I call out Famspear on his Income tax beliefs and statements

[Jameson3171]

First and foremost I want to discuss the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. which Famspear that keeps presenting frivolous arguments against! He will not specifically answer anything that is specifically stated. He keeps jumping around and creating or trying to create misconception!

Famspear Do you or do not disagree with this statement?

In this case (Brushaber) The Supreme Court tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) that the tax IS Constitutional as an indirect tax, and that he (Brushaber) cannot interfere with its scheme of collection at the source by withholding, or the duty of the corporation to withhold tax from certain persons identified in the law. The court knew that where the burden of the tax is shifted away from the third party tax collector and to the subject taxpayer by withholding, and that where there is no contact between the government and the taxpayer, only between the government and its tax collectors, that the tax is classically indirect, and recognized that the tax was therefore constitutional, and was not imposed by the enacting legislation as a direct tax without apportionment on all persons, or on all income, in the United States, but , rather, was imposed as an indirect tax in the form of a corporate excise and as an individual tax that is collected indirectly by federal tax collectors, those Withholding Agents, by withholding.

If you do disagree make your point logically and with supporting case law evidence!

[Pottapaug1938]

Moderator: please lock this thread. The question has been posed and answered elsewhere.

[Famspear]

First and foremost I want to discuss the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. which Famspear that keeps presenting frivolous arguments against! He will not specifically answer anything that is specifically stated. He keeps jumping around and creating or trying to create misconception!

Famspear Do you or do not disagree with this statement?

In this case (Brushaber) The Supreme Court tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) that the tax IS Constitutional as an indirect tax, and that he (Brushaber) cannot interfere with its scheme of collection at the source by withholding, or the duty of the corporation to withhold tax from certain persons identified in the law. The court knew that where the burden of the tax is shifted away from the third party tax collector and to the subject taxpayer by withholding, and that where there is no contact between the government and the taxpayer, only between the government and its tax collectors, that the tax is classically indirect, and recognized that the tax was therefore constitutional, and was not imposed by the enacting legislation as a direct tax without apportionment on all persons, or on all income, in the United States, but , rather, was imposed as an indirect tax in the form of a corporate excise and as an individual tax that is collected indirectly by federal tax collectors, those Withholding Agents, by withholding.

If you do disagree make your point logically and with supporting case law evidence!

You're still evading the point.

The Court in this case wasn't concerned with whether there was "contact between the government and the taxpayer." You're making this crap up.

At this point, no one is interested in your personal, idiosyncratic interpretation of the Brushaber case. We've already explained the case to you over and over. We've explained what the term "direct tax" means as used by the Court in this case, and we've explained the three holdings in the case.

Thread closed.