Robert Greenslade

[ashlynne39]

Does anyone know anything about this guy? A Hendrickson follower I know is now quoting Robert Greenslade who I've never heard of. Here is one of his tax articles.

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/ ... nslade.htm

[ProfHenryHiggins]

The nut who runs http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com , I think.

DefundandDisobey.org had this biographical summary about him,

Robert Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are
systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate
control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.

From a cursory look at his online articles, "nitwit" was a kinder name than I would have used to describe him with.

[The Operative]

© Nitwit Press

That is rather apt.

[ashlynne39]

Any thoughts from the tax pros here on the content of the article

[Famspear]

It's the usual nonsense. The author takes statements out of context and tries to pretend that the Supreme Court meant something other than what the Court said and -- more importantly -- what the Court held -- in cases such as Brushaber.

Here's where the text really goes off the rails (bolding added):

If the Sixteenth Amendment did not grant Congress any new taxing power or modify its existing power, then what did the Amendment accomplish? Since the Amendment states that income taxes are not subject to the rule apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment, by its wording, restricted income taxes to the category of indirect taxes. This means Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Direct taxes must be imposed on the several States according to the rule of apportionment.

No, that's not what the Court said, and (more importantly) that's not what the Court held.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever held that Congress can never, by a general statute, constitutionally impose a direct tax on the people of the several States. Any assertion to the contrary is utter nonsense. And whether a particular kind of income tax is considered direct or indirect, that tax is not required to be imposed according to the rule of apportionment. Period.

EDIT: Some of what these doofuses are doing is struggling to, essentially, argue that the Sixteenth Amendment really "did nothing." They are wrong. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the decision in Pollock. Under the Sixteenth Amendment, no income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether the income tax is considered direct or indirect (that is, to use the language of the Amendment, regardless of the source of the income that is being taxed).

[Famspear]

Here's more nonsense from the article:

According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal income tax is not a tax on income. It is a privilege tax measured by income. In other words, Congress is taxing some government-defined privilege and income is merely the measuring stick to determine the value of the privilege. Nowhere in this report does CRS identify the so-called privilege that is the basis for the tax.

Completely false. The Congressional Research Service has never asserted that the federal income tax is a tax on some government-defined privilege. No federal court has ever held that the federal income tax is a tax on a government-defined privilege. Nowhere in the text of the Constitution, or anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code, is there a statement that the federal income tax is a tax on some government defined privilege.

[Famspear]

As I have written before:

1. The question of whether a particular income tax is direct or indirect is legally irrelevant to the question of whether the Congress has the power, under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, to impose that tax. Congress has the power to impose any income tax, regardless of whether that tax is deemed direct or indirect.

2. The question of whether a particular income tax is direct or indirect is also legally irrelevant to the issue of whether that tax must be apportioned. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no income tax of any kind whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, is required to be apportioned.

3. Under the Constitution as amended, the only important legal relevancy to the question of whether a particular income tax is Constitutionally valid (aside from rules such as the one prohibiting taxes on exports, or rules that revenue measures must originate in the House, etc.) is probably whether that income tax is imposed with what the law refers to as ''geographical uniformity''. That is, an income tax cannot be imposed on, say, just the incomes of people who happen to reside in New York and Montana.

From the United States Tax Court:

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).

And:

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).