The 16th Amendment never applied to wages or salaries

0 views

Skip to first unread message

Bob Hurt

unread,

May 20, 2008, 4:48:10 PM5/20/08

to law...@googlegroups.com

Rebel sent these comments. I don’t know the source, but he makes the point that you cannot trust the Supreme Court’s comments as having the validity of rulings, and you cannot trust the Congressional Research Service’s analysis of Supreme Court comments.

When you notice something like this, you have the duty to contact your legislators and demand that they correct official misimpressions of the meanings of every issue that eructs from within the black robes.

Truly and sincerely,

**************************************
Bob Hurt, All Rights Reserved (UCC 1-308)
2460 Persian Drive #70 × Clearwater, FL 33763
+1 (727) 669-5511 × FAX +1 (206) 202-2958

http://bobhurt.com
**************************************
Please donate to my Law Studies Scholarship Fund
http://bobhurt.com/lawdonation.htm:
Click Here: Jurisdictionary®
I don’t: belong to a Bar; practice law; give legal advice.
***************************************

THE 16TH. AMENDMENT HAS NEVER APPLIED TO A TAX ON WAGES OR SALARIES.

Various government publications and internet sites will lead a person
to believe that every possible defense to the income tax has been
previously adjudicated. When an issue of wages/salary is made, they
invariably rely upon the cases of Springer v US, 102 US 586 and on
Pollock, or claim that it is authorized by the 16th. Amendment. Let
us review those items to be sure we are not being mislead.

Springer claimed the Civil War tax that was not apportioned by
population to be collected by the states was a direct tax and
therefore unconstitutional and additionally claimed the seizure and
selling of his real estate without adjudication was a violation of
due process. The court observed the procedures to collect taxes
included seizure by warrant without oath which constituted conclusive
evidence of the facts recited in it. The indifference of the court is
apparent: If the procedure "involved any wrong or unnecessary
harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make Congresses to
see that the evil was corrected. The remedy does not lie with the
judicial branch of the government." id 594. It appears the court was
ready to trammel, without objection, the Fourth Amendment right to be
free of General Warrants/Writs of Assistance that had been a major
factor in the Revolutionary War---to expedite tax collection. The
constitutional prohibition against Bills of Attainder, a punishment
without benefit of adjudication, was also ignored. Fortunately for
the public, the tax had expired many years before the seizure and
adjudication had worked its way to the Supreme Court. The opinion
takes the bulk of discussion (eleven pages) to detail the history and
relevant points of what constitutes a direct tax, including the
observation: "It will thus be seen that whenever the government has
imposed a tax which it recognized as a DIRECT TAX, it has never been
applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." id 599, emphasis
in original. The court then held the tax was not a direct tax. [There
is a very important lesson that must be learned from the Springer
case. Springer, a lawyer, foolishly attempted to carry the burden of
proof and prove the tax was a direct tax. All the court had to do was
say: "No. You are wrong." Contemporary litigants make the same
mistake. The burden of proof must be on the government and they must
prove the validity of a tax. Due process requires nothing less.]

In a concluding half-sentence, the court writes "the tax of which
(Springer) complains is within the category of an excise or duty." id
602. There is an absolute void of discussion on the nature of an
excise or of a duty. The half-sentence is not a holding; it is a mere
observation of constitutional requirements for the tax to be valid---
an escape clause. A holding relates only to questions of law ruled
upon in trial court that are appealed, briefed and scrutinized in the
appellate court and establishes a precedent that is to be followed in
future adjudication. The issue of the tax being an excise or a duty
was not raised in trial or appellate court nor was it briefed on
appeal. In legal terms, the statement is orbiter dicta of no
precedential value. The words may be of weight in future adjudication
(even as a guise ?), but they do not set a precedent that must be
followed. Reliance on this case as holding an income tax is an excise
or a duty has been a scam for decades.

The income tax was rescinded after the Civil War, was reintroduced in
the 1890's, and was challenged in Pollock v Farmers Loan, 157 US 429,
158 US 601. The Pollock challenge involved income derived from
dividends from bonds and income from rental property. The court
distinguished the issues as being a tax levied upon the income from
capital investments (a source) that the court considered different
from a tax levied on "business, privileges, or employment." id 579.
The court held the tax levied on income from capital investments was
a direct tax and unconstitutional. Since this action would place the
bulk of the remaining tax on salaries and wages which was not the
intent of congress, the entire tax scheme on rehearing was declared
invalid. id 637 (do not read unconstitutional). Pollock did not
adjudicate any issue relating to wages or salary, the issue did not
have representation before the court, it was not defended and it was
not discussed in any brief. Salaries/wages (employment) was mentioned
by the Pollock court to have previously "assumed the guise of an
excise tax and been sustained as such." id 157 US 579; 158 US 635. No
authoritative citation is given nor should we confuse a reference to
a guise with a holding. Congress could have reinstated an income tax
on wages/salaries without an amendment to the constitution, but not
upon dividends or rental income.

Congress had realized the tremendous economic bonanza of an income
tax and submitted the 16th Amendment to the states for ratification
in 1909. Subsequent adjudication declared that the purpose of the
16th Amendment was to reverse, by legislation, the judicial action of
the Pollock court. Brushaber v Union Pacific, 240 US 1, 18-19. Since
the holding of the Pollock court related to income from capital
investments, it is submitted the 16th Amendment is irrelevant to an
issue of wages/salaries. Agreement is found in Bower v Kerbaugh-
Empire, 271 US 170, 174 and Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, 206.

Concurrence of this point can also be found in Congressional Research
Service Report #84-168A, SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS, updated 9/26/84, at page 8: "The fallacy of
this argument (that wages are not taxable as income) is that the
taxation of wages had never been found unconstitutional and therefore
the (16th) amendment to the Constitution was not necessary to permit
this type of taxation (on wages)." The statement is true but
misleading. The reason taxation of an individual's wages has never
been found unconstitutional is that the court has never adjudicated
the issue as subtly implied. [The report unwittingly confirms that
Pollock did not adjudicate an issue of wages. Since the report
acknowledges "taxation of wages had never been found
unconstitutional," and history identifies Pollock for
its "unconstitutional" ruling which is the only case discussed in the
report, Pollock obviously did not adjudicate an issue of wages. That
leaves only Springer which simply held the income tax was not a
direct tax.] Pollock, by convoluted phraseology, is also implied to
hold "income taxes are generally indirect taxes in the nature of
excises..." on page 3. Pollock mentions that statement as a 'guise'
from previous adjudication---without citation---but definitely did
not make such a holding. Again, by the court's own statements, the
issue of wages/salary was not before the court; it was not
represented, defended, or briefed. Discussion of an issue of
wages/salary is mere dicta with no precedential value.. The report's
reliance on Pollock as relevant to a tax on wages or salary is poorly
placed.

The Congressional Research Report was updated and revised with
release dated November 17, 1989 and titled FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
CONCERNING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX and again declares the 16th
Amendment is not relevant to an income tax levied on wages at page 10
and also relies on Springer and Pollock as adjudicating an issue of
wages/salary. This deliberate misrepresentation of Springer and
Pollock to members of congress, and to the Department of Justice, by
government lawyers influenced (intimidated?) by the IRS, borders on
fraud. Which side of the border is undetermined. Fraud or collusion
renders any judgment void. League v DeYoung, 52 US 185.

The Congressional Research Report has been updated to May 7, 2001, or
February 6, 2002, and repeatedly suggests Pollock "held the tax valid
on gains from salaries" etc. At the risk of appearing repetitive and
redundant, Pollock, by its own words, declared that these objects of
the tax were not being adjudicated; they were not briefed,
represented, or defended. How the Report has the effrontery to
suggest Pollock "held the tax valid on gains from salaries" while
history remembers the case for its ruling of `unconstitutional' is
beyond comprehension. Desperation distorts logic.

Sometimes the underlying consistency and simplicity of Springer and
Pollock is missed. The Springer court declared a direct tax was
relevant only to a tax on real estate or on slaves. The Pollock court
in examining the rent derived from real estate attempted to conform
with the Springer statements and declared the tax on rent was in
effect a tax on real estate and therefore a direct tax.

But the effect of the 16th. Amendment has been eliminated. In 1988,
the Supreme Court held the Pollock case in disfavor (overruled).
South Carolina v Baker, 485 US 505. Discussion of the 16th.
Amendment is superfluous.

The Bill Benson prosecution was not really about the validity of the
16th Amendment; it was about preventing the dissemination of any
thought that threatened the collection of revenue in the form of an
income tax.