
resolved by executive or legislative acts and comprehended those matters
that arose between the government and others. Thus, Article I courts
``may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various
matters, arising between the government and others, which from their
nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of
it. The mode of determining matters of this class is completely within
congressional control.''\64\

Among the matters susceptible of judicial determination, but not
requiring it, are claims against the United States,\65\ the disposal of
public lands and claims arising therefrom,\66\ questions concerning
membership in the Indian tribes,\67\ and questions arising out of the
administration of the customs and internal revenue laws.\68\


--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory

www.nontaxpayer.net
mailto:tim@nontaxpayer.net

Why the Citizens of the Several States
Are Not Generally Liable for the
Federal Income Tax
http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Abbot

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Sure!. It's a whole easier telling you how they're not.

I can't tell you how they are not, can you?

We are all ears.
Abbot 5) Jimmy, did I say all IRS agents act within the limits and
protections of Constitution law?

The fact is you, again, can't back up what you say and now want a way
out of the corner you have painted yourself into.

Only a hypocrite like you can contradict detax theory and claim that
the sworn affidavit of a victim of Warman's violent threats must be
accompanied by iron clad proof and then turn around and claim your mere
utterances are true until refuted.

This reminds one of the week you spent embarrassing yourself by
claiming I was a Jesuit but offering so such proof.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top