I know how to revolutionize our income tax system.

[Famspear]

I notice that Jameson has gone back and edited his initial post -- to include yet another link to Russo's masterpiece, America: Freedom to Fascism!

Woo-woo, Jamey!

[Famspear]

Here's how Jameson is now introducing the link to the Russo masterpiece in the initial posting in this thread:

This is just a in [sic] theory discussion! Before you start insinuating that I'm not reading the case law correctly. Watch this before you make any comments about I got it wrong.

Oh, this is rich!

Tell me, Jameson, do you even know what the Supreme Court held in the Brushaber case? Were you not aware that the taxpayer LOST the case? Were you not aware that the taxpayers lost in the other cases you cited in your initial post?

Here are summaries of what happened in Brushaber:

The taxpayer argued that the Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, was unconstitutional. THE COURT RULED THAT THE ACT WAS CONSTITUTIONAL.

The taxpayer argued that the Revenue Act of 1913 violated the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. THE COURT RULED THAT THE ACT DID NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.

The taxpayer argued that the Revenue Act of 1913 violated the uniformity clause of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. THE COURT RULED THAT THE ACT DID NOT VIOLATE THAT CLAUSE.

THE TAXPAYER LOST THE CASE, EINSTEIN.

Jamey, go back and read the actual texts of these cases.

[Famspear]

Jamey wrote:

There is no evidence that supports that the 16th amendment authorizes are direct tax on incomes. Income is not even defined in the Internal Revenue Code. All the Supreme Court rulings on the 16th amendment clearly state that income cannot be taxed directly.

No. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other court has ever ruled any such thing. In EVERY SINGLE CASE where people have tried to make that argument, THE GOVERNMENT HAS WON and the person making that argument LOST.

The 16th Amendment did not authorize direct taxation without apportionment.

Yes, the 16th Amendment authorizes direct taxation without apportionment.

The Court actually states in the Brushaber decision that the belief that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax is an erroneous assumption that is the cause of all the confusion.

No, that's not what the Court states in that case. This is what the Court states:

The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, 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....

That's what the Court SAID.

But that's not what the Court RULED.

In the rest of the opinion, the Court was essentially saying that the federal income tax is not a direct tax; it is an indirect tax (an "excise"). The Court was essentially saying that the 16th Amendment overruled the Pollock case.

In Brushaber, THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX THAT HAD BEEN SIGNED INTO LAW IN OCTOBER 1913, UNDER THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT (WHICH HAD BECOME PART OF THE CONSTITUTION EARLIER THAT YEAR). That income tax was indeed imposed DIRECTLY on people who realized income. The Court REJECTED the argument that the tax law was unconstitutional.

[Famspear]

More from the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber:

It is clear on the face of this text [the text of the Sixteenth Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, - an authority already possessed and never questioned, - 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.

The Amendment does away with the need to determine whether an income tax is a "direct" tax or not. It does this by stating that the Congress may taxes incomes from WHATEVER source derived, without having to apportion the tax. It is the word "source" that is a key word here. The word "source" shows that the Amendment does indeed overrule Pollock -- where the SOURCE of the income had to be examined, to determine whether the tax was "direct", so that in turn the court could determine whether the tax had to be apportioned.

After the Sixteenth Amendment, the SOURCE of the income is irrelevant, and therefore the question of whether the tax is "direct" is irrelevant, and the tax does not have to be apportioned.

[Famspear]

Jamey, another point that you apparently don't understand is that the term "direct" -- when used to refer to U.S. taxes -- has more than one meaning.

In Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the term "direct tax", until Pollock in the year 1895, always meant only two kinds of taxes: regular property taxes (taxes on property by reason of ownership), and capitations (head taxes, as in: $100 per person per year, for example). Until 1895, all INCOME taxes were considered indirect taxes (that is, excises).

In Pollock, the Court changed that rule, by re-classifying SOME federal income taxes as direct taxes: specifically, taxes on income from property (in other words, dividend income, interest income, and rent income). Beginning in 1895, those kinds of taxes had to be apportioned.

However, the Pollock decision did not change the rule that a tax on income from providing services (labor, employment, etc.) was an indirect tax. That kind of tax has never required apportionment -- either before or after Pollock case was decided.

What the Sixteenth Amendment did was overrule Pollock, by removing the Pollock requirement that the courts look to the SOURCE of the income and thereby make a determination as to whether the TAX on that income was a "direct tax". If the tax was a direct tax as defined in Pollock, the tax would have to have been apportioned if that tax had been enacted between about the year 1895 (when Pollock was decided) and the year 1913.

But, after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, NO FEDERAL INCOME TAX on dividend income, interest income or rent income (or any other kind of income for that matter) is required to be apportioned. The SOURCE of the income is legally irrelevant, regardless of whether the income is from corporate stocks (dividend income), or bonds (interest income), or from renting property, and so on. Thus, the classification of the tax as "direct" is irrelevant after February 1913, when the Amendment was ratified.

The fact that the income tax is imposed DIRECTLY ON THE TAXPAYER does not make it a "direct" tax as that term is being used here. And whether a given income tax is or ever was a "direct tax" is also irrelevant since 1913.

The OTHER sense of the term "direct tax" is the one of which I suspect you, Jamey, are thinking when you struggle with these old legal texts. You're apparently thinking that when the Brushaber court says "direct tax," the court means "a tax imposed directly on the taxpayer." That's not what the term means as used in those old cases like Brushaber.

[nattyb]

Jamey, another point that you apparently don't understand is that the term "direct" -- when used to refer to U.S. taxes -- has more than one meaning..

You hit the nail on the head and reveal why the entire tax denier cult is so insidious. Expecting a green bean like jamey to understand cases like Pollock and Brushaber is like expecting a high school student to perform a successful heart transplant. It ain't going to happen. It is why tax deniers become arrogant twits.

When jamey is willing to learn the difference between a "Direct Tax" in the constitutional sense and a tax directly on income, he will be on the path to understanding.

[notorial dissent]

Do you realize this is just in theory? This makes no sense either in or out of context. It would take an enormous amount of people to put pressure on our government to come clean with the tax system today. It is we the people right? There is a thing called voting, you may have heard of it, where you elect people who agree with you to to make and change laws??? The problem is that you won't find any and there aren't enough of you to elect one. Second point, there is nothing for them "to come clean" about. The tax system is what it is, and is legal. America is supposed to have a self governing system, correct! That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

You are correct. The IRS cannot refute my appeal. And I am honestly telling you the truth. There is no evidence that supports that the 16th amendment authorizes are direct tax on incomes. Income is not even defined in the Internal Revenue Code. All the Supreme Court rulings on the 16th amendment clearly state that income cannot be taxed directly.

The 16th Amendment did not authorize direct taxation without apportionment. The Court actually states in the Brushaber decision that the belief that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax is an erroneous assumption that is the cause of all the confusion.

You are quite simply wrong. The Supreme Court cases you keep copying state exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Your theory aside, it is not the hearing officer's place to argue with you or refute anything. Their job is to listen to you and make determination based upon what you said and what the law says. Her silence signifies nothing. What you will eventually get from MA D R is a form letter telling you your appeal is denied. You will get the same response from the IRS.

[grixit]

Although I admit I began the process, there really is no point in trying to explain the copernican universe to a dedicated student of Ptolemy - especially one who proves repeatedly that his reading comprehension is close to zero.

What do you mean i can't use my secret government account to pay for epicycles?

[grixit]

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?

A tax on people with good reading comprehension.

[AndyK]

As long as the IP is editing his posts, perhaps he should edit the ones with the references to victories in Lala Land.

He has slightly backpedaled though.

It appears that his victories, to date, are:

1 - not paying taxes for several years.
2 - not being laughed at during a telephone interview with a Massachusetts Appeals Officer.

Interestingly enough, interactions with Appeals Officers normally only occur AFTER the tax evader has been formally notified that taxes (penalties and interest?) are due.

Perhaps the IP could post sanitized (SSN, address, and phone redacted) copies of such notices to provide clear EVIDENCE of hios victorious status.

Failing that, the prior warning stands and WILL be enforced.

[notorial dissent]

Do you realize this is just in theory?

Do you realize that your theory has been broached innumerable times, and shot down each time? No, I really doubt you do since you're not capable of reading the material you keep doing copypasta on. Your theory is NOT new, NOT novel, and NOT provable as it is totally incorrect. You are simply repeating someone elses failed efforts.

[wserra]

I have already stopped the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of revenue and the IRS from wage garnishment Levy's by appealing the Levy notices with those cases.

The IRS cannot refute my appeal.

Ah. Thank you, JamieMkII, for making this clearer.

It isn't Jamie's brilliant legal analysis that has temporarily halted collection, it's just the filing of the appeal. If Jamie were to appeal administratively on the grounds that he has diplomatic immunity as the Martian Ambassador, collection activity would also stop. And it's his learned conclusion that he will win, not the conclusion of a judge or hearing officer.

Good work, Jamie.

[Hyrion]

Statement 1:

The IRS cannot refute my appeal.

Statement 2:

O my God do you realize this is just a theory? Wow! I am still waiting on the decision from Massachusetts Department of revenue about my appeal.

You sure sound certain on what the end result is going to be when you've applied "just a theory" and are "still waiting on the decision".

Good Luck, you're going to need it.

[JamesVincent]

Not even as interesting as PartriotDiscussions.

[Hyrion]

Watch this then tell me what is nonsense! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCPLOGftFuw

Nonsense: relying on someone to provide you sound advice that will keep you out of jail and yet the individual has no training, education or experience in the complex field said advice is applied to.

[Hyrion]

The appeals officer Joanna Troy did not refute my arguments.

Have you considered it might not be the job of the appeals officer to refute your arguments but to simply consider your arguments relative to the situation and make a decision?

[Pottapaug1938]

Jameson 3171 wrote:

"The appeals officer Joanna Troy did not refute my arguments."

So what? There's no need for a hearing officer to "refute" arguments, including horsebleep such as was offered to her. If the original arguments are horsebleep, they do not need to be refuted. They will fail, simply because of their own lack of merit.

To give a hypothetical example: if I went to the DOR and IRS and claimed that I am exempt from taxes because I am the Hereditary Emperor of America, neither agency has to spent time and effort proving that I'm not.

[.]

Huh. Our latest village idiot has allegedly internally appealed what were probably assessments of tax and/or demands to pay them by the MA Dept of Rev and/or the IRS.

Everyone else knows to a certainty that he will lose either or both and collection will proceed. Slowly, but inexorably. Keep your checkbook handy Jameson, you're gonna need it.

While four pages in two days is more activity than we've seen in a long time, it's all pointless, beyond the potential value to the next idiot who's thinking about trying any variation of this really stupid crap.

I suggest that he not be allowed to post anything further other than the outcome of his alleged internal appeals. It's highly unlikely that he'll post his losses and If by some further stroke of delusion he takes one or both alleged internal appeal losses into court, with actual case numbers, we won't hear about those either.

Lock the thread with the exception of Jameson being able to post his actual results. The silence will be deafening and illuminating.

[Samphire]

Before the thread is locked please may I say (totally without smugness, honestly) how grateful I am that we in Britain don't suffer under the tyranny of a written constitution. As a result, we are free to get on with the rest of our lives.

[Jameson3171]

Do you realize this is just in theory? This makes no sense either in or out of context. It would take an enormous amount of people to put pressure on our government to come clean with the tax system today. It is we the people right? There is a thing called voting, you may have heard of it, where you elect people who agree with you to to make and change laws??? The problem is that you won't find any and there aren't enough of you to elect one. Second point, there is nothing for them "to come clean" about. The tax system is what it is, and is legal. America is supposed to have a self governing system, correct! That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.

You are correct. The IRS cannot refute my appeal. And I am honestly telling you the truth. There is no evidence that supports that the 16th amendment authorizes are direct tax on incomes. Income is not even defined in the Internal Revenue Code. All the Supreme Court rulings on the 16th amendment clearly state that income cannot be taxed directly.

The 16th Amendment did not authorize direct taxation without apportionment. The Court actually states in the Brushaber decision that the belief that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax is an erroneous assumption that is the cause of all the confusion.

You are quite simply wrong. The Supreme Court cases you keep copying state exactly the opposite of what you are claiming.

Your theory aside, it is not the hearing officer's place to argue with you or refute anything. Their job is to listen to you and make determination based upon what you said and what the law says. Her silence signifies nothing. What you will eventually get from MA D R is a form letter telling you your appeal is denied. You will get the same response from the IRS.

“… it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes;” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 574 (1895)

The Court actually states in the Brushaber decision that the belief that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned income tax is an erroneous assumption that is the cause of all the confusion. Go to kickingenetrtainment.us And register then go to the 16th amendment frivolous arguments that is in the categories. Then we will dispute this logically!