It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
it will be difficult to settle this argument on
a message board when the supreme court,
u.s. attorneys, and the united states government
are not able to address or settle the issue.
however, there is a very good read at irwin
schiff's site with regard to the lack of evidence
showing (from the United States v. Hill):
"123 U.S. 681, 8 S. Ct.308, 31 L. Ed. 275 (1887) "The term 'revenue law'
when used in connection with the jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States, means...a law which is directly traceable to the power
granted to Congress by 8, Art. I of the Constitution, 'to lay and
collect taxes duties, imposts and excises.'"
The Constitution confers Congress the power to "lay and collect
taxes" in three clauses. Clauses 2 and 4 of Article 1. Sections 2 and 9
confer power on Congress to impose direct taxes. While Section 8,
Clause 1 of Article 1 mentions the "taxes" authorized in Sections 2
and 9, it goes to confer power on Congress to impose indirect taxes,
identified in that clause as "duties, imposts and excises." However, the
Constitution provides that all direct taxes must be imposed pursuant to the
rule of apportionment, while indirect taxes must be imposed pursuant to the
rule of geographic uniformity. In the bedrock decision, Brushaber v. Union
Pacific RR, 240 U.S.1, which established the character and legality of the
16th Amendment, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasized that:
"In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes these two great
classes of direct and indirect taxes and lays down two rules by which
their imposition must be governed namely: The rule of apportionment as to
direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises."
The Court went on to point out that these provisions were not altered or
amended by the 16th Amendment because, it held that there cannot be a
federal tax "lying intermediate between these two great classes and embraced
by neither"; therefor, any such proposition:
If acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another. that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting
a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general
requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by
the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and this it would
come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular
direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of uniformity...This
result...would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system
and multiply confusion.
And further, the Supreme Court held:
The contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax
although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefor not subject
to the rule of uniformity as such a rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and
enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation.
Defendants allege that the income tax is at issue is imposed neither as an
apportioned direct tax, nor as a geographically, uniform "duty, impost or excise,"
in accordance with the above holdings in Brushaber. Therefore, it is the position
of defendants that the Federal income tax as contained in Title 26 as that Title
is referred to in the indictment at issue, as well as the income tax referred to in
the counts involving 18 U.S.C 371, is not "directly traceable to the powers
granted to Congress by Art. 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, 'to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imposts and excises.'" Therefore, this Court cannot have subject
matter jurisdiction in connection with an alleged income "tax," as referred to in
these counts, sinc
Originally posted by omega1
yes, this is a huge media cover-up.
Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Originally posted by omega1
yes, this is a huge media cover-up.
I see that the death of Anna Nicole Smith made every news channel.
Originally posted by timedrifter
but these laws are very unclear and maybe even can be considered incomplete and very open to misinterpretation. would you agree with that?
By all appearance and investigations, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified and thus is unconstitutional
The Federal governemnt owes YOU money and Ed Brown is a patriot
Isn't freedom from tyranny of government one of the reasons America was born?
Originally posted by airtrax007
I think it's time for you to get the facts NYGDaN
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the federal government its power to impose taxes:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
And Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration
the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment
In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project
www.thelawthatneverwas.com... This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!
The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.
The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913.
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R
Miller v. United States
"We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure."
United States v. Stahl
"the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," t
Knoblauch v. Commissioner
The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed
United States v. Foster
The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
, just because you say something does not make it true.
How do you know for sure the 16th was ratified? Were you there?
Can you at least provide a link that disproves the ones I provided and the court precedents set in the various cases mentioned therin?
I am familiar with the claims that some states didn't actully ratify the ammendment.
Thus Ammendment 16 to clarify the issue. They are not direct taxes that must be levied in proportion to the census, they are indirect taxes that must be levied uniformally.
Bill Benson was arrested and jailed for not paying his taxes.
Originally posted by OnTheDeck
My question to you now is where is the law that states that every U.S. "private, individual person" must by law pay an income tax on their earned wages or face fines and imprisonment for failing to do so?
If you can provide a law that specifically states the above, I can assure you we will have a lot more to talk about.
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
Amendment XVI: Income taxes
The Sixteenth Amendment was proposed on July 12, 1909, and ratified on February 3, 1913.
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.
A tax levied on net personal or business income.
This is a fact which was proven and documented by Bill Benson and M.J. Beckman, who traveled to every state that was a part of the Union back in 1913, and researched the voting records and other pertinent data from each of the state legislature's historical archives.
Their research is contained within a two-volume set entitled, "The Law That Never Was". The inescapable conclusion of their research is that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. SOURCE
“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.”
Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income" as "all income" from whatever source derived, but does not define "income." [See 26 U.S.C. º 61(a)] In Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude what "income" is, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised. [See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920)] 4. The definition of income as it appears in Section 61(a) is based upon the 16th Amendment and that the word is used in its constitutional sense. House Report No. 1337; Senate Report No. 1622; U.S. Code Cong. and Admin. News, 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, pages 4155 and 4802, respectively, 1954.
The IRS currently uses the following: Non-Custodial Miranda warning:
"In connection with my investigation of your tax liability I would like to ask you some questions. However, first I advise you that under the fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States I cannot compel you to answer any questions or to submit any information. If such answers or information might tend to incriminate you in any way, I also advise you that anything which you say and any documents which you submit may be used against you in any criminal proceeding which may be undertaken. I advise you further that you may, if you wish, seek the assistance of an attorney before responding." (See IRS Handbook for Special Agents.)
The Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notices currently used by the IRS provides that the information provided in the preparation of a tax return can go to the Department of Justice who prosecutes criminal cases against the filers of tax returns. (See IRS Form 1040 and Instruction Booklet.)
The United States Attorneys’ Bulletin, April 1998 edition, contained an article written by Joan Bainbridge Safford, Deputy United States Attorney, Northern District of Illinois, entitled: "Follow That Lead! Obtaining and Using Tax Information in a Non-Tax Case," hereinafter "Follow that Lead!".
"Follow that Lead!" states the following:
"In any criminal case where financial gain is the prominent motive, tax returns and return information can provide some of the most significant leads, corroborative evidence, and cross-examination material obtainable from any source."
"Follow that Lead!" states the following;
"In even the most straightforward fraud case, the usefulness of tax returns should be apparent . . . the tax return information provides a statement under penalty of perjury which may either serve as circumstantial evidence of the target’ misrepresentation of his economic status or as helpful cross-examination material . . . Disclosure of tax returns may also provide critical leads and impeachment material."
The Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice set out in the IRS Form 1040 Instruction Booklet states the following:
"[W]e may disclose your tax information to the Department of Justice, to enforce the tax
laws, both civil and criminal, and to cities, states, the District of Columbia, U.S.
Commonwealths or possessions, and certain foreign governments to carry out their tax
Tax returns are used by the IRS to develop civil and criminal cases against the filers of the tax returns. (See "Follow that Lead!")
Tax returns of a filer are used as evidence against the filer in both civil and criminal income tax cases. (See Annotations, Title 26, Sections 7201,7203)
The United States Supreme Court has held that a fifth amendment privilege exists against
requiring a person to admit or deny he has documents which th e government believes is related to the federal income tax. [See United States v. Doe, 465 U.S. 605 (1984)]
The Fifth Amendment provides an absolute defense to tax crimes. (See United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449, 450 (6th Cir. 1983); Garner v. United States , 424 U.S. 648, 662-63 (1976).)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit took the position in U.S. v. Conklin, (1994), WL 504211, that the filing of an income tax return (Form 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. (See U.S. v. Conklin, (1994), WL 504211)
The Supreme Court has held that if one wants to assert the Fifth Amendment to an issue pertaining to a federal income tax return, one must make that claim on the form itself. ( Sullivan v.United States, 274 U.S. 259 (1927).)
If one claims Fifth Amendment protection on an income tax form, that act can result in criminal prosecution for failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, or conspiracy to defraud. [See United States v. Waldeck , 909 F.2d 555, 561 (1st Cir. 1990)]
To avoid explicitly ruling that citizens are, in fact, protected by the 5th Amendment while filing tax returns, a federal Court of Appeals ruled, instead, that the 5th Amendment does not apply to tax returns because the 5th Amendment only applies to compelled testimony. Ergo, filing a tax return is not compelled, it is voluntary.
"IRS failing to collect millions, report says
'92 audit level was half what it was in '81
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service failed to collect $127 billion in taxes from 1992. Yet audits that might have curbed the ever-growing tax gap were conducted at half the rate of 11 years earlier, a congressional report says.
"IRS major enforcement activities have not grown over the past decade," according to the General Accounting Office, the auditing arm of Congress.
From 1981 to 1992, the odds of getting audited fell from l-in-20 to l-in-33 for corporations and from l-in-56 to 1-in-110 for individuals.
Those numbers may be misleadingly optimistic, the congressional agency said.
"IRS classifies certain taxpayer contacts as audits, when in fact taxpayers' books and records were not examined," it said.
The $127 billion tax gap in 1992, the latest year available, was 67 percent larger than the $76 billion gap in 1981. If all of it had been collected, it would have cut the record $290 billion budget deficit of 1992 nearly in half.
The gap represented 18 percent of what taxpayers owed the government. IRS Commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson has vowed to reduce that to 10 percent by the year 2000.
Frank Keith, a spokesman for the IRS, said the compliance rate should start improving noticeably in several years as the IRS brings more-modern computer equipment on line and completes research that should better identify taxpayers who are most likely to pay less than they owe.
But the report notes that Congress has been funding stepped-up enforcement efforts since the late 1980s, with poor results.
"Enforcement staffing has been declining since 1988 and is about what is was in 1987. Because of overall budget shortfalls, IRS has reallocated funds from compliance initiatives to non-enforcement efforts, such as returns processing," the report says.
The compliance and enforcement staff declined from 57,470 in 1988 to 51,305 in 1992.
The report recommends that the IRS more strongly focus its compliance efforts on areas most likely to bear fruit, such as small companies and sole proprietorships, without waiting for the results of research.
Simply doing a better job of matching financial information, such as forms on partnership income, to taxpayers' returns should yield large results, it says.
The report also urges the IRS to revamp procedures to emphasize early telephone contact with delinquent taxpayers rather using the mail. And it said that if the IRS did a better job of answering its phones, taxpayers would be less likely to pay too little."
THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS
1. The word "includes" is defined in 26 U.S.C. §7701(c) as follows:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Sec. 7701. Sec. 7701. – Definitions (c) Includes and including The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
2. The word "includes" is defined by the Treasury in the Federal Register as follows:
Treasury Definition 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: "(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement. It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing."
3. The definition of the word "includes" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 763 is as follows:
"Include. (Lat. Inclaudere, to shut in. keep within.) To confine within, hold as an inclosure. Take in, attain, shut up, contain, inclose, comprise, comprehend, embrace, involve. Term may, according to context, express an enlargement and have the meaning of and or in addition to, or merely specify a particular thing already included within general words theretofore used. "Including" within statute is interpreted as a word of enlargement or of illustrative application as well as a word of limitation. Premier Products Co. v. Cameron, 240 Or. 123, 400 P.2d 227, 228."
4. If the meaning of the word "includes" as used in the Internal Revenue Code is "and" or "in addition to" as described above, then the code cannot define or confine the precise meaning of the following words that use "include" in their definition: § "State" found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(10) and 4 U.S.C. §110 § "United States" found in 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(9) § "employee" found in 26 U.S.C. §3401(c ) and 26 CFR §31.3401(c )-1 § "person" found in 26 CFR 301.6671-1 (which governs who is liable for penalties under Internal Revenue Code)
5. If the meaning of "includes" as used in the definitions above is "and" or "in addition to", then the code cannot define any of the words described, based on the definition of the word "definition" found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423:
definition: (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 423) A description of a thing by its properties; an explanation of the meaning of a word or term. The process of stating the exact meaning of a word by means of other words . Such a description of the thing defined, including all essential elements and excluding all nonessential, as to distinguish it from all other things and classes."
6. Absent concrete definitions of the above critical words identified in question 417, the meaning of the words becomes ambiguous, unclear, and subjective.
7. When the interpretation of a statute or regulation is unclear or ambiguous, then the by the rules of statutory construction, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer as indicated in the cite from the Supreme Court below:
"In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that a law is presumed, in the absence of clear expression to the contrary, to operate prospectively; that, if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer..." Hassett v. Welch., 303 US 303, pp. 314 - 315, 82 L Ed 858. (1938) (emphasis added)
8. In the majority of cases, doubts about the interpretation of the tax code are resolved in favor of the taxpayer by any federal court as required by the Supreme Court above.
9. An ambiguous meaning for a word violates the requirement for due process of law by preventing a person of average intelligence from being able to clearly understand what the law requires and does not require of him, thus making it impossible at worst or very difficult at best to know if he is following the law.
“The IRS refers to the income tax as voluntary but prosecutes individuals who do not "volunteer" in violation of the law.” Bill Conklin
Unfortunately, when the government lies, it's a lot harder to pin down the lie. The government pays very good money, to some very skilled lawyers, to formulate very well structured lies, so we need to be very sharp to catch their lies. Fortunately, all their lies (at least about the law) rely on just a few readily discernable methods of misleading you. The government does not tell you a direct lie to your face. That would be much too easy to catch. Instead the government relies on the deceptive use of "legal terms" that you don't understand the meaning of, nor are you even aware that the "words" you're reading are actually "legal terms" that have been defined by the government to mean something completely different than what you think they mean in plain English.
Additionally, the government uses "jurisdictional context" as a means of confusing the average American. The vast majority of Americans believe that when they read a publication written by a government agency, it has been written with the intention of clarifying matters for the Citizen. The reality is just the opposite. Let's look at an example to illustrate the point:
The Federal Food and Drug Act is only applicable in matters involving interstate or foreign commerce. In other words, if you make a cosmetic cream and sell it only within your state, the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate your product. However, a hypothetical section of the Federal Food and Drug Act might state, "Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States must be..."[blah, blah, blah]. However, because the context of the Act is that it applies only to interstate and foreign commerce, the legislative draftsmen who wrote the law intentionally left that part out when selecting the specific language to be used. If they had been forthright, the statute would read as, "Every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States, and shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, must be...".
[Editor's Note: Many statutes passed in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s included such forthright language, but during the 70's and 80's most of that language was amended out of the law. We must now refer to the text of the original statutes to find the true limits of the government's authority]
However, because the context of the entire Act is interstate and foreign commerce, those words are deemed unnecessary when constructing an individual statute within the Act. The problem arises when the government puts out an "informational" publication in which it states, "Under section 15000 of the Federal Food and Drug Act, the Federal Food and Drug Administration has regulatory authority over 'every cosmetic product manufactured in the United States'". Are they lying? It depends on your point of view. Do you believe that when the government communicates with its Citizens it is at liberty to intentionally leave out relevant and critical facts that alter the very foundations of the authority it is asserting? We don't believe that government has that right. We believe that when government leaves out relevant and critical facts of which the Citizen should rightly be informed, the government is lying by omission. The justification that the government is "merely citing the text of the statute" does not wash if the Citizen is being denied information that is relevant to the government's claim of authority; especially if such an omission would reasonably operate against the Citizen and his rights. The same "lying by omission" issue can be seen in the government's use of "legal terms" instead of regular words. If the government issues a publication to purportedly inform the public on a particular issue, and that publication addresses "buildings", but fails to tell you that they've defined "buildings" (in the law being discussed) as "…such free standing structures used for business purposes that exceed 200 feet in total height". Without that definition being provided to you, you might easily misconstrue the law to apply to your own home!
"The IRS and Treasury have issued a notice warning taxpayers that if they file returns under the theory that U.S. citizens and residents aren't subject to tax on their wages and other income earned or derived within the United States, they may be subject to penalties."
Truth - This is an excellent example of IRS "word-smithing". First, note that the IRS has warned "taxpayers" (not the public generally). This is because the federal courts have ruled that Congress makes no tax laws that apply to nontaxpayers!
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. US, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)
In so far as the IRS statement applies exclusively to "taxpayers", it is correct because a "taxpayer" is defined in the IRC as "a person liable for any internal revenue tax". So, to claim to be a taxpayer, and then to claim that you're not liable for taxes that apply to taxpayers is silly. The true question that needs to be asked is, "Who is a taxpayer and who is not?" [See Federal Income Tax and State Income Tax to assist you in determining if you are a taxpayer.]