If only the IRS meant it


Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 25,2003,11:04   MetroBlab

If the IRS really was serious about wanting to see these schemes go
away or at least significantly curbed, why not just be honest? Why
not just admit what the court said in 1916:

"[B]y the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that 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 [of our national
government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the
category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

All I can say is that the promoters of these schemes and the IRS
whether working in tandem or apart are doing a pretty dang good job
of distorting, lying, misleading and obfuscating(choose your word).

IRS and States Announce Partnership to Target Abusive Tax Avoidance
Transactions




Followups



Indeed, don't get taken for tax schemes

Re:
If only the IRS meant it -- Lysander Spooner
Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 25,2003,11:32   MetroBlab

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Bottom line is read the cases cited whenever time permits and understanding the legal questions, rule, ruling and holding that the courts have made. Not easy, but it can be done.

Some key points to make:

Simply put, taxes on personal property and real estate are to be applied as direct taxes and must be in apportion according to Article 1, Section 2. "Indeed, the requirement for apportionment is pretty strictly limited to taxes on real and personal property and capitation taxes." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. C.I.R., 277 F.2d 16, 19-20 (3rd Cir. 1960).

"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income, which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax." - Congressional Record, 3-27-43, page 2580

The Supreme Court furthered elaborated on this: �A tax laid upon the happening of an event as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.� Tyler vs U.S., 281 U.S. 497, page 502 (1930)

The court also explains an excise as well as duties and imposts: "Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.' Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680." Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) 220 U.S. 107

Some people contend that the 16th amendment overturned the ruling in the Pollack case. This is what the Supreme Court said in the Brushaber case: "...the proposition and the contentions under [the 16th Amendment]...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;

This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations of the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Federal Tax Cases




Indeed, don't get taken for tax schemes

Re:
Indeed, don't get taken for tax schemes -- Lysander Spooner
Posted by Lysander Spooner ® , Sep 25,2003,11:37   MetroBlab

"[B]y the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that 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 [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

It is also important to note that the requirement to make a tax return is not based upon "income" (profit or gain), but rather it is based upon the "gross income" (gross earnings) of a person who has a "taxable year" and is subject to (liable for) that tax. FN3. The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer. (Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S., 470 F.2d 585 (1972)

Sec. 7701. - Definitions

(a)

When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof -

(1) Person

The term ''person'' shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(14) Taxpayer

The term ''taxpayer'' means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.