Phil Hart

[LPC]

Phil Hart, the Idaho lawmaker who wrote "Constitutional Income," reportedly now owes more than $700,000 in federal income tax, interest, and penalties.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/07/1 ... roach.html

[Famspear]

Excerpts from an editorial from the Idaho Statesman of June 22, 2010:

Our View: The House's ethical dilemma

Is state Rep. Phil Hart just a guy appealing his tax bills, or is he a manipulative tax protester who habitually abuses his elective position?

Consider Hart's own words, from today's Reader's View. "Regardless of whether or not the income tax on wages and salaries is constitutional, most agree on one thing: it is an inefficient and privacy-invading tax. It is also subject to manipulation and abuse. Is it then wrong to fight for my legitimate deductions and to stand on my principles?"

Now, consider his actions. Four times in a less-than-impressive six-year political career, the Kootenai County Republican has attempted to fend off the taxman, according to the Spokane Spokesman-Review. Hart has cited a section of the Idaho Constitution that gives lawmakers immunity from arrest or "civil process" during a legislative session. Hart is reaching - and suggesting his office affords him privileges the rest of us do not enjoy.

Meanwhile, the feds have filed nearly $300,000 in tax liens against Hart in the past year. The State Tax Commission wants $53,000 in back taxes, interest and penalties. All the while (and here's the punchline), Hart helps to chart Idaho tax policy from his seat on the House Revenue and Taxation Committee.

These antics reflect badly on Hart, and besmirch Idaho's citizens' Legislature. In an age of viral cynicism about politics and politicians, Hart's conduct suggests that public servants are out first to serve themselves.

So if ever an elected official has invited the harsh glare of an ethics review, it's Hart.

House Speaker Lawerence Denney said late last week that he would convene an ethics committee.

[ . . . ]

The allegations against Hart - conflict of interest and possible abuse of his elected position - deserve a thorough, public review. [ . . . ] Hart will have to answer to an ethics panel but unfortunately not to his to his constituents.

"Our View" is the editorial position of the Idaho Statesman. It is an unsigned opinion expressing the consensus of the Statesman's editorial board.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/2 ... =mirelated

[Harvester]

Whoa, beginning with the first loaded question of that Idaho Statesman article, there's no certainly shortage of disinfo there (people don't receive income tax bills).

As Phil Hart has written the great Constitutional Income [link redacted] book, quite damaging to the status quo, it's no surprise that the Federal extortion racket folks have targeted him. As you know, he researched the origins of the 16th Amendment (which the IRS insists gives them the authority to tax incomes unapportioned), examined the newspapers and Congressional Record of the day and discovered no one (in or outside of govt) desired to tax the average wage-earners pay with this Amendment.

You know, without the internet tag-team of Famspire & LPC, Jay & Dan, Dan & Jay . . . . . your side would have very little.

[lorne]

thanks for the tip. just bought his book Constitutional Income: Do you have any? Looks interesting. hope it's not too late to turn this country around. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/ ... _near.html

[Parvati]

Somewhere on my bookshelves I have a timeworn copy of the unedited script for Monty Python's The Life of Brian. If you turn it over and look at what should be the back cover, you'll discover a second section containing a wealth of semi-related material. One of the pieces is an essay by Michael Palin entitled "Sharing a caravan with John Cleese" which suggests, among other things, that one should make sure to possess a can of "Die You Filthy Little Insect Bastards."

This is not a non sequitur.

[Famspear]

thanks for the tip. just bought his book Constitutional Income: Do you have any? Looks interesting. hope it's not too late to turn this country around.

If you read Phil Hart's material, you will learn how to cheat on your taxes. I don't know whether he also includes material on "turning the country around" or not. It is important, however, to understand the difference between "turning the country around" and "cheating on your taxes."

[Pottapaug1938]

thanks for the tip. just bought his book Constitutional Income: Do you have any? Looks interesting. hope it's not too late to turn this country around. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/ ... _near.html

Your money would have been better put to use if you'd run it through a shredder and scattered it to the winds. I would no more waste my money on Hart's screed than I would on Pete The Felon's magnum opus "Cracking the Code".

[Noah]

thanks for the tip. just bought his book Constitutional Income: Do you have any? Looks interesting. hope it's not too late to turn this country around. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/ ... _near.html

Here is another tip for you....

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/com ... -5139b.pdf

Take this case back to your nest and break out the kool aid.....

[lorne]

Famspear and others, have you read his book? Or are you discussing that which you have no firsthand knowledge of?

I do not cheat on my taxes, nor do I advocate it. Question is, do we all owe this tax or are we all propping up a facade? It's becoming increasingly clear to me that this Income Tax is actually funding the destruction of the free United States. I cannot in good conscience participate in this charade any longer. I've decided to end my tax-prep business (which was a sideline anyway); given notice to clients. I don't know what it'll take to save our country but something tells me putting "Kagan the lying liberal Pagan" on the Supreme Court won't help.

http://wecogitate.net/2010/07/15/worst- ... in-history

[Dezcad]

Famspear and others, have you read his book? Or are you discussing that which you have no firsthand knowledge of?

I've read the first chapter of the book - which is online here.

It doesn't take long to get to his first complete misunderstanding:

By the end of this book you will realize that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to bring tax relief to wage earners.

After that ridiculous conclusion, it is unnecessary to read the rest of his drivel.

[Famspear]

Famspear and others, have you read his book? Or are you discussing that which you have no firsthand knowledge of?

Why do I need to read his book? Are you saying that he says one thing in the book and another thing on his web site?

Here's what he says on his web site:

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/

Wages and salaries from labor were not considered income within the original meaning and intent of the 16th Amendment.

Baloney. Completely wrong.

More from Hart:

Taxes on labor, as currently collected by the IRS as an "income" tax, cannot be described as anything other than a direct tax...

Wrong again. And the federal income tax is not a tax on labor, anyway. It's a tax on income from labor. Either way, the federal income tax on compensation for services, or on labor, or on income from labor, or on salaries, or on wages, or any other way you want to put it, has been characterized by most courts as a indirect tax (excise). A few courts have indeed called it a direct tax. And EITHER WAY, Congress has the power to impose that tax without having to apportion it with regard to the census or enumeration.

Read the Sixteenth Amendment. And read the court cases. Under the Sixteenth Amendment, it matters not whether a particular income tax (on compensation for services, versus interest income, dividend income, etc., etc.) is deemed to be a "direct" tax or an "indirect" tax.

From Young v. United States:

A capitation is a direct tax based solely on one's status, and is most often epitomized by a poll tax. Considering the large number of cases which consider discrimination settlements "income" subject to taxation within the broad ambit of 26 U.S.C. §61(a), see, e.g., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 115 S.Ct. 2159, 132 L.Ed.2d 294 (1995); United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 112 S.Ct. 1867, 119 L.Ed.2d 34 (1992), the Court finds that the tax withheld by the Internal Revenue Service in this case [i.e., the Federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986] is not a "capitation".

---Young v. United States, 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 50,732, fn. 3 (W.D. Ky. 2001) (Federal income tax case).

The following is from a federal estate tax case, but the principle can be applied to the Federal income tax (and as a clarification of the meaning of the term "direct tax") as well. The United States Supreme Court stated:

Even without apportionment, Congress may tax "an excise upon a particular use or enjoyment of property or the shifting from one to another of any power or privilege incidental to the ownership or enjoyment of property. [ . . . . ] A tax imposed upon the '''exercise''' of some of the numerous rights of property is clearly distinguishable from a '''direct tax''', which falls upon the owner '''merely because he is owner''', regardless of his use or disposition of the property.

---Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 66 S. Ct. 178, 45-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶10,239 (1945).

In Tilley v. United States, the taxpayer made the argument that the Federal income tax was "unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment [ . . . . ]". That argument was ruled "frivolous" by the court. The court stated:

Several of the Tilleys' claims are frivolous and fail as a matter of law. In one claim, the Tilleys argue that "the taxes were unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment." (Compl. ¶VI(d)(3)). The Sixteenth Amendment puts such an argument to rest, stating:

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.

---See Tilley v. United States, 270 F. Supp. 2d 731, 2003-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,594 (M.D.N.C. 2003).

From Sortillon:

Thus, since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment it is immaterial, with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or an indirect tax.

---from Sortillon v. Commissioner, 38 T.C.M. (CCH) 1097, T.C. Memo 1979-281, CCH Dec. 36,194(M), Docket No. 2108-79 (July 26, 1979).

From Abrams:

Since the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is immaterial with respect to income taxes, whether the tax is a direct or indirect tax. The whole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from [the requirement of] apportionment and from [the requirement of] a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.

---from Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, CCH Dec. 41,031 (1984).

Stop falling for Hart's interpretations of the court decisions. The important thing is not what Hart says in his book.

The important thing that the court rulings are authoritative. Hart's interpretations of the court rulings, etc., are not authoritative.

[lorne]

Ms Famspear, thanks for the admission. What if you have "fallen for" the federal corporations lies? What if it's all a facade, a massive scheme kept alive by bribes, fraud, propaganda, etc and you've been caught up in it, totally taken in? (There is another possibility - that you're part of the scheme - but that's too hideous for contemplation here.)

Obama's cronies make the Mafia look like rank amateurs
http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion. ... title=APFN

[Famspear]

Ms Famspear, thanks for the admission. What if you have "fallen for" the federal corporations lies? What if it's all a facade, a massive scheme kept alive by bribes, fraud, propaganda, etc and you've been caught up in it, totally taken in? (There is another possibility - that you're part of the scheme - but that's too hideous for contemplation here.)

More baloney. There is nothing to "fall for." What if? What if? What if?

Provide some facts. Provide some data. Show us where the courts have not ruled the way we say the courts have ruled. Don't just run on and on amout imaginary "facades," imaginary "schemes," and imaginary "bribes."

Sounds like you have a case of paranoia.

There is nothing for me to be "caught up" in. There is nothing to be "taken in" about. The courts have ruled what the courts have ruled.

The federal income tax may be a "bad" tax. It may be unfair, or stupid, or unwise. But regardless of that, the tax law is what we say the law is -- specifically, the law is what the courts rule the law to be. That's the rule for contract law, property law, tort law, constitutional law, etc., etc., etc. -- and for tax law.

Phil Hart wrote:

Those who levy and collect this tax [the U.S. federal income tax] have purposely made it complex in order that the masses will be unable to comprehend just how the tax code works.

(bolding added)

http://www.constitutionalincome.com/first_chapter.php

That is a blatant lie.

......the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to bring tax relief to wage earners...

That is a lie.

[Famspear]

Phil Hart wrote:

A tax on wages payable by the wage earner is a Capitation Tax. So says the premier authority on the issue, Adam Smith author of the timeless work Wealth of Nations.....

Wrong. A tax on wages is an income tax. By definition, an income tax cannot be a capitation tax. The two terms are mutually exclusive. Period. And by the way, Adam Smith's definition of "direct tax" is not the definition of "direct tax" as that term is used in the United States Constitution. Adam Smith was a Scottish economist. He was not an American federal court judge, and he did not issue rulings on the meanings of American constitutional law terms. People have gone to court before and tried to use Adam Smith's definitions, and Adam Smith's definition has been rejected by the courts.

[The Operative]

federal corporations lies?

That sounds familiar. What idiocy have you been reading that told you the federal government is a corporation? Are you going to provide proof that you have the same problem with comprehending the English language as Harvester does?

[Cathulhu]

Lorne, my little loon--

A neurotic builds castles in the sky. A psychotic moves in. Congratulations; in your denial of obvious reality (ooh, it's all a conspiracy! ooh, there's really no such thing as tax, despite the massive preponderance of people who don't have a problem paying for schools, roads, police! ooh, a convicted felon has it right and the entire country is wrong, 'cept you!) you have achieved psychosis, you pathetic little lunatic.

[lorne]

Thanks for the disinformation, but I respectfully choose not to believe it. To be sure, there are points at which Adam, Phil and Famspear are correct (a good disinfo agent will always use some truth, no?).

Our founders were well-versed in the works of Adam Smith and agreed with his notion of a tax on labor, on wages, to be in the nature of a direct, or head (capitation) tax and why they put limits on it Constitutionally - that it should be proportional by population (apportioned). Of course this was before the lawyers got hold of the term 'wages' and custom-defined it for statutory (tax) purposes; it's now a narrow subset of pay-for-labor. So with regard to Title 26 you're correct to say "A tax on wages is an income tax." The federal income tax is an excise on certain activity/property (not a direct tax, not a capitation). And wages[statutory] are income under the Revenue Acts but wages[common] are not.

But of course there's no point belaboring these points here. He told me you own this site, have heard it all before, and no amount of facts or persuasion will shake you from your firmly-held dogma. The truth's all freely available in the books you refuse to read.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/TaxT ... dWords.pdf

[Famspear]

Thanks for the disinformation, but I respectfully choose not to believe it. To be sure, there are points at which Adam, Phil and Famspear are correct (a good disinfo agent will always use some truth, no?).

Baloney. Another tactic you people use. You accuse others of spreading disinformation, yet you never can seem to identify what that is.

Our founders were well-versed in the works of Adam Smith and agreed with his notion of a tax on labor, on wages.....

Baloney.

.....And wages[statutory] are income under the Revenue Acts but wages[common] are not.

Baloney.

But of course there's no point belaboring these points here.

That's right. No point in belaboring these points. You and Phil Hart are wrong. The courts have ruled, and that's it.

He told me you own this site, have heard it all before, and no amount of facts or persuasion will shake you from your firmly-held dogma.

Who told you who owns this web site? More baloney.

No amount of facts or persuasion will shake you from your firmly held dogma, lorne. You're the one with the firmly held dogma. The fact that you respond with this kind of rhetoric shows that you are trying to mask the fact that you have nothing to back up what you say. Neither does Phil Hart.

Instead, you cite.... lost horizons! Lost horizons is your "authority." Phil Hart is your "authority."

Well, that's baloney. Phil Hart lost his battles with the IRS, and Peter Hendrickson, the creator of losthorizons, is in prison for using his own scam on his own tax returns.

You have yet to identify "disinformation" from me. Why? Because there is none.

DON'T JUST ACCUSE OTHER PEOPLE OF SPREADING DISINNFORMATION, LORNE. BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY.

You're a phony.

[The Operative]

Thanks for the disinformation,

We have not given you disinformation. We have provided the description of the tax laws as the courts have ruled it to be. In this country, the legislature writes the laws and the courts interpret the laws. The interpretations of the courts are what determines how the law is enforced and what the law means. The legislature can rewrite a law if they feel the court's interpretation is flawed. An individual may disagree with the court's interpretation, but until they convince a court that the individual's interpretation is correct, then the individual is wrong. Phil Hart's and Pete Hendrickson's interpretations have been heard by the courts. The courts have determined that their interpretations are wrong, therefore Phil Hart and Pete Hendrickson are wrong.

but I respectfully choose not to believe it.

That only proves you are an idiot.

To be sure, there are points at which Adam, Phil and Famspear are correct (a good disinfo agent will always use some truth, no?).

You mean in the way that Phil Hart and Pete Hendrickson take quotations from court decisions out of context in order to twist what the court really said? Famspear, on the other hand, can properly utilize dicta and opinions from the courts and when challenged, properly discuss the entire court decision, its' background and its impact.

Our founders were well-versed in the works of Adam Smith and agreed with his notion of a tax on labor, on wages, to be in the nature of a direct, or head (capitation) tax and why they put limits on it Constitutionally - that it should be proportional by population (apportioned).

Nonsense. The available evidence of what the founders thought about direct and indirect taxes have been extensively discussed in various Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations has also been discussed by the Supreme Court.

The great work of Adam Smith, the first comprehensive treatise on political economy in the English language, had then been recently published; but in this work, though there are passages which refer to the characteristic difference between direct and indirect taxation, there is nothing which affords any valuable light on the use of the words 'direct taxes,' in the constitution. - Pollock v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. 157 U.S. 429 (1894)

Of course this was before the lawyers got hold of the term 'wages' and custom-defined it for statutory (tax) purposes; it's now a narrow subset of pay-for-labor. So with regard to Title 26 you're correct to say "A tax on wages is an income tax." The federal income tax is an excise on certain activity/property (not a direct tax, not a capitation). And wages[statutory] are income under the Revenue Acts but wages[common] are not.

More nonsense. Provide ONE court decision that actually supports the contention that common wages are not income. I bet you cannot.

But of course there's no point belaboring these points here.

Not as long as you keep holding onto your delusions.

He told me you own this site, have heard it all before, and no amount of facts or persuasion will shake you from your firmly-held dogma.

Famspear is not the owner of this site. We have heard almost every idiotic conspiracy theory nonsense about income taxes before. We provide facts, you haven't. All you have provided is empty rhetoric.

The truth's all freely available in the books you refuse to read.

http://losthorizons.com/Newsletter/TaxT ... dWords.pdf

There is little, if any, truth in Hendrickson's or Phil Hart's books or the losthorizon's website.

[wserra]

But of course there's no point belaboring these points here.

Much as how there is no point in expounding on a Ptolemaic universe before the American Geophysical Union.

Congratulations. You finally got something right.