Report: Was 16th Amendment Ratified?
Maximo Lachman
David Goldman (da...@erols.com) writes:
> From www.worldnetdaily.com
>
>
>>THE POWER TO DESTROY
>> Is income tax legal?
>> Evidence suggests
>> 16th Amendment never ratified
>
>
Even if the 16th were ratified, it does not give the gov't that much
power to tax:
This is what the 16th amendment does not say:
Congress must lay and collect taxes on incomes derived from
whatever sources, without regard to apportionment among the
several states, and without any census or enumeration.
Congress shall (i.e. may) be dissolved for not enforcing this
amendment.
The word 'must' would imply that the apportionment provisions
have to be overridden universally,( which is what the 16th
amendment does not imply, rather that congress is authorised
to collect income tax but should weigh into
consideration the apportionment provisions) and that Congress
may be punished for not enacting appropriate legislation.
It also states that if a census were taken, that congress must
not lay and collect the tax.
It also states that taxes must be layed and then collected on
incomes derived (i.e. drawn, see ODL) from sources (of income).
It does not say from whom the tax is to be collected.
That is why the 16th amendment was written as follows:
Congress shall (not must) 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.
This is clear that congress is authorised to:
1. lay and collect taxes on incomes.
2. with the restriction that it be done in a way that does not
require apportionment nor regard to a census or enumeration.
Therefore it is clear that income tax is to be
collected from the source of the income, & not
collected from the recipient or it would have been worded as
'collect taxes on income accruing to whatever recipient' or
'collect taxes on income, from whatever recipient benefitted',
for legal collection of income tax from the recipient.
Thus, the source of whatever income stream should pay the tax.
Therefore Congress may collect an income tax from the "source
(drawn upon) derived". This is identical to the
structure of the phrase "return required" in the IRS laws. It
is obvious that if one refers to "returns that are required",
then the other refers to "sources that are derived"(drawn upon).
But I think Yankee tax lawyers nowadays are too stupid to realise
something as simple as the difference between the source
and recipient of income.
Larken Rose (GrandD...@erols.com) writes:
> Okay, one more time.
> Gwailo wrote:
>
> If that ITEM comes from a taxable SOURCE, then it is taxable. WHICH
But I could be wrong about that: One of you admits that the
income can only be taxed as it COMES from a source.
> "source" may be irrelevant, but as you know, 26 USC 861 and related
> regulations define the "sources of income" subject to the income tax.
> if the ITEM of income does not come from a taxable "source" IT IS NOT
> TAXABLE (and is not "income from whatever source derived").
>
Even you admit that there are taxable sources, not taxable recipients
> Like, for example, the phrase "from whatever SOURCE derived"?
>
>
> SECTION 1.861-8. COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME
FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND
FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ACTIVITIES.
>
>
> Im embarrassed that so many people could remain ignorant for so long
> about something publicly available. Look at the Parts of Subchapter N
> The titles alone show that the "income tax" is a FOREIGN tax. But it
> wasnt until recently that search engines and online lawbook access
>allowed almost anyone to do the research themselves. It was MADE to be
>deceiving, in 1861. The INTENTION was to impose a Constitutional tax,
>that gave a false initial impression about what was taxable, and then
>the government would graciously consider anyone paying a "tax" on
>non-taxable income to be doing so "voluntarily"(of course the statute
>doesnt say its voluntary; statutes have no bearing on acts not
>required by law). And the self-assessment part was a nifty trick. Make
>the ignorant masses swear (based on their ignorance) under penalty of
>perjury that they receive taxable income and then take their word for
> it. If it wasnt so friggin evil, the cleverness of it all would
> deserve praise. This is fraud, pure and simple; the trillion-dollar
> lie.
>
Well at least you know it stinks, even if you can't identify the
smell, so there's some hope for you. Don't your universities
teach courses in how to do lexical parsing? At least the ones
in Ottawa do, probably since many of the students become
federal bureaucrats.
It's obvious why the tax is voluntary: if it weren't, the gov't
could be sued for fraud by the taxpayers, who would then be entitled
to get their money back.
zig wrote:
> The Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment did not actually amend
Agreed, if they are using the definition of income used by
accountants and lawyers, rather than economists.
> the Constitution, but moved Income Taxes out of the class of Direct
> Taxes (like property taxes) into the class of Indirect Taxes (like
> sales, alcohol, and tobacco taxes).
>
Then the Supreme Court agrees with me. I said in another
response that the GST was a flat tax, but it is not like sales
tax, rather a value added tax, so it's the same thing as VAT,
which in the economic sense is a tax on someone's income,
but is collected in a manner that does not require you to
identify who that 'someone' is. In that way it is still an
"indirect tax".
> in order to rule the Income Tax as an Indirect Tax, it actually could
> no longer tax the source, but must be separated from that source. You
> find the phrase "from whatever source derived" in both the 16th
> Amendment and in Section 61 of IRS Code Title 26. This is not an
> accident.
>
But if it was meant that the "income must be separated from
that source", the 16th amendment would have read: "income
separated from whatever sources", which means that the
accounting definition of income would be used.
> Before the 16th was ratified, the Corporate Income Excise Tax
> of 1909 was passed. We find that Corporations do NOT pay tax on their
> Revenues, but upon their corporate profit or "income". This"income"
> is separated from the source via the corporation's Income Statement.
> You cannot determine which dollars of source revenue generated which
> dollars of Corporate Income. Had this tax Act not been legislated in
> this manner then it would have been declared Unconstitutional by our
> Supreme Court (in concert with the court's ruling in the Pollock
> decision of 1895). Subsequently the Supreme Court has ruled that the
> meaning of Income under the law must be consistent with previous uses
> of the word in US law, namely a Corporate Profit.
>
So at least you agree, that for your interpretation, the
accounting definition of income must be used. But as I
explained, such a definition makes the 16th amendment
impotent, since it is clear that the source of income is to pay
(as they do in GST/VAT systems), but since the source
cannot foresee what the recipient's income statement will look
like, it is impossible to enforce such a tax.
What you don't seem to understand is that in the economics
sense, the value added to goods and services w/in a country
is equal to the income of that country. therefore, a value
added tax is equal to an indirect income tax. And since GST
is VAT by another name, it seems unfair we also have a direct
income tax, since some people/companies will experience
double taxation. Which seems good reason alone to abolish
the direct income tax, which is getting there, since the rates
are coming down. I'd also abolish the facet that foreigners
can get direct GST refunds without having to file returns, which
I had to do to get an indirect refund.
It seems clear from the wording of the 16th amendment that
the Congress was given power to collect a value added tax on
the country's economic income as a whole, and not a direct
tax on the accounting income of companies or individuals.