$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! I accept the challenge!

[Jameson3171]

History and Purpose of the Amendment
The ratification of this Amendment was the direct consequence of the Court's decision in 1895 in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 1 whereby the attempt of Congress the previous year to tax incomes uniformly throughout the United States 2 was held by a divided court to be unconstitutional. A tax on incomes derived from property, 3 the Court declared, was a ''direct tax'' which Congress under the terms of Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9, could impose only by the rule of apportionment according to population, although scarcely fifteen years prior the Justices had unanimously sustained 4 the collection of a similar tax during the Civil War, 5 the only other occasion preceding the Sixteenth Amendment in which Congress had ventured to utilize this method of raising revenue. 6
- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... xGIjI.dpuf

Footnotes
[Footnote 1] 157 U.S. 429 (1895); 158 U.S. 601 (1895).
[Footnote 2] Ch. 349, Sec. 27, 28 Stat. 509, 553.
[Footnote 3] The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ''professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ''burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations'' after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 .
[Footnote 4] Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1881).
[Footnote 5] Ch. 173, Sec. 116, 13 Stat. 223, 281 (1864).
[Footnote 6] For an account of the Pollock decision, see supra, pp. 352- 56.
[Footnote 7] 173 U.S. 509 (1899).
[Footnote 8] 178 U.S. 41 (1900).
[Footnote 9] 184 U.S. 608 (1902).
[Footnote 10] Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).
[Footnote 11] Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916).
[Footnote 12] Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 18 -19 (1916).
[Footnote 13] Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 (1916).
- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... xGIjI.dpuf

All the cases above are the foundation of the income tax law, not the IRS code. The IRS code is a presumption of law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7806 The U.S. Constitution trumps the IRS presumption of law.The 16th amendment is not the taxing power of Congress. The 16th amendment must be construed with Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Income Subject to Taxation
Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, 14 the Court initially described income as the ''gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,'' inclusive of the ''profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets''; 15 in the following array of factual situations it subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.
- See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... sQKCQ.dpuf

Edwin Vieira Has many issues with the 16th amendment. Maybe he's too stupid to understand that all income is taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. He is also one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys, having brought four cases that were accepted by the supreme Court and having won three of them. In the supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

You can read what he has to say about the 16th amendment here: http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm

Where is my $10 million dollars? I have clearly won the challenge?

[Pottapaug1938]

You'll never see it.They will merely move the goalposts, and invite you to try again.

[noblepa]

I'n not sure what challenge you are responding to, but it is probably something linke "prove to my satisfaction that the income tax is constitutional, and I'll pay you $10M", right?

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled that, in a challenge like that, the sole arbiter is the one making the challenge. There is no subjective standard that can be applied to "prove" that you satisfied the challenge. If the challenger remains unsatisfied, however unreasonable he/she may be, the court can not compel the challenger to make good.

Didn't Irwin Schiff make such a challenge once? I believe it was only for $50,000 or so and someone did sue him. The court ruled that Schiff did not have to pay.

But then, I'm sure that you know that.

[LPC]

The original posting is two cut-and-pastes from the Cornell website, and a cut-and-paste from the "Virginia Land Rights Coalition" website about Edwin Viera, with barely coherent crap in between.

It's a troll, folks.

I'm going to leave it alone for another 12-18 hours to see if there is anything intelligent that can be said about the crap, and then I'll lock it down (unless another moderator beats me to it).

[Arthur Rubin]

Didn't Irwin Schiff make such a challenge once? I believe it was only for $50,000 or so and someone did sue him. The court ruled that Schiff did not have to pay.

I thought it was Hovind and evolution.

[Duke2Earl]

The key point is that it really doesn't matter what any of us or what any "scholar" thinks about any of this. It only matters what the courts think. And that is more than abundantly clear... individuals owe tax on their income... end of story. All the rest is just silly games.

[fortinbras]

Edwin Vieira did not participate in the Supreme Court case of Abood v. Detroit. He did participate, occasionally as a principal's lawyer but mostly as an amicus, in nine decisions, and most of them involved labor unions (with Vieira opposing the labor union, sometimes as lawyer for the Right to Work organization).

He does have maverick views on the tax laws, and although he has impressive credentials, he is vastly outnumbered by multitudes of lawyers on the opposing side, many with impressive credentials of their own.

[Gregg]

Not to menion a little common sense.

[LPC]

Edwin Vieira Has many issues with the 16th amendment. Maybe he's too stupid to understand that all income is taxable under the provisions of the 16th amendment.

The link that was provided (http://www.constitution.org/col/vieiraspeech.htm) shows that Vieira is a fan of Bill Benson's, meaning that the problem with the 16th Amendment isn't whether "all income is taxable" but that the 16th Amendment was never ratified.

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).

For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. He is also one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys, having brought four cases that were accepted by the supreme Court and having won three of them. In the supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

I've often run into Vieira's name, and wondered who the hell he was (or is), and finally did some poking around.

Yes, he is a lawyer admitted in Virginia, and it appears he does have a Ph.D. from Harvard, in chemistry, as well as a J.D.

The highlight of his legal career was working for the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a group dedicated to undermining the power of labor unions, for which he argued three cases before the Supreme Court, winning two. Some of the cases he argued before the Supreme Court and lower courts involved 1st Amendment issues, but he is "one of our country’s most eminent constitutional attorneys" in the same sense that Peter Hendrickson is, by which I mean he is "eminent" not in a scholastic or academic sense but in taking positions that nutjobs who call him "eminent" want to believe in.

As noted above, he embraces the conclusion that the 16th Amendment was not ratified. He's also a big fan of "hard money" (gold or silver), the 2nd Amendment, and the right of states to secede. He's also a "birther." In a recent scribble, he addresses the issue of whether Barack Obama can be impeached if he is not legally the President, and concludes that regardless of whether or not the House *can* impeach Obama, they *should* not impeach him, because impeaching him would lend credibility to Obama's claim to be President. (In the same piece, he refers to Devvy Kidd as a "long-time friend.")

In other words, he's a guy with some credentials who's gotten dotty in his dotage.

[LPC]

Edwin Vieira did not participate in the Supreme Court case of Abood v. Detroit. He did participate, occasionally as a principal's lawyer but mostly as an amicus, in nine decisions, and most of them involved labor unions (with Vieira opposing the labor union, sometimes as lawyer for the Right to Work organization).

The Justia website lists only three Supreme Court cases in which Vieira was listed as counsel for a party: Minn. Bd. Commun. for Colleges v. Knight, 465 U.S. 271 (1984); Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986); and Commun. Workers of Amer. v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735 (1988). He might have contributed amicus briefs in other cases, but that doesn't mean much in my book.

He does have maverick views on the tax laws,

I guess so, because he is a friend or associate of Devvy Kidd, Robert Schulz, and Larry Becraft, and a fan of William Benson.

and although he has impressive credentials,

I don't consider a career with the National Right to Work Defense Foundation and three cases before the Supreme Court to be "impressive." I would say that his legal skills were significantly above average, but he never contributed anything original or lasting to the legal system and at the end of the day he's a crank writing crap for nutjob websites.

This is not authoritative, to be sure, but the Avvo.com website gives him a rating of 6.5, with a 3.5 rating on experience, a perfect 5 for "professional conduct," but only a 1 for "industry recognition."

[LPC]

I also want to point out that the prominence of Edwin Vieira in tax denier literature demonstrates that they really don't understand the fallacy of authority.

Tax deniers often say that, just because the Supreme Court (or federal judges) say something doesn't mean it's true. While actually, the fact that the Supreme Court says what the law is *does* make it true.

And then they trot out (and prop up) Edwin Vieira and say, "Hey! Four degrees from Harvard and three cases before the Supreme Court, so what he says must be true!"

But it isn't.

[notorial dissent]

Jameson3171, I'm curious, just where is this $10 million supposed to be coming from in the first place? If we're going to start this off we really should have some pertinent details.

You are correct about Pollock, and then you go off in the weeds.

The cases you sight may or may not be good law, but if they were decided prior to 1916 chances are they have long since been supplanted and are no longer considered law.

The Constitution is the basis for the taxing power of Congress, and the 16th is the basis for the full taxing power of Congress as far as incomes, as it removes any restrictions that might have previously existed by virtue of I § 2 and I § 9, which thanks to the passage of the 16th no longer control as far as INCOME is concerned. The IRS Code is the constitutional exposition of the congressional authority to tax, and unless set aside by the court it is the law.

The Corporation Tax Act of 1909 is irrelevant as far as modern Income Tax is concerned.

I think it is safe to say that Edwin Vieira, Jr. has many issues, competency at the practice of law being among them, and let it go at that. The fact that he has an apparently impressive collection of degrees is simply proof that an individual can go to a prestigious institution(s), manage to make it all the way through, and still come out not knowing anything. Calling Vieira a constitutional lawyer is about the equivalent of calling my cat an astrophysicist. I can do it, but it doesn't make it so. His CV would seem to not support your claims. He is entitled to have whatever opinions or beliefs he wants, about the law, life in general, or the universe, that doesn't make them valid or otherwise of any legal significance. The fact that most all of the rest of the legal community, and much much more importantly, the court system disagree in entirety with him and his views, so that puts it all in perspective.

So, all in all, I would say that you don't get the $10 million.

[darling]

Yer man, Jameson3171, is referring to the Quatloos $10 million challenge:
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax.

Don't just tell us about your pet theory -- nobody cares -- get out and win a case or shut up!

[notorial dissent]

Yer man, Jameson3171, is referring to the Quatloos $10 million challenge:
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax.

Don't just tell us about your pet theory -- nobody cares -- get out and win a case or shut up!

He didn't say, no way of knowing otherwise, not doing a mind reading act, the verbal is usually bad enough. In any event, no tickee, no laundlee

[Pottapaug1938]

Yer man, Jameson3171, is referring to the Quatloos $10 million challenge:
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm

Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax.

Don't just tell us about your pet theory -- nobody cares -- get out and win a case or shut up!

He didn't say, no way of knowing otherwise, not doing a mind reading act, the verbal is usually bad enough. In any event, no tickee, no laundlee

And, in any event, if Jameson3171 IS talking about the Quatloos challenge, he is bringing his demand prematurely. Per the terms of the Quatloos challenge, it matters not one whit what WE say. The challenge requires that a U.S. Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court must say, in so many words, that the average American is liable to pay the income tax.

In short, Jameson3171: show us the case. Don't waste our time with legal word salad.

[Famspear]

Our new visitor wrote (or copied and pasted, or whatever):

All the cases above are the foundation of the income tax law, not the IRS code. The IRS code is a presumption of law.

No, not exactly. The Internal Revenue Code is not a "presumption" of law. And the citation to 26 USC section 7806 is completely off base. Here's what section 7806 actually says:

(a) Cross references

The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect.

(b) Arrangement and classification

No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law.

All that has nothing to do with the point that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, is positive law. Every single provision of the Code was enacted by Congress, and every single provision is published in the United States Statutes at Large.

And:

The U.S. Constitution trumps the IRS presumption of law.

That's a meaningless statement in this context. There is no such thing as an "IRS presumption of law."

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land -- so, it's a higher law than the Internal Revenue Code. That may be what our friend meant to say. However, that also does not mean what the tax protesters would like it to mean.

The Internal Revenue Code provisions imposing the U.S. federal tax on income -- including but not limited to the tax on ordinary compensation received by individuals -- does not violate any provision of the Constitution. Every single court that has ever ruled on this point has ruled that the income tax provisions are not unconstitutional, with a few exceptions involving the compensation of federal judges not material to this discussion.

The Supreme Court has, on a few occasions, ruled various taxes imposed under the Internal Revenue Code to be unconstitutional. However, no federal court has ever ruled any provision of the current Internal Revenue Code with respect to federal income tax to be unconstitutional as applied to the compensation of individuals, the gains on sales of assets by individuals, or the interest income, dividend income, or rent income received by individuals.

The 16th amendment is not the taxing power of Congress. The 16th amendment must be construed with Article I, Sec. 2, and Sec. 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Not exactly. In a broad sense, every provision of the U.S. Constitution should be construed in the context of every other provision. The tendency to interpret particular passages outside the context in which those passages are found is actually a bad habit found with many tax protester-tax denier folks.

More to the point: To the extent, if any, that the Sixteenth Amendment were to be construed to contradict anything in Article I, the Sixteenth Amendment would probably be held to trump the Article I provision. Unfortunately for the tax protesters, Article I and the Amendment do not contradict each other at all.

To digress: The Sixteenth Amendment created no NEW power of taxation. Unfortunately, that statement does not mean what the tax protesters would like to believe it means. Article I of the Constitution already gives the Congress the power to impose an income tax. Congress had that power even before 1913, when the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified.

The Sixteenth Amendment does authorize the imposition of the income tax. Confusing? Yes.

There is a difference between saying that the Amendment "created" the power to tax incomes (it did not do that) and saying that the Amendment authorizes the power to tax incomes (which it does do).

[Jameson3171]

I hate to tell you this but the IRS operates on presumption. To understand what presumption of law is. Look here: http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/9.htm

The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... Section-II

[Hyrion]

To understand what presumption of law is. Look here: http://www.supremelaw.org/copyrite/deoxy.org/fz/9.htm

Sorry - but if I'm going to learn anything about the Law, it will not be from Paul A Mitchell

He is not a reliable resource upon which to trust the information being provided. Just my humble opinion.

[Jameson3171]

First and foremost I would like to thank everybody for their feedback.I am going to break this down for everybody so they can simply draw their own conclusions based on merit.

1. The Law: For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded. In Reese v. United States, 24 F.3d 228, 231 (Fed. Cir. 1994), the court stated, "an abiding principle of federal tax law is that, absent an enumerated exception, gross income means all income from whatever source derived."
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... Section-II

2. The federal income tax is unconstitutional because it is a “direct tax” that must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the census.

False. It is true that there is an apportionment requirement in the Constitution for “direct taxes,” but the 16th Amendment clearly eliminates the apportionment requirement for all taxes on incomes. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows: (a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned. (b) As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation, and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment. (c) As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 40&invol=1

Supreme Court decisions are binding, case law! The ignorance starts with you not me.
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-res ... cases.aspx

'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.'
It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 40&invol=1

Does that satisfy everybody?

[Jameson3171]

I'n not sure what challenge you are responding to, but it is probably something linke "prove to my satisfaction that the income tax is constitutional, and I'll pay you $10M", right?

Unfortunately, the courts have ruled that, in a challenge like that, the sole arbiter is the one making the challenge. There is no subjective standard that can be applied to "prove" that you satisfied the challenge. If the challenger remains unsatisfied, however unreasonable he/she may be, the court can not compel the challenger to make good.

Didn't Irwin Schiff make such a challenge once? I believe it was only for $50,000 or so and someone did sue him. The court ruled that Schiff did not have to pay.

But then, I'm sure that you know that.

http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm