Fair trial

[Famspear]

Do some homework and tell us how long the judges in Pollack stayed employed, or were they impeached?

The case was Pollock, not Pollack.

Do your own homework. No federal judge has ever been impeached or removed from office because he or she ruled a certain way on a federal tax matter -- as a result of Pollock or any other case.

[Famspear]

Stated another way: Under your argument, if federal judges were paid by someone other than the U.S. Treasury, then they would rule the federal income tax to be unconstitutional (or at least, you apparently hope they would, if I'm reading between the lines correctly).

I have studied literally thousands and thousands of federal and state court decisions for years and years. I know how federal judges think; I know how they arrive at decisions. I cannot predict with absolute accuracy how a judge will rule in every case. I CAN PREDICT with absolute accuracy how a federal judge will rule on a frivolous argument about federal taxes. That means that I know a frivolous argument when I see one, and I know how a federal judge will rule on that argument.

And I can tell you, Spidey, that if federal judges were not federal employees and were not paid by the U.S. Treasury, they would rule exactly the way they do now.

So, your argument that federal judges are not "independent" is not valid.

[Famspear]

Something weird is going on. I am actually the one who posted the response attributed to "Randall" above.

Not sure how that happened.

[Cpt Banjo]

And what is wrong with having an unpaid judge again to ensure that he is independent? That would seem to be the only way to have a fair trial.

What's wrong with it is that no one will serve as a judge for free.

How about adopting a rule that says in a tax dispute, the taxpayer pays half of the judge's fee and the government pays the other half. In advance. Would that make you feel better?

[Cathulhu]

Something weird is going on. I am actually the one who posted the response attributed to "Randall" above.

Not sure how that happened.

Insert theme from X files, or as we like to call it, "the boodly-boo song".

[silversopp]

Not only that, but his pay is directly influenced by whether or not I am forced to pay or not!

A judge's pay is the same regardless of whether or not you pay your taxes.

How long would judges stay employed by the United States government if they said no one has to pay taxes?!!!

Judges did say that in ~1895 when they struck down the income tax law. Judges still retained their employment and salaries. There are many ways that the government can fund itself - income tax is just one of those options. You should read up on the Constitution to discover other fun facts like that.

And I don't see how I can get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest.

The fact that judges constantly rule against the government is a great indication that their paycheck does not influence their rulings.

[Spideynw]

You still haven't demonstrated how there is a "conflict of interest." What is the judge's economic interest in ruling in favor of the tax collector?

It is how he gets paid!!!!!!!!! Duh!

Are you saying that you really believe that federal judges rule the tax law constitutional BECAUSE they don't want to lose their source of income?

Uh, yeah. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Again, if that's your belief, I would say that you don't know much about how federal judges think.

Are judges not humans?

[Famspear]

You still haven't demonstrated how there is a "conflict of interest." What is the judge's economic interest in ruling in favor of the tax collector?

It is how he gets paid!!!!!!!!! Duh!

Duh! I've already explained that the decisions rendered by a federal judge do not affect "how he gets paid." And your argument -- which is essentially that because they would lose their pay, federal judges will never rule the federal income tax to be unconstitutional -- is not credible.

[Duke2Earl]

You still haven't demonstrated how there is a "conflict of interest." What is the judge's economic interest in ruling in favor of the tax collector?

It is how he gets paid!!!!!!!!! Duh!

Duh! I've already explained that the decisions rendered by a federal judge do not affect "how he gets paid." And your argument -- which is essentially that because they would lose their pay, federal judges will never rule the federal income tax to be unconstitutional -- is not credible.

Famspear... you are truly a nice person... "not credible" indeed. Let's be truthful... If that is the extent of "Spidey's" ability to understand and reason, he is an idiot.

[Famspear]

Are judges not humans?

Yes, judges are humans. And that means that judges can be independent -- regardless of how they are paid.

Look, I'm a tax practitioner. I have no job security -- nothing anywhere close to the job security of a federal judge, which is about the most secure job you can have.

I can be independent of my clients -- even though they're the ones who pay me. I prepare their tax returns on the basis of my knowledge of the law. I will not prepare a tax return I know to be fraudulent; it doesn't matter that the client controls my pay. I can be independent of the client, even though the client pays me.

Your argument, Spidey, is essentially that 100% of all federal judges -- who cannot be fired by the President or the IRS or the Justice Department -- will rule the federal income tax to be constitutional every time a tax protester presents a frivolous argument but that the REASON the judges rule always this way is that they don't want to lose their income.

That's preposterous.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
How can a judge be independent when the judge works for the opposing party?

Because it's his or her job.

Judges do not operate in a vacuum. Other than those who are elected, by and large they obtain their status via competence and performance. Granted, there will be bad apples but to imply that the entire judiciary system is unable to rule fairly as a result of them being 'employees' is absurd ab initio.

[silversopp]

The five judges that struck down the income tax retained employment for many more years:

Chief Justice Fuller 1910
Fields 1897 (retired and died two years later in 1899)
Fuller 1910
Brewer 1910
Shiras 1903

Spidey needs to do his own research before telling others to do research. Especially when that research proves the tax protester's arguments are without any merit whatsoever.

Look Spidey, I know on tax protester websites when they "look it up if you don't believe me" or "do your own research" those words encourage the reader to just accept whatever argument is being made. The author uses those words to make the reader think that the research was already done. The reality is that the author didn't do any research, but uses those words to get dumb people to believe him. Spidey, you're not dealing with dumb people here. We actually do know what we're talking about.

[Famspear]

Famspear... you are truly a nice person... "not credible" indeed. Let's be truthful... If that is the extent of "Spidey's" ability to understand and reason, he is an idiot.

But let's give Spidey some credit -- at least he is now actively presenting his own arguments.

[Prof]

The federal judge is not the "employee" of the tax collector.

Um, as far as I know, the state is always the opposing party and the judge works for the state. Not only that, but his pay is directly influenced by whether or not I am forced to pay or not! How long would judges stay employed by the United States government if they said no one has to pay taxes?!!! If you cannot see the conflict of interest, than I don't know how else I can point it out to you. And I don't see how I can get a fair trial if there is a conflict of interest.

ABOUT CONFLICT OF INTEREST

But, the U.S.Constitution provides that the salaries of ART. III judges cannot be reduced. Therefore, if a judge were to rule that the income tax laws are not lawful (or not constitutional), and if the Supreme Court were to affirm that ruling, Congress and the Executive would just have to find a way to pay the judges from other sources of income.

In other words, there is no conflict of interest.

ABOUT JUDCIAL SALARIES AS COMPARED TO LEGAL SALARIES

Also, since the top salary of all judcial offices in the U. S. System is the approximately $224,000 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court makes, being a federal judge is -- in economic terms -- not much of a job. New lawyers at the big city/New York firms now start at about $175,000 or a little more or a little less immediately out of law school. This is more than federal district judges and Tax Court judges make. Most partners at New York law firms and many at smaller firms easily make $1.0 a year, and the super-star lawyers in New York are now making about $5.0 million a year.

In San Antonio, Texas, there are a number of $1.0 to $2.0 million dollar a year lawyers.

ABOUT JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE

Since federal judges and tax court judges regularly rule against the IRS and other agencies, and some have been known to sanction the IRS and other agencies, I suspect our little Spidey has never read any case law or been in a courtroom.

ABOUT THE "ILLEGALITY OF THE INCOME TAX"

No legitimate commentator has ever suggested the the Income Tax is unlawful as a whole, although there is much debate about enforcement, particular items, etc. By legitimate commentator, I mean a law professor, accounting professor, ex-U.S. Judge, etc. I do not mean self-educated idiots like Schiff or Rose or PH.

If the income tax laws are unlawful, and the work of folks like those mentioned above is "correct," why hasn't someone with skin in the game (like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or even me, with a six-figure tax bill) out trying to force the courts to admit the truth?

[The Operative]

Do some homework and tell us how long the judges in Pollack stayed employed, or were they impeached?

The case was Pollock, not Pollack.

Do your own homework. No federal judge has ever been impeached or removed from office because he or she ruled a certain way on a federal tax matter -- as a result of Pollock or any other case.

I was curious, so I looked it up.

The Pollock cases were decided by the Fuller court.
Chief Justice Melvin Fuller served as Chief Justice from 1888 to 1910.
Associate Justice Stephen J. Field served from 1863 to 1897 (34 years). He retired due to intermittent senility. He died in 1899.
Associate Justice John Harlan served from 1877 to 1911 (His death).
Associate Justice Horace Gray served from 1881 to 1902 (His death).
Associate Justice David J. Brewer served from 1889 to 1910 (His death).
Associate Justice Henry B. Brown served from 1890 to 1906 (retired).
Associate Justice George Shiras, Jr. served from 1892 to 1903 (retired).
Associate Justice Howell E. Jackson served from 1893 to 1895 (died from tuberculosis shortly after the first Pollock decision. He dissented from the majority.)
Associate Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham served from 1895 to 1909 (His death)
Associate Justice Edward Douglass White served (as an Associate Justice) from 1894 to 1910. He served as Chief Justice from 1910 to 1921 (His death).

Out of all of the Justices that were on the Supreme Court for the Pollock decisions, only two were not a part of the court 5 years later. One had been on the court near a record length of time when the Pollock decisions were rendered. The other had tuberculosis and died from that shortly after he voted to KEEP the income tax.

[Gregg]

Spidey has fallen into the dumbest of logic traps regarding taxes, tax laws and the courts. There is close to 100 years of positive law in favor of income taxes and the methodology of their calculation and collection,

No, the dumbest logic trap most taxpayers fall into is "I'm sure in those tens of thousands of pages of really complex stuff there is something that says I don't have to pay taxes, I just need to find the right way to prove it" Our new friend has fallen for this one, hook line and sinker.

[Famspear]

Even in the modern era, Federal judges do sometimes rule federal taxes to be unconstitutional.

The 0.125% harbor maintenance tax on the value of commercial cargo involved in a taxed port use under Internal Revenue Code section 4461 was unanimously ruled unconstitutional under Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 5, in the case of United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 118 S. Ct. 1290, 98-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,091 (1998). The government had argued that the tax was only a "user fee." The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the government's argument and ruled that the tax was an unconstitutional tax on exports.

Similarly, the coal excise tax under section 4221 was ruled to be an unconstitutional tax on exports by a federal district court in 1998 in the case of Ranger Fuel Corp. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 466, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,109 (E.D. Va. 1998).

In United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557, 121 S. Ct. 1782 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that because certain special retroactivity-related Social Security rules enacted in 1983 effectively singled out then-sitting federal judges for unfavorable treatment, the Compensation Clause of the Constitution (in Article III, section 1, relating to the prohibition on the reduction of the compensation of Article III federal judges) prohibited this application of the Social Security tax to those judges.

See also United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U.S. 843, 116 S. Ct. 1793, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 70,059 (1996), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an excise tax on casualty insurance premiums paid to foreign insurers to cover shipments of goods violated the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on tax on exports.

Now, Spidey, please try to find some evidence that the IRS or the Department of Justice or some other government entity retaliated against any federal judge as a result of these decisions or any other decision in any federal tax case -- ever.

[Las]

You still haven't demonstrated how there is a "conflict of interest." What is the judge's economic interest in ruling in favor of the tax collector?

It is how he gets paid!!!!!!!!! Duh!

First, the judge is a taxpayer. His economic interest, in the immediate term, would be to rule that no one has to pay taxes. I'm sure that Her Honor would love to no longer have to pay taxes (most likely, she is in a much higher tax bracket than you, as well, Spidey. So, she'd be saving herself a heckuva lot of cash.)

Second, you seem to misunderstand general agency/employment. The judge is not "employed" by the IRS and is not employed by either party. A judge is not an agent of the IRS, and is not subject to the IRS' evaluation. Really, the inverse of your argument would be true as well - i.e., the judge is a taxpayer also...so, why do you think he's more biased toward the IRS than the taxpayer?

Third, practically all the judges whom I've known have been independently successful. For example: I clerked for a judge who, prior to taking the bench, had been an extremely successful plaintiff's attorney. The judge was very well off. Taking the bench was a massive pay cut. Further, I'd imagine a former federal judge would be a very, very attractive candidate for employment at a much higher salary if she left the bench. My general impression is that these folks are not "desperate" and defending their "salaries." I.e., many have top-tier legal educations and come from a generally pedigreed background.

Also, worth noting when considering the TD's love of "common law" is that at old common law the defense attorney was not allowed to speak in criminal cases for quite a time. Additionally, in old English common law the judges would sometimes rotate through acting as prosecutor. Kind of interesting. It's just not so in our current system, however -- but illuminating when read in the context of the TD love of arcane Common Law rules.

[LPC]

No federal judge has ever been impeached or removed from office because he or she ruled a certain way on a federal tax matter -- as a result of Pollock or any other case.

The impeachment of Samuel Chase (the only Supreme Court justice ever to have been impeached) has been generally regarded as essentially political, and that Chase was impeached by Federalists because he had ruled against the Federalists in too many cases.

However, he was acquitted by the Senate, which shows that it's difficult to impeach even an unpopular judge who rules against the governing party.

[Red Cedar PM]

Out of all of the Justices that were on the Supreme Court for the Pollock decisions, only two were not a part of the court 5 years later. One had been on the court near a record length of time when the Pollock decisions were rendered. The other had tuberculosis and died from that shortly after he voted to KEEP the income tax.

That was just a cover-up. He was actually recalled back to the moon by the shape-shifting lizard alien emperor because he had failed to implant mind-control devices in the other judges so that they would uphold the tax. For his failure they made him battle the rancor.