16th Amendment - RushOnline.com
The 16th amendment does not give the IRS the right to collect personal
income tax. Read this e-mail carefully and then check it all out.
All ref to law is given.
The first thing we're going to do is look at what the Constitution
says about taxation. The limitations in the Constitution restricting
the direct taxation of individuals and their property are found
in Article 1 in two different sections. Both sections specifically
restrict the Federal government as to how it may lay direct taxes
on the citizens.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and
direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which
may be included within this union, according to their respective
numbers," and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No
capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment
to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
These basic sections of the Constitution have never been repealed
or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of
individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is
apportioned to the State governments for collection.
And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall
enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters
of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;
pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing
the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."
This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor
the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY
ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.
In 1895, Congress tried to pass an Act that imposed income taxes
on the interest and dividends of U.S. citizens on deposit in U.S.
banks. This Act was immediately struck down in Pollock vs Farmer's
Loan and Trust Co. (157 US 429), wherein the Supreme Court ruled
that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest
and dividends of United States Citizens on deposits in U.S. banks.
The court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional because it was
a direct tax that was not apportioned as required by the Constitution.This
decision has never been reversed or overturned.
Excerpts from the Pollock decision include:
"...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can
shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion
to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property
holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or
of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which
cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."
And,"...Subsequently, in 1869, .... The question arose whether
the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The
opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary
of the Treasury.
The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising
the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully
assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were
in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding
on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His
opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinion of the Attorney
General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever
since without question by the department supervising or directing
the collection of the public revenue..."
And; "...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual
receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same
class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning
of the Constitution...."
And, "...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far
as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot
be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and
on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant
to the Constitution.
It follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be
taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue
from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power
to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property
equally exists as to the revenue therefrom.
Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective
of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily
a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we
do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other
than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in
England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a
direct tax.."
And, even in dissent:...that personal property, contracts, obligations,
and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects
of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress
the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is
apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."
Then, in 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment which says, "Congress
shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever
source derived, without apportionment among the several states,
and without regard to any census or enumeration."
So that changed everything, right? Well, NO ! That is not what
the Supreme Court ruled. What the Supreme Court ruled, in Brushaber
vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., is
that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes
be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force
and effect. And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies
that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it
cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would
inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen.
Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while
the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without
apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict
itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law.
So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting
itself, the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides
for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot
be a direct tax.
But, there are only two major classes of taxation authorized in
the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes. So, if the income
tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect
taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution:
imposts, duties and excises. If you remember, the income tax started
in 1861 as an Income Duty and a Federal employee "kickback",
imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was
contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties.
As a duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into
America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME.
Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced
as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create
a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How
did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?". The answer
to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton
v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...by the
previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited
the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed
by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category
of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."
The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT
create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without
apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.
So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax,
but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is
the income tax now?" In the "previous ruling" referenced
above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (1916), the
court stated:"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise
..." , and "...taxes on such income had been sustained
as excises in the past...". specifically, "Moreover, in
addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in
any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily
came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary,
recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an
excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded
that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which
the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted
to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form
and consider substance alone,..."
The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed
the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise. It is
not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law
closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed
and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on
specific entities (Federal), and sources of "taxable income"
(privileged).
So, what is an excise tax ? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used
to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber
and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier,
Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911), in which the Supreme
Court ruled that excise taxes are:"...taxes laid on the manufacture,
sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses
to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the
requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege
and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it
is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere
buying, selling or handling of goods."
The Supreme Court effectively establishes with this ruling that
excise taxes are manufacturing taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on
privileges. Privileges in the form of either licenses to pursue
certain occupations, corporate privileges, and any other privileges
granted to the individual by the government as well. One of these
other privileges, is the privilege of being protected by the United
States government in a foreign country under a tax treaty. The government
normally would have no jurisdiction or ability to protect you or
your business interests in a foreign country, but because of the
existence of the tax treaty with that foreign government, your business
is protected by the U.S. government outside their jurisdictional
boundaries (the United States).
That protection, being afforded by the tax treaty, is construed
to be a privilege granted to you by the government; and therefore,
the income earned in that foreign country under the tax treaty,
is privileged income and subject to the income tax.
Sincerely,
Ken Handy
If you want to really clean up Federal power. Support an amendment
that repeals 16th amendment and bans Feds from gathering revenue.
Return tax base to states and at the same time have all state reps
and staff be funded by states. Fed agenda will suddenly change.
Scott
* * *
I am sending an attachment to you off the internet showing the
Sixteenth Ammendment does not give Congress the right to collect
individual income tax from American Citizens of the 50 states. The
attachment is the Supreme Court Case showing the Sixteenth Ammendment
is applicable only to indirect taxes. You need to update your notes
on this particular Ammendment before saying it applies to direct
taxes (income tax) which it does not.
