v line

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." -- Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Search The Library


SOME MAIN ROOMS

LEGAL TOPIC AREAS

MISC BUSHWAH

PREMIUM ROOMS

Follow Us!



Our Most Popular Article:
Power of Attorney
Our Most Popular Page:
Free Legal Forms
Our Newest Article: Personal Finance Guide

line
line

Folks, these are a number of interesting 7/95 newsgroup messages concerning federal income taxes that you might want to look at. There are a number of case cites and other background info. We've edited them to cut down on the personal attacks and insider currents so common in the newsgroups. - staff
-----

Subject: Re: 16th Amendment & Income Tax Act of 1913

You appear to be suggesting a new entry in the non-filer's lexicon: "whatever" equals "required". If a statute or constitution says "whatever," then it is "required." If the 16th Amendment says "from whatever source derived," then it is essential to identify the source of the income.

Before you bitch that below may all be about corporations, dust off your Internal Revenue Code and look up "person" the income tax applies to, is defined as.

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale of conversion of capital assets...

The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain", which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'DERIVED--FROM--CAPITAL'; 'the GAIN-- DERIVED--FROM--CAPITAL", etc. Here we have the essential matter: NOT a gain ACCRUING to CAPITAL, not a GROWTH or INCREMENT of value IN the investment; but a gain, a profit. something of exchangeable value PROCEEDING FROM the property SEVERED FROM the capital however invested or employed, and COMING IN, being 'DERIVED', that is RECEIVED or DRAWN BY the recipient (the taxpayer) for his SEPARATE use, benefit and disposal; -- THAT is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.

The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment -- 'incomes, FROM whatever SOURCE DERIVED' -- the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution" (emphasis provided by the supreme Court) -- Eisner v. Macomver, 252 US 189, @ 206, 1920.

"We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co.) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'... certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act than that of 1909 (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert), and for present purposes we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts." -- Southern Pacific v. Lowe, 247 US 330, @ 335, 1918.

"Yet it is plain, we think, that the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income', it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principle or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure arising from corporate activites." -- Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 US 179, @ 184-5, 1918.

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined..." "Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to

the doing of business incorporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from current operations of the Government." -- Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 399, @ 415-6, 1913.

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where it was asssumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913.

There would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become DEFINITELY SETTLED BY DECISIONS OF THIS COURT.

In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what is believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." -- Merchant's Loan and Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509, @ 518-9, 1921.

========
xxx writes: >Excuse me, but I don't follow this at all. The 16th Amendment states that >"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." How can you say that >Congress cannot impose a tax on income without apportionment, when the

>Because the 16th Amendment neither imposes a direct tax on income,

It allows Congress to impose ("lay") and collect (!) a tax directly upon income. Arguing whether this is a "direct" tax is meaningless, as the tax is specifically authorized. It is authorized with different rules than previous taxes, which were limited depending upon whether they were "direct", "excise", or something else. So perhaps we should not use one of those old labels, as they might confuse things. Let's just call it an "income tax".

>nor does the 16th Amendment change anything regarding the rules of apportionment.

The 16th Amendment changes nothing regarding the rules of apportionment for any taxes other than income taxes. It specifically states that apportionment does not apply to income taxes.

>Income taxes, which would be direct, MUST be apportioned among the several states.

The tense on this sentence is wrong. Prior to the amendment income taxes MUST HAVE BEEN apportioned. As a result of the specific language in the amendment (see paragraph #1) that requirement has been removed.

>>16th Amendment says that Congress CAN tax incomes without apportionment.

>No it does not.

Read the text.

>It says on "...income, from whatever source derived,...". This is another way of saying profits or excess which, by nature, are separate from its source.

The amendment does not define "income" as "profits or "excess". Sorry.

>For example, a corporation has profits after it pays all its officers salaries, all its expenses, etc.. Do you have a profit when you exchange your labor (time) for property (wages)?

I have a monetary profit of the wages which i have received.

>>You seem to be fixated on the limitation on direct taxes in Section 9 of >Article I. But the purpose of an amendment is to amend. Why isn't
>Section 9 of Article I superseded by the 16th Amendment? >Once again, that isn't what the 16th Amendment says. The reference to >"source" indicates that incomes can be taxed REGARDLESS of source. You are
>stating that the source of income continues to be some sort of limitation.

>It does not change or supersede anything. It merely defines further what already was.

In which case an amendment would not have been required or passed. The tremendous difficulty of passing a Constitutional Amendment would not have been gone through merely to clarify a definition. Congress could do that via a normal bill. The states would not have gone through with such a farce.

You might prefer not to have an income tax, but to claim that one is unconstitutional in the face of the clear language of the 16th Amendment is rediculous. It reminds me of the child whining that it can go into the library with an ice cream cone, because the ice cream is not really food.

>It is the same principle behind the 14th Amendment -- "...United States, subject to the jurisidiction thereof,..." -- which merely further defined what already was.

This is the same principle of ignoring the text of an andmendment.

>>I will have to read this case, because the quotation is confusing. The >quotation refers to the holding in a PREVIOUS case. It is not clear what >the Stanton case itself held, or what it was about. However, the quotation >doesn't make any sense, because it suggests that the purpose of the 16th >Amendment was to limit the power of Congress, not expand it.

>It does not limit the powers of Congress at all. It merely defines further what is and what not constitutes placement into direct and indirect categories for the purposes of taxation.

I.e. it defines "income taxes" as indirect?

>>Question: Did any of these cases hold that the income tax was unconstitutional? Then what did they hold. (I'm asking for the holding, >not what they said. If you don't know the difference, don't bother to >answer.)

>I don't see how it could be. It's not unconstitutional. It's not even an issue. It appears that you are arguing that a non-

apportioned income tax (as commonly viewed) is unconstitutional. Are you playing word games here?

========

>|> >For example, a corporation has profits after it |> >pays all its officers salaries, all its expenses, etc.. Do you have a |> >profit when you exchange your labor (time) for property (wages)?

> I have a monetary profit of the wages which i have received.

>So, then, your labor is worthless?

In a philosophical sense? No.

In an income tax sense? Yes.

Re: 16th Amendment & Income Tax Act of 1913

>For example, a corporation has profits after it pays all its officers salaries, all its expenses, etc.. Do you have a profit when you exchange your labor (time) for property (wages)? I have a monetary profit of the wages which i have received. So, then, your labor is worthless? In a philosophical sense? No. In an income tax sense? Yes.

The law *should* reflect philosophical reality, don't you think? Isn't this the basis of what "fair" is all about?

For example, Government could certainly _define_ income to include the volume of air you breath in a year, and then tax you on it. I hope we all would agree that such a definition is ridiculous.

Such is the case with the ensuing argument. Laws should have a rational, reasonable basis. As such, the interpretation of the words used in those laws should similarly follow a rational justification.

If one's labor has value, and indeed that value is measured and quantified by the market wage one can demand for that labor, then it is simply a definitional game divorced from rationality to define "profit" such that in the case of labor, the value of that labor doesn't count (thereby rendering 100% of wages profit), while in every other case "profit" is more rationally defined.

Just like when you sell your car, when you work you are giving up something of value to recieve value in return. Profit or loss is the measure of the difference in these values, which in the case of labor/wages is hard to determine, however it is certainly not 100% of the wages as the government, and many here, would have us believe.

========

>It allows Congress to impose ("lay") and collect (!) a tax directly upon income. Arguing whether this is a "direct" tax is meaningless, as the tax is specifically authorized. It is authorized with different rules than previous taxes, which were limited depending upon whether they were "direct", "excise", or something else. So perhaps we should not use one of those old labels, as they might confuse things. Let's just call it an "income tax".

It does? All the Supreme Court cases are to the contrary. Its on income FROM WHATEVER SOURCES DERIVED, not income. Even then, the Supreme Court defines income the same way.

>The 16th Amendment changes nothing regarding the rules of apportionment for any taxes other than income taxes. It specifically states that apportionment does not apply to income taxes.

You are contradicting what the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled. Mayhaps you should do a bit of studying considering you are in Finland?

>The tense on this sentence is wrong. Prior to the amendment income taxes MUST HAVE BEEN apportioned. As a result of the specific language in the amendment (see paragraph #1) that requirement has been removed.

You are still contradicting the Supreme Court.

>Read the text.

Read the Supreme Court rulings.

>The amendment does not define "income" as "profits or "excess". Sorry.

Read the Supreme Court rulings defining income. Sorry.

>I have a monetary profit of the wages which i have received.

You do? Then pay taxes if it is "within" the United States.

>In which case an amendment would not have been required or passed. The tremendous difficulty of passing a Constitutional Amendment would not have been gone through merely to clarify a definition. Congress could do that via a normal bill. The states would not have gone through with such a farce.

Really, you can transport yourself back to the era when it was going around for ratification and know what was within the minds of all concerned? "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that GOOD men do nothing." -- Edmond Burke.

>You might prefer not to have an income tax, but to claim that one is unconstitutional in the face of the clear language of the 16th Amendment is rediculous. It reminds me of the child whining that it can go into the library with an ice cream cone, because the ice cream is not really food.

I've never said it was unconstitutional. It only is without apportionment among the several states. So is the direct income tax apportioned by the IRS, or is it really an indirect excise tax?

>This is the same principle of ignoring the text of an andmendment.

Uh, why don't you read the Constitution? Citizens of the United States was used three times before the 14th Amendment. I repeat: It merely defined what already was.

>I.e. it defines "income taxes" as indirect?

Taxes on income, FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED. Excise tax.

>It appears that you are arguing that a non-apportioned income tax (as commonly viewed) is unconstitutional. Are you playing word games here?

No, I am arguing that a non-apportioned DIRECT income tax would be unconstitional. Is that what you see in the 16th Amendment, or do you see an excise tax?

If you were a government agency bound by Constitutional restrictions, how would you lay and collect a direct income tax in the several states without apportionment? If the 16th Amendment actually did what you think it does (And the Supreme Court agreed), what's with all this "voluntary, self-assement" stuff?

========

>If you were a government agency bound by Constitutional restrictions, how would you lay and collect a direct income tax in the several states without apportionment? If the 16th Amendment actually did what you think it does (And the Supreme Court agreed), what's with all this "voluntary, self-assement" stuff?

It's rhetoric, a figure of speech. Not legal terminology. Can you cite one law that says that the tax is voluntary?

Amazing how you'll believe the IRS when they say things you like, and you simply ignore them or call them corrupt or liars when they say things you don't like?

Why not just assume they're lying when they say it's voluntary?

How many times does it have to be explained to you what it means? It does not mean you get to choose whether to pay, but solely that they want you to send in the money yourself, rather than having to go around to each house with guns.

========

>You appear to be suggesting a new entry in the non-filer's lexicon:
>"whatever" equals "required". If a statute or constitution says
>"whatever," then it is "required." If the 16th Amendment says >"from whatever source derived," then it is essential to identify >the source of the income.

Bingo!, dust off your Internal Revenue Code and look up "person" the income tax applies to, is defined as.

Yeah, an individual. Are you claiming you're not an individual? _U.S. v. Stocklin_, 848 F. Supp. 1521 (1994).

>"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale of conversion of capital assets...

How much do you want to bet that this was a quote regarding a corporate, rather than an individual, income tax?

"Wages are income." - Every court to ever rule upon Mr. Wade's argument. He has yet to identify a court to the contrary. Every one of his quotes involved businesses, not individuals.

"$1,500" - fine automatically imposed in the seventh circuit for making the frivolous argument that wages are not income. _Castellanos_.

========

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale of conversion of capital assets...

Unless that has been added in the last couple of years, or my copy of grep is broken, that's not in the Internal Revenue Code. Do you have a cite.

>Court) -- Eisner v. Macomver, 252 US 189, @ 206, 1920. >Pacific v. Lowe, 247 US 330, @ 335, 1918. >Bros., 247 US 179, @ 184-5, 1918.
>Howbert, 231 US 399, @ 415-6, 1913. >255 US 509, @ 518-9, 1921.

OK, this puzzles me. Some random tax evasion group gives you a bunch of case cites. You either don't try to check them out, or don't know how to (I know this because someone who knows how to do legal research would not have missed, e.g., _Glenshaw Glass_, which makes _Eisner_ irrelevant). But you believe them.

Meanwhile, assorted lawyers and law students, for some unfathomable reason, go to the library, look up all the cases, shepardize them, etc., and tell you that you were handed a load of bullshit. You don't believe us--we must be government stooges.

If wolfe.net is the Wolfe that is in Seattle, why don't you go over to the UW law library and do the research yourself? The research librarians would be glad to point you toward books that would quickly and easily teach you how to do basic legal research. That's all you need to check out the tax evasion group cites. In three years of shooting these things down, I've only run into one or two that would not fall to basic legal research (those were ones where they boldy asserted things that did not exist in the cited statute--catching that by an eyeball grep would be error prone, so someone without Westlaw or LEXIS might find it a pain to refute).

========

16th Amendment > It is not a tax on income -- that would be a direct tax and totally unconstitutional without apportionment. It is an effectively an profits tax (particular when you view the definition of "person" in the Internal Revenue Code"). It is on "...incomes, FROM whatever SOURCE DERIVED,...".

Are you implying that there is such a thing as "income" without a "source"?

Pray tell, what sort of "income" doesn't have a source from which it was derived?

> All the 16th Amendment does is clarify that WHEN THE INCOME WAS SEPARATED FROM ITS SOURCE, that tax was no longer a tax ON THE SOURCE; therefore it was an indirect tax that needed to only be uniform.

If it's not separated from it's source, its not income. Eisner v. Macomber. What in the world are you trying to say by emphasizing "WHEN THE INCOME WAS SEPARATED FROM ITS SOURCE"?

> If Congress wants to lay a direct income tax without apportionment, it CAN DO SO WITHIN ITS OWN EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION (Article I:8:17), INCLUDING ANY CITIZENS "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF".

If you actually take the time to read Brushaber, and parse through Justice White's somewhat convoluted prose, you'll see that the 16th Amendment did away with the principle that "income" taxes could be classified as "direct" in the Constitutional sense.

After the 16th Amendment and Brushaber, the position of the Supreme Court seems clear: If it is an "income" tax, it is not a "direct" tax subject to apportionment; if it is a "direct" tax subject to apportionemnet, it is not an "income" tax.

> But if it wants to lay it uniformly on [sovereign] individuals within the [sovereign] states, it can do so ONLY ON ONE THAT SEPARATES THE INCOME FROM ITS SOURCE.

Again, if it's not separated from the source, it's not income. Explain yourself, because to me your statement is either utterly obvious or utterly meaningless.

> "...the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THE INCOME WAS DERIVED..." -
- Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 US 103, @ 112-3. 1916.

Let me try to explain the above, as I understand it:

1. Congress posesses a complete and plenary power of taxation, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution. 2. All taxation must be categorized as either direct, or indirect. 3. The Constitutional limitations are that direct taxes must be apportioned, and indirect taxes must be uniform. 4. The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, since Congress already posesses a complete and plenary power of income taxation. 5. The power of income taxation inherently belongs in the category of indirect taxation. 6. The 16th Amendment prohibited the sources from which the income was derived from being considered in order to take income taxation out of its inherent category of indirect taxation and place it into the category of direct taxation which must be apportioned. 7. It is a fact that the previous ruling (Brushaber, in this case) settled this.

Do you reject any of the above interpretations of this ruling?

> "...the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of THE SOURCE WHENCE INCOME WAS DERIVED.

This confirms #6.

> The Contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rulE of uniformity as such 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 since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of THE SOURCES WHICH THE TAXED INCOME MAY BE DERIVED.

This confirms #2 & #6.

> The Amendment contains nothing rpudiating or challenging the ruling in the POLLACK CASE that the word direct had a broader significance since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of hte Constittuion -- a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended, that is, the prevention of the resort to THE SOURCES FROM WHICH A TAXED INCOME WAS DERIVED in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes." -- Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1, @ 18-9, 1916.

8. The Pollack Case determined that the word "direct" had a broader significance than the Court previously had held. 9. This broader significance was that taxes levied directly on personal propery *because of its ownership* would be classified as direct taxes. 10. The 16th Amendment did not change this interpretation, EXCEPT to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended.

And that result is #6, above.

> "A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this Amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.

11. The 16th Amendment does not repeal or modify the provisions of the Constitution requiring apportionment, EXCEPT as applied to income.

> In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also have proper effect, it becomes ESSENTIAL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT "INCOME", as the term is there used; AND TO APPLY THE DISTINCTION, as cases arise, ACCORDING TO TRUTH AND SUBSTANCE, WITHOUT REGARD TO FORM. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitition, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within those limitations alone power can be lawfully exercised." -- Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189, @ 206, 1920.

This confirms #11, and goes on to say: 12. Because the 16th Amendment only applies to taxes on income, it is essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income". 13. This distinction must be according to truth and substance, without regard to form. 14. Congress may not arbitrarily define "income" in order to relieve a direct tax from apportionment.

This ruling went on to say that a stock dividend, i.e. a dividend distributed as stock certificate (rather than cash), is not income, since it is not separate from the source (i.e. the dividend shares of stock are not separate in substance from the original shares of stock). Since stock dividends are not income (as distinguished from cash dividends from a stock, which ARE income), a tax on such would be a direct tax levied on property because of ownership, and would be unconstitutional if not apportioned.

Now you keep talking about a "direct income tax", but given the Constitutional meanings of these words as the Supreme Court has interpreted them since the 16th Amendment, this is an oxymoron.

So either you reject the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 16th Amendment, you reject its defintion of "direct", or you reject its definition of "income". Which is it?

========

>Excuse me, but I don't follow this at all. The 16th Amendment states that >"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." How can you say that Congress cannot impose a tax on income without apportionment, when the

: Because the 16th Amendment neither imposes a direct tax on income, nor does the 16th Amendment change anything regarding the rules of apportionment. Income taxes, which would be direct, MUST be apportioned among the several states.

One of these days I'll prepare a complete report on the history of the 16th Amendment. The amendment probably was not even necessary, since by 1916 it was generally conceded that the Court's rulings in the two Pollock cases, which had declared an income tax to be unconstitutional, was seriously flawed. A lot of the true purpose of the amendment had more to do with political one-upmanship than with constitutional principals.

Just for fun, however, let's look at what the Constitution says about taxes:

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Plus, there are provisions in Article I, Section 2, and Article I, Section 9, that say direct taxes must be levied on states according to population. I think this is where you are getting the stuff about "direct taxes" and apportionment.

The Supreme Court ruled in Springr v. united States (1881), in regard to an income tax of the Civil War era, that an income tax is NOT a direct tax. The Pollock cases reversed this only partly, since the first Pollock case dealty with income from realty. The Court's reasoning in this case, which associated an income tax with land and thereby a direct tax, is completely discredited today.

So, since income tax is NOT a direct tax, the apportionment stuff really doesn't apply. Let's look at the 16th Amendment:

"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."

The part about apportionment was to void the decisions in the Pollock cases, which were real stupid anyway. This wording leaves not a trace of a doubt that the provisons of Article I, section 2 and Article I, section 9, do not apply to income taxes, however.

>16th Amendment says that Congress CAN tax incomes without apportionment.

: Not it does not.

Yes, it does. Very clearly. In plain English.

It says on "...income, from whatever source derived,...". This is another way of saying profits or excess which, by nature, are separate from its source. For example, a corporation has profits after it pays all its officers salaries, all its expenses, etc.. Do you have a profit when you exchange your labor (time) for property (wages)?

I can't imagine how you can take a few simple English words and twist them around into such a mess. All the amendment says is that all income from any source, which means all income now matter how you came by it -- salaries, sales, alimony, tips, interest on investments, royalties, sweepstakes winnings, etc. etc. etc. -- are subject to tax. That's ALL IT MEANS.

: >You seem to be fixated on the limitation on direct taxes in Section 9 of Article I. But the purpose of an amendment is to amend. Why isn't Section 9 of Article I superseded by the 16th Amendment? >Once again, that isn't what the 16th Amendment says. The reference to "source" indicates that incomes can be taxed REGARDLESS of source. You are stating that the source of income continues to be some sort of limitation.

: It does not change or supersede anything. It merely defines further what already was. It is the same principle behind the 14th Amendment -- "...United States, subject to the jurisidiction thereof,..." -- which merely further defined what already was.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Just read the 16th again, slowly. All the way through. Moving your lips is OK; in your case, slow is better.

: >I will have to read this case, because the quotation is confusing. The quotation refers to the holding in a PREVIOUS case. It is not clear what the Stanton case itself held, or what it was about. However, the quotation doesn't make any sense, because it suggests that the purpose of the 16th >Amendment was to

limit the power of Congress, not expand it.

: It does not limit the powers of Congress at all. It merely defines further what is and what not constitutes placement into direct and indirect categories for the purposes of taxation.

The 16th says nothing about "direct" or "indirect."

: >Question: Did any of these cases hold that the income tax was unconstitutional? Then what did they hold. (I'm asking for the holding,

>not what they said. If you don't know the difference,

don't bother to answer.)

: I don't see how it could be. It's not unconstitutional. It's not even an issue.

The Pollock cases (Pollck v. the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (1895) found an income tax added to a tariff bill to be unconstitutional. This is why the 16th Amendment was needed to enact an income tax, even though the reasoning in Pollock was bizarre.

========

Income Tax Act of 1913 > Part H: "That the word 'State' or 'United States' when used in this section shall be construed to INCLUDE any territory, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico and the Phillippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions." "'includes' means to 'COMPRISE as a member,' to 'CONFINE,' and 'to COMPRISE as the whole part.'" -- Montello Salt Company v. Utah, 221 US 452 @ 466.

Sorry, that's not an accurate quotation, and nothing even close to it is on page 466. The closest I can find to this alleged quote is on page 465:

"the word 'include' ... means, according to the definition of the Century Dictionary, (1) 'to confine within something; hold as in an inclosure; inclose; contain.' (2) 'To comprise as a part, or as something incident or pertinent; comprehend; take in; as the greater includes the less; . . . the Roman Empire included many nations.'" Montello Salt Company v. Utah, 221 U.S. 452 @ 465.

Notice that "to comprise as THE WHOLE part" is NOT stated as a definition of "include".

Now please pay close attention to the following words, from the EXACT SAME ruling that you cited:

"The determining word is, of course the word 'including.' It MAY have the sense of ADDITION, as we have seen, and of 'ALSO;' but, we have seen, 'MAY merely specify particularly that which belongs to the genus.' Hiller v. United States, 45 C.C.A. 229, 106 Fed. 73, 74." Montello, @ 464-465 (emphasis mine).

Let's take a look at another quote from this ruling:

"In United States v. Pierce, 77 C.C.A 425, 147 Fed. 199, a provision in a tariff act was considered which provided as follows: 'Woods: Logs and round manufactured timber, including pulp woods. . . .' The court (United States circuit court of appeals, second circuit) said: 'We think the word "including" was used as the equivalent of "ALSO," a sense in which it is FREQUENTLY USED in TARIFF acts.'" Montello, @ 462.

It is pretty apparent that you did NOT actually take the time to read this case, or you would not be making claims that the Supreme Court ruled that the word "include" means "limited to". Even in the particular case that was being ruled upon, the word "including" was not construed to mean "limited to", even though it was construed to be a word of limitation. If you can't figure out what this means, read the case.

> "Where a general term in statute is followed by the word "including", the primary import of specific words following quoted word is to indicate RESTRICTION rather than enlargement." -- Powers ex rel. Doyon v. Charron, R.I., 135 A.2d 829, @ 832.

But of course you didn't mention the following quote from this Rhode Island Supreme Court case:

"Of course this principle is NOT a POSITIVE RULE OF LAW but merely a rule of construction to be employed ONLY in determining the meaning of an AMBIGUOUS statute. It may also be resorted to where a literal reading of the statute results in UNREASONABLE or ABSURD consequences." Powers ex rel. Doyon v. Charron, R.I., 135 A.2d 829 @ 833.

Maybe you believe it is unreasonable or absurd to have the IRC apply to the fifty several states, but I have yet to see ANY court believe that. Rather, your interpretation of "includes" renders the IRC absurd and unreasonable, as it leads to absurdities of construction of statutes like 7701(a)(9) and (10), e.g.:

The term 'State' means the District of Columbia, and the term 'United States' includes only the States and the District of Columbia, therefore the term 'United States' includes only the Districts of Columbia and the District of Columbia.

> "Where a general term is followed by the word "including", the primary import of words following is to indicate RESTRICTION." -- Application of Spartan Airlines, 185 P.2d 925.

Here, in an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling, it was held that in a statute that said "the term 'transportation company' shall include ..." and then proceeded to list a number of entities that any reasonable person would recognize as being 'transportation companies', that the words 'shall include' were meant to restrict the term to the listed entities. However:

"It follows that the quality of enlargement can be applied to the words 'shall inlcude' only to the extent that the words following add something not included within the meaning of the term 'transportation company;' ..."

"If, following the words 'shall include', there had been named only classes not embraced within the meaning of the term 'transportation company', thus reflecting only an addition to those otherwise included in the term, it would afford support to the contention [that "shall include" was meant to enlarge]." Application of Central Airlines, Inc., 185 P.2d 919, @ 923.

From all of the above cases then, the only reasonable conclusion is that since the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc., are not normally included in the meaning of the term "State", a statute defining "State" to include these territories is ENLARGING the defintion of "State" rather than RESTRICTING it. IRC 7701(c) lends further clear support to ENLARGEMENT, rather than RESTRICTION, being the intent of Congress in using "includes" in the IRC.

> Part K: "That jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the district courts of the United States for the district within which any person summoned under this section to appear to testify or to produce books SHALL RESIDE, to compel such attendance, production of books, and testimoney by appropriate process."

If you reside in one of the 50 states, you reside in a federal judicial district, notwithstanding your apparent beliefs to the contrary. Take a look at 28 USC 81-131 some time. You'll notice that each of the 50 states are listed, by name.

========
Dan, the Federal Jurisdiction DOES NOT "include" the 50 states, except within the limitations of the Constitution. You have sited several state supreme courts. Unfortunately, The Supreme Court says "include" or "includes" is limited and restricted in all laws and legislation made by the government.

========

> Why isn't Section 9 of Article I superseded by the 16th Amendment? Once again, that isn't what the 16th Amendment says. The reference to "source" indicates that incomes can be taxed REGARDLESS of source. You are stating that the source of income continues to be some sort of limitation. It does not change or supersede anything. It merely defines further what already was. It is the same principle behind the 14th Amendment -- "...United States, subject to the jurisidiction thereof,..." -- which merely further defined what already was.

This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Just read the 16th again, slowly. All the way through.

In a way, the 14th Amendment does have something to do with this. It confirmed that the United States is a separate entity from the 50 free states and that its jurisdiction is also separate except as allowed by the Constitution and "pursuance thereof".

The 16th says nothing about "direct" or "indirect."

The Pollock cases (Pollck v. the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company (1895) found an income tax added to a tariff bill to be unconstitutional. This is why the 16th Amendment was needed to enact an income tax, even though the reasoning in Pollock was bizarre.

The 16th Amendment is a waste of space on the Constitution, it doesn't give Congress any new authority, so why have it?

:::::thinking of gevernment excuses::::"Well, it helps make the people of the 50 states think they have to pay taxes to the seat of the Government on their otherwise untaxable wages."

"The tax Codes are the equivalent to Minnesota taxing IOWA for their own water and air."
-----

Interesting heh? Now you're an expert on the 16th Amendment. However, we don't suggest you try many of the above arguments in court...
- staff

Brought to you by - The 'Lectric Law Library
The Net's Finest Legal Resource For Legal Pros & Laypeople Alike.
http://www.lectlaw.com

Google+