I know how to revolutionize our income tax system.

[Jeffrey]

Jim, clearly you've browsed the tax protester section. Every damn day Observer or someone else manages to dig up a fresh case of a tax protester losing and usually losing badly.

You're clearly not going to be successful with this stuff.

[Jameson3171]

Dear Jamie:

You're not reading the very materials you're citing. The 16th Amendment does not "need" to change Article I. Under Article I, a federal income tax is constitutional. The only thing the 16th Amendment "needed" to do was to overrule the Pollock decision -- which is what it did. Under Pollock, certain income taxes were TREATED as direct taxes. Under the Amendment, it matters not whether a particular income tax is "direct" or "indirect." If it's an income tax, then it is not required to be apportioned.

Now, go look for any federal court case (Supreme Court or otherwise) since 1913 that supports your implied argument that the current federal income tax is unconstitutional.

Fool's errand....

Seriously! You show me one Supreme Court decision that allowed the 16th amendment to Levy a direct tax on income. Why don't you read Law professor Erik M. Jensen Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546

[Jameson3171]

Jim, clearly you've browsed the tax protester section. Every damn day Observer or someone else manages to dig up a fresh case of a tax protester losing and usually losing badly.

You're clearly not going to be successful with this stuff.

Wrong! I already have. I haven't went to tax court, and I never will. The only reason why I know this will work, is because the IRS and the commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue has been trying to collect back to taxes from me for over seven years now and have not been successful! All I do is appeal the notices with physical Supreme Court case law. The IRS cannot and will not produce any evidence that the 16th amendment repealed, revoked, or changed any part of the original US Constitution.

[Jameson3171]

No, you don't know how to "revolutionize our income tax system." And you're not going to do it with the cases you cited.

We've seen all this before. You haven't discovered anything.

Neither you nor anyone else will ever use any of the cases you cited to "prove" that you aren't liable for U.S. Federal income tax.

You are missing the point! Not trying to prove that I am not liable for the US federal income tax. I am pointing out clearly that the income tax cannot be a direct tax within the provisions of the 16th amendment.

[Hyrion]

No, you don't know how to "revolutionize our income tax system." And you're not going to do it with the cases you cited.

I didn't say that I would revolutionize the income tax system.

Well... there's a couple signs of a deliberate troll.

• 1: Make a statement - Jameson3171 authored the subject "I know how to revolutionize our income tax system

• 2: Take something someone else stated out of context - Famspear, in the context of the subject indicated it can't be done - granted, Famspear used the word "you're" rather then a more general "no matter who tries it, it's not going to happen with the cases sited"

• 3: Then deny ever making such a statement

Err... Jameson3171 - given how badly out of context you're taking the quotes from the Supreme Court Judges - I'm with Famspear, you do not know how to revolutionize the US Income Tax system as your - yes, that's your authored - subject states.

[Pottapaug1938]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

Annotation 26 - Article I
Section 8. Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Kinds of Taxes Permitted

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it ''reaches every subject,'' 469 that it is ''exhaustive'' 470 or that it ''embraces every conceivable power of taxation.'' 471 Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied. http://constitution.findlaw.com/article ... ion26.html

That is pretty much simple language!

I don't care about your effing "simple language". All I care about is the "simple language" of an unreversed appellate court decision DIRECTLY supporting your contentions. I want holdings, not dicta.

[Hyrion]

Don't take my word for it take, take law professor Erik M. Jensen word for it! http://law.case.edu/OurSchool/FacultySt ... spx?id=118
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546

I did take his word for it, and my humble opinion matches Famspear: you are mis-interpreting what the Professor is saying.

[Jameson3171]

Don't get stonewalled by the IRS! If you want to know the truth about your tax liability. You do it by Submitting Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request to IRS Disclosure Offices. Here is the link: http://www.irs.gov/uac/IRS-Disclosure-Offices When you submit your request for your tax liability laws, simmit [sic] actual supreme court case law. If you can get enough people to do this, you will help to revolutionize our tax and system.

No. None of this will help anyone "revolutionize our tax and system."

Again, many tax protesters are hung up on the idea that by submitting an FOIA request, they can someone beat the tax. They are delusional.

"Actual supreme court case law" -- including the case law you cited -- will not help you find a legal way to avoid federal income tax.

[Pottapaug1938]

Jameson also claimed that he has stopped levy attempts by the IRS and Massachusetts DOR by "appealing" the levies with something he calls "physical evidence". Well, Jameson -- UNLESS your appeals are SUCCESSFUL, and the courts do not overturn those decisions, you've got bupkis. I live in Massachusetts as well; and in my days as a lawyer I dealt with tax levies more than once. You either pay up, or prove that the levies are invalid; but you have to get the courts to side with you.

You're declaring victory in the top of the third inning, with the Red Sox coming up to bat.

[Cpt Banjo]

You show me one Supreme Court decision that allowed the 16th amendment to Levy a direct tax on income. Why don't you read Law professor Erik M. Jensen Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546

Son, I have read Jensen. In fact, I have read more of his papers on taxes and constitutional law than you ever will. I've been following the Johnson-Ackerman tag-team match against Jensen for years. You clearly don't understand Jensen.

The point of his article is simply that direct taxes, other than a tax on income, still need to be apportioned.

So what is your constitutional problem with an unapportioned tax on income?

The IRS cannot and will not produce any evidence that the 16th amendment repealed, revoked, or changed any part of the original US Constitution.

Please don't tell us that you're one of those dingbats who thinks that an amendment must have explicit repealing language in order to amend an earlier constitutional provision. Or do you believe that Mitt Romney is the legal Vice President because the 12th Amendment didn't explicitly repeal that portion of Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution that says "In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President." ?

[NYGman]

Seriously! You show me one Supreme Court decision that allowed the 16th amendment to Levy a direct tax on income. Why don't you read Law professor Erik M. Jensen Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... _id=790546

Did you even read the abstract in your link?

Interpreting the Sixteenth Amendment (by Way of the Direct-Tax Clauses)


Erik M. Jensen
Case Western Reserve University School of Law


Constitutional Commentary, Vol. 21, p. 355, 2004
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 05-29

Abstract:
The Sixteenth Amendment and the direct-tax clauses have become subjects of interest in the legal academy and, as proposals for new forms of national taxation emerge on a seemingly daily basis, they could become subjects of more general interest as well. Under the direct-tax clauses, a direct tax must be apportioned among the states on the basis of population, making such a tax difficult, although not impossible, to implement. Following the Supreme Court decisions in the 1895 Income Tax Cases, which held that an 1894 income tax was a direct tax that had not been properly apportioned, the Sixteenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, exempted "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment requirement. The Amendment made the modern, unapportioned income tax become possible.

This article, part of the author's ongoing debate with Professor Calvin Johnson, defends the following propositions, among others: The direct-tax clauses were understood from the founding to have real effect, such as deterring enactment of taxes with decidedly sectional impact; the Supreme Court's decisions in the Income Tax Cases were defensible interpretations of the clauses; and, if the U.S. was going to have a national (yet unapportioned) income tax, the Sixteenth Amendment was an essential modification of the clauses. However, the Amendment, which removes only "taxes on incomes" from the apportionment rule, was not intended to repeal the direct-tax clauses: not all direct taxes were understood by proponents and ratifiers of the Amendment as "taxes on incomes." The article examines the meaning of these key terms and concludes that it is still possible for a tax to be direct but not a tax on incomes. If Congress were to enact such a tax (a wealth tax is a good example), the tax would have to be apportioned.

Along the way, the article also discusses related points, including how the direct-tax clauses' connection with slavery should affect our interpretation of the clauses; whether the Supreme Court's 1796 decision in Hylton v. United States accurately reflected the original understanding of the clauses; and, more generally, whether actions of Federalists-in-power provide us with incontrovertible evidence of original understanding. On the last point, the article discusses a 1797 revenue act to demonstrate that founders-in-power could act in decidedly unconstitutional ways.

From the abstract, emphasis added.

So it is clear this author believes that the 16th ammendment was required to implement the income tax. it goes on to discuss why the author believed the 16th amendment still allows for direct tax, as long as apportioned, but doesn't look in any way to challenge the income tax, or that their is any issue with the 16th amendment.

[Jameson3171]

Out of curiousity, since the goal here is to eliminate the income tax, what exactly is it Tax Protesters want to replace it with?

National 39.6% sales tax? National property tax? An apportioned income tax?

Consumption tax like it was supposed to be. Everything is taxed! The United States was doing just fine before the 16th amendment. And the 16th amendment allows businesses to get taxed not individuals. The founding fathers fought a bloody war for our freedom and independence from the British that were taxing us to death. If everyone had more money in your pockets, they would purchase more commodities. Walmart already issued a press release stating that their products have a mark up just for taxes. In other words they are transferring their income tax on to the consumer.

[Hyrion]

Jameson also claimed that he has stopped levy attempts by the IRS and Massachusetts DOR by "appealing" the levies

Yea... but he's yet to actually identify the case. So I strongly suspect it's something recent and he's really only dealing with the first layer of IRS collection and the appeal is likely with the IRS - not yet with an actual Court. If correct, that means the next step will be for the IRS to initiate the actual Court processes - if they haven't done so already and it's proceeding through the stages.

with something he calls "physical evidence"

Which, ironically from what he wrote, appears to be citations to Supreme Court rulings. The same exact thing others have been doing which he doesn't consider "physical evidence". I'm guessing it's only "physical" if it passes through his fingers.

Well, Jameson -- UNLESS your appeals are SUCCESSFUL, and the courts do not overturn those decisions, you've got bupkis.

Jameson3171: I call on you to clearly cite the case you were involved in wherein you succeeded in turning away the IRS.

You're declaring victory in the top of the third inning, with the Red Sox coming up to bat.

I definitely have my doubts he's even passed the first inning.

[NYGman]

Consumption tax like it was supposed to be.

You do realize that a pure consumption tax will result in those making less money, paying proportionally more of their income on tax, then the current income tax system. This will result in poor to lower income people having a larger ttax burden. Typically, tax protestors fall in to this category. So by shifting to a consumption tax, your taxes would go up.

[Jameson3171]

Well, unless Jameson can come up with something about 100 trillion times better than he has given us here, I don't propose to engage him in debate on this subject -- UNLESS he can come up with court cases which DIRECTLY support his assertions (i.e., that they have actually worked).

Annotation 26 - Article I
Section 8. Powers of Congress
Clause 1. Power to Tax and Spend

Kinds of Taxes Permitted

By the terms of the Constitution, the power of Congress to levy taxes is subject to but one exception and two qualifications. Articles exported from any State may not be taxed at all. Direct taxes must be levied by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. The Court has emphasized the sweeping character of this power by saying from time to time that it ''reaches every subject,'' 469 that it is ''exhaustive'' 470 or that it ''embraces every conceivable power of taxation.'' 471 Despite these generalizations, the power has been at times substantially curtailed by judicial decision with respect to the subject matter of taxation, the manner in which taxes are imposed, and the objects for which they may be levied. http://constitution.findlaw.com/article ... ion26.html

That is pretty much simple language!

I don't care about your effing "simple language". All I care about is the "simple language" of an unreversed appellate court decision DIRECTLY supporting your contentions. I want holdings, not dicta.

The lower courts are not case law, only decisions made by the Supreme Courts are. The lower courts won't allow this to be heard! Why not just put an end to it legally rather then calling it frivolous when it is clearly not frivolous. Have you ever heard of corruption?

[Hyrion]

So by shifting to a consumption tax, your taxes would go up.

Not to mention a possible corresponding drop in wages and/or an increase in the cost of the goods in order for the business to cover their increased taxes on the goods.

[Jameson3171]

Consumption tax like it was supposed to be.

You do realize that a pure consumption tax will result in those making less money, paying proportionally more of their income on tax, then the current income tax system. This will result in poor to lower income people having a larger ttax burden. Typically, tax protestors fall in to this category. So by shifting to a consumption tax, your taxes would go up.

Yes! There is a possibility. Don't replace it with any tax. America was doing fine before the 16th amendment. The government will have to stop sending other countries billions of dollars in operate on a budget.

[Hyrion]

Why not just put an end to it legally

That's why we keep telling you to lobby your Congressmen. That is the Legal route to get the current state of the Laws changed.

From what you've said earlier about your taxes, you have a future ahead of you where that's going to come back and you'll face the very real likelihood of some prison time.

[NYGman]

Consumption tax like it was supposed to be.

You do realize that a pure consumption tax will result in those making less money, paying proportionally more of their income on tax, then the current income tax system. This will result in poor to lower income people having a larger ttax burden. Typically, tax protestors fall in to this category. So by shifting to a consumption tax, your taxes would go up.

Yes! There is a possibility. Don't replace it with any tax. America was doing fine before the 16th amendment. The government will have to stop sending other countries billions of dollars in operate on a budget.

No tax is not an option, taxes are needed to run and protect the country and its citizens. Not to mention, pay our countries debts. A tax system is a necessity. However far from perfect the income tax is, it is the law, it is required, and unless the law changes, we all* have to pay it.

*actually there are some people with low income who may actually not pay tax. I will go so far as to say, i believe there are tax protestors actually missing out on getting legitimate money back, because they dont understand the various credits, deductions and exemptions they may be entitled to, and to me that is the saddest part of it all.

[Hyrion]

I just realized something rather amusing.

Jameson3171 has presented himself as having lawfully not paid income tax for 7 years.

So if he truly believes he can lawfully avoid paying income taxes -

• why the need to "revolutionize our income tax system"?

• why the need to convince those of us who are content with paying our income taxes to stop?

OOOOhhhhhhh..... that raises a rather interesting question.

Is Jameson3171 attempting to interfer with my "constitutional right" to willingly pay income tax?

Yea... that question is facetious - it's not a right, it's a privilege