I call out Famspear on his Income tax beliefs and statements

[Jameson3171]

I have been locked out on this topic! Why? Framspear is claiming that I am making this crap up! Seriously? Explain how am I making this crap up! Answer the question with logic. Just because you say I am making this crap up is bogus! Answer the question!

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!

Answer the question! Here is the case again! Show me o great 1! http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendme ... ion01.html


Clearly, even under the 16th Amendment, the income tax actually enacted by the tested legislation, is done so as an indirect tax. It is not a direct tax without apportionment, as deceptively and fraudulently claimed by the I.R.S. The Eisner v Macomber decision confirms this.

[Pottapaug1938]

Not only should this thread be locked; but consideration should be given to preventing Jamie from starting new threads.

Why, Jamie? Simple -- we've explained Brushaber to you more than once, but you still insist on beating the same dead horse (this is at least your third attempt concerning the question with which you began this rant thread.

[Jameson3171]

Not only should this thread be locked; but consideration should be given to preventing Jamie from starting new threads.

Why, Jamie? Simple -- we've explained Brushaber to you more than once, but you still insist on beating the same dead horse (this is at least your third attempt concerning the question with which you began this rant thread.

Because Framspare refuses to answer the question logically! Why does it matter to you? This is just the form! Seriously why does it matter to you?

How did you specifically explain this to?
Explained absolutely nothing!

[Pottapaug1938]

Not only should this thread be locked; but consideration should be given to preventing Jamie from starting new threads.

Why, Jamie? Simple -- we've explained Brushaber to you more than once, but you still insist on beating the same dead horse (this is at least your third attempt concerning the question with which you began this rant thread.

Because Framspare refuses to answer the question logically! Why does it matter to you? This is just the form! Seriously why does it matter to you?

Because he, and others, have answered this question already -- just not in the way that you want the answer phrased. Also, the answer is pointless, because as has also been pointed out to you, the income tax is constitutional whether the income tax is direct or indirect, and whether or not your premise regarding withholding is relevant to anything.

[LPC]

I'm going to respond briefly, then lock the thread.

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.

Not exactly correct, but close enough.

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,

No, the court "knew" no such thing and never said any such thing.

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,

No, the court "knew" no such thing and never said any such thing.

If you can find *anything* in the Brushaber decision that says *anything* about how the tax was collected being relevant to whether the tax was constitutional, you can quote it in a new thread.

But this thread is being locked, and every other thread will be locked which starts with nothing but crap you make up.