Question 1 discussion

[Jamie0331]

I have merged all of these otherwise frivolous topics into one thread. GBE


Question 1 discussion; Respondent consistently fails to provide any lawful evidence of whether
its authority to tax is under “direct” or “indirect” tax laws, neither of which are being
Constitutionally, (Reid, Supra, Page q), applied against Petitioner or any American under its
taxing scheme today. Respondent is distorting this court’s previous ruling on the 16th
Amendment regarding direct/indirect taxation, while claiming the 16th Amendment authorizes
the form of taxation as it is now applying.
The 16th Amendment did NOT “provide for a hitherto unknown power of taxation,” as this was
an “erroneous assumption,” and “if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to
destroy another.” (Brushaber, Supra, Pages c-d). It was partly intended to “reach the unearned
wealth of the country,” (45 Congressional Record, 4420, 4423, Supra, Pages a-b) but was never
considered to include wages, from which lawful “income” could be “derived from." “The
income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, (labor is property-see
below) and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations,” and was also
classified as an “excise tax on the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity,” (Stratton's
Independence, LTD. Supra, Page r), and was to be originally “enforced as such.” (Brushaber,To further confuse the scheme even more, the courts have also stated that personal wage taxation
is NOT an excise tax. Excise taxes, as stated by the court, are taxes laid upon...
(1.) “the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country,
(2.) upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and
(3.) upon corporate privileges;” (Flint, Supra, Page h)
In further identifying and describing the nature of an excise tax, the court held that being
required to pay such taxes involves privilege, and if privilege is not involved with taxation, no
such tax is payable. (Flint, Supra, Page i).
If the so-called “income” tax is not an excise tax, (indirect tax on privilege), then it presumably
is a direct tax, (the only other tax authorized by the Constitution) which the courts have already
ruled is unconstitutional. (C.I.R., Supra, Page g; see also Brushaber, Supra, Page c-d).
Among the many other consistent rulings, this court confirmed that “the 16th Amendment must
be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution,” (Eisner, Supra,
Page h), and the effects and limitations of original intent must be maintained and defended, and
“If the statute plainly violates the stated principal of the Constitution...” this court stated, “we
must so declare.” (United States v. Butler, Supra, Page u).
Petitioner asks this court to also consider the logical impossibilities inherent in some
assumptions that are often made by Respondent and the lower courts regarding the 16th Amendment. a) If this court ruled that the 16th Amendment granted “no new taxation powers” to the federal
government, (Evans, Supra, Page h), and brought “no new subjects under the taxing authority”
of the federal government, (Bowers, Supra, Page c), then it could not be said by Respondent that
the 16th Amendment was the source of authority to claim that every individual was now forced
to be a “taxpayer,” (See question 17, Page 30) and was newly subjected to a direct, un-
apportioned tax.
b) If, as this court has ruled the above, then it would be a logical impossibility that millions of
new wage earners were newly brought under the taxing powers by the 16th Amendment.
The fundamental questions on this challenge are these; Is the “income” tax a direct tax which
must be apportioned by population, or an indirect/excise tax which must be uniform across
America, or some other class of taxation not clearly declared in the Constitution or supported by
law? Why is Respondent taxing outside the two great classes of taxation when “assessing,” or
collecting said tax from forced “compliance” under color of law from millions of Americans who
must allegedly self-assess?
Much more discussion and documentation is available that would shed further light on this
question alone, which can be provided to this court for a more complete discussion.

[Jamie0331]

U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976), (See also Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86
S.E. Rep. 2D 858): "Gross income and not 'gross receipts' is the foundation of income
tax liability... The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code...
'gross income' means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from
investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. 575 There is a clear
distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for
labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...The word profit is a
different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor...The claim that salaries,
wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore
must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain
is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts
construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the
Treasury Department..."

[Jamie0331]

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S.
"Income, as defined by the Supreme Court means, 'gains and profits as a result of
corporate activity and profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.'"
(Also see 399. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U.S. 179, Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S.
189, Evans v. Gore 253 U.S. 245, Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 225 U.S.
509. (1921) Summers v. Earth Island Institute, No. 07-463 (U. S., March 3, 2009) (citing
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986)).
Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913) "As has been
repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in
any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the
income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid
because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The
act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise
tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however,
the amount of tax by the income of the corporation."

[Famspear]

Yes, this is fakery copied and pasted from old, old tax protester literature -- as evidenced in part by the incorrect spelling of the word "Ballard." The case is actually United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976).

Tax protesters cite Ballard to complain that "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Of course, that's correct! "Income" is not defined in the U.S. Constitution, either.

In fact, most words in most statutes, etc., are not defined in those statutes. Under the U.S. legal system, there is no law requiring that words in statutes be defined in those statutes (or anywhere else), although words some are. (For example, "gross income," "adjusted gross income" and "taxable income" are defined in the Internal Revenue Code.)

Oliver v. Halstead is another case cited over and over in old tax protester literature. Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992 (1955). Oliver v. Halstead is not even a tax case. This is a Virginia Supreme Court case, and no issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the court. The word "tax" does not even appear in the text.

The verbiage that begins with the phrase "the claim that salaries, wages ... " is more fakery. Here, it is being falsely presented as though the verbiage is somehow found in the text of the Ballard case or the Oliver case. It is not found in those texts. And, other scammers have falsely claimed that this same verbiage is part of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a famous case called Lucas v. Earl. It's not part of that ruling, either.

Instead, it is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the taxpayer's brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl. Guy C. Earl was the taxpayer. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the taxpayer's brief are re-printed as a headnote ABOVE the text of the opinion of the Court. In the case reprints that include this material, these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from the taxpayer, so a non-lawyer could easily miss the point that this verbiage is not in part of the Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Earl rejected these very arguments. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.

[Gannibal]

As someone interested in the cognitive roots of irrational thinking, I'm struck by how often the disordered recitation of pseudolegal talking points betrays a fundamental inability to communicate well. Here, for example, by failing to provide context and/or fundamentally misunderstanding how a discussion forum works.

I wonder if this is one reason why Q Anon's garbled, vague prophecies appeal to some people? There may be a comforting feeling that even shadowy elites can't communicate clearly.

(Which is not to say that this is true across the board, of course. I think we could all name sovcits and tax protesters who are excellent communicators.)

[Famspear]

The first post illustrates material that was used by tax protesters over and over and over and over again, in a common practice for years: copying and pasting material from one source and falsely claiming that the material came from another source, or falsely implying that the source material was talking about U.S. Federal income tax, where the quote was really about something else.

Then, other tax protesters would copy and paste the material to yet other places, not realizing (or not caring) that the material is fake. These scams are easily recognized by the repeated incorrect spellings. I first ran across this very material (with the same mis-spelling) on the internet back in 2005.

[Famspear]

This is more copying and pasting from tax protester web sites.

[Famspear]

Some of this material is designed to lead to the false conclusion that the Court in these cases ruled that "income" means only "corporate" profit or "corporate" gain, not income of an individual. Of course, that is false. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ruled any such thing.

Further, in the Merchants' Loan case cited above, the income ruled by the Court to be "income" was NOT corporate profit or corporate gain; it was the income of the estate of a decedent -- the estate of a dead person. The estate of a dead person is not a corporation.

[Famspear]

Dear Jamie0331: We've already been through this kind of posting a gazillion times, from hundreds of tax protesters who falsely believe they have found some sort of "truth."

Instead of copying and pasting this kind of gibberish, write out a clear, short statement of what you are trying to say, and then cite one or two court cases that you believe support you.

[HardyW]

Dear Jamie0331:
I am quite interested in what you have posted here, but the way you have done so makes it impossible to identify what part is your own contribution, and what is quoted from legal opinions or other texts of any sort. Nor is the source of your quotes apparent.

And the title "Question 1 discussion" doesn't help in any way.

[Jamie0331]

"Senate Report analysis of Sec. 3512 states that 21 nformation collection
requests which do not display a current control number or, if not, indicate why not are to
be considered 'bootleg' requests and may be ignored by the public... S.Rep. No. 930,
Supra 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 52, reprinted in 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6241,
6292. See also 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1320.5(c) "Whenever a member of the public is protected
from imposition of a penalty under this section for failure to comply with a collection of
information, such penalty may not be imposed by an agency directly, by an agency
through judicial process, or by any other person through judicial or administrative
process."

[Jamie0331]

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930). "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation
for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the
individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support,
either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only
this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S.
Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal
services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the
services. It has to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages or
compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is
to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services."

[Jamie0331]

Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922). "The revenue laws are a code or system in
regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to
nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for
nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due
course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the
subject nor of the object of the revenue laws..."

[Jamie0331]

Laureldale Cemetery Assc. v. Matthews. 47 Atlantic 2d. 277 (1946). "...Reasonable
compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit..."

[Jamie0331]

TREASURY ORDER: 150-06, SUBJECT: Designation as Internal Revenue Service
CANCELLATION DATE: August 22, 2005. REASON FOR CANCELLATION: TO 150-06,
dated July 9, 1953. “The entity formerly known as the Bureau of Internal Revenue would be
known as the Internal Revenue Service. TO 150-06 is cancelled.”

[Famspear]

We've already been through this.

You're posting a fake quote.

This is not from the text of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. Earl. It's a paraphrase of the arguments of the taxpayer, drafted by the taxpayer's lawyers. The Supreme Court rejected these very arguments in this very case.

[Chaos]

I can help you with this.

Dear Jamie0331:
I am quite interested in what you have posted here, but the way you have done so makes it impossible to identify what part is your own contribution,

much like all the other turds being dropped on this messageboard today, the answer is 'none'.

and what is half quoted from legal opinions or other texts of any sort. Nor is the source of your quotes apparent.

And the title "Question 1 discussion" doesn't help in any way.

all of it with a slight correction to your post. there is to be no 'discussion' just serious trolling.

[Famspear]

And your point is what?

I can play this game, too.

Here's the current Treasury Order:

TREASURY ORDER: 150-10

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

DATE: April 22, 1982

ADMINISTRATIVE EDIT: February 25, 2016

SUBJECT: Delegation--Responsibility for Internal Revenue Laws

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, including the authority in the Internal Revenue Code and 31 U.S.C. § 321, it is hereby ordered:

1. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws.

2. Commissioner Order No. 190 and General Counsel Order No. 4 state the powers delegated to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.

3. All outstanding orders and delegations of authority relating to the above are modified accordingly.

4. This Order supersedes Treasury Department Order No. 150-37 dated March 17, 1955.

Sorry, but the Internal Revenue Service is both a bureau within the U.S. Department of the Treasury and, by law, is an agency of the U.S. government.

[Famspear]

Um, that's not even a Federal tax case, Einstein.

[Famspear]

This case is Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 4 Amer. Fed. Tax Rep. 3561 (D. Mont. 1922). In this case, the federal tax collector (Rasmussen) had distrained, and was trying to sell, certain property to satisfy the tax liability of one person --a taxpayer by the name of Wise -- but the Federal District Court concluded that the property was actually owned by someone else, by the name of Ms. Edna Long.

The result was predictable: the court ordered that the tax collector's proposed sale of the property of Edna Long (the non-taxpayer) be cancelled, and that Ms. Long's property be returned to her. With respect to the tax in question, she was not the "taxpayer," and the property she owned was not owned by the "taxpayer."

Ho hum. No brainer. Tax protesters love to play with words, and falsely cite this case over and over as somehow meaning something it does not mean, and it doesn't help them at all.