The logic of Brushaber

[nattyb]

Maybe we should study other opinions by Chief Justice White from that era. I wonder if this one was an anomaly. Hey, I think I might do some research on that.

In my spare time.

When I get around to it.

If you go back to the Pollock decision and read the dissenting opinions I think you can get your mind around White's logic in Brushaber.

In 1894, White was newly appointed to the court. In Pollock he challenged the majority opinion as to their faulty logic in overturning that tax act. In 1916, White was the last remaining member on the court from the Pollock court. I don't think you can understand White's reasoning in Brushaber until you understand White's dissenting opinion in Pollock. In essence, White is giving his former colleagues the old "I told you so, now there, ha!"

[nattyb]

nothing

Hey michael/jameson, you said you wanted to discuss logic. Would you please go back to the first post in this thread and discuss the logic I posted there? Please don't paste long quotes. Use your own words and keep them brief.

[Famspear]

Maybe we should study other opinions by Chief Justice White from that era. I wonder if this one was an anomaly. Hey, I think I might do some research on that.

In my spare time.

When I get around to it.

If you go back to the Pollock decision and read the dissenting opinions I think you can get your mind around White's logic in Brushaber.

In 1894, White was newly appointed to the court. In Pollock he challenged the majority opinion as to their faulty logic in overturning that tax act. In 1916, White was the last remaining member on the court from the Pollock court. I don't think you can understand White's reasoning in Brushaber until you understand White's dissenting opinion in Pollock. In essence, White is giving his former colleagues the old "I told you so, now there, ha!"

I understand Justice White's reasoning in Brushaber, and it makes sense to me. I'm saying that the way he constructed his sentences was awful. I'm saying that he wasn't very "grammatical" in the way he expressed himself in the Brushaber case. It's not the reasoning that is hard to follow for me. Once I slog though his poor writing and understand the meaning he intends to convey, the transition from Pollock, thence to the Sixteenth Amendment, and thence to Brushaber, is obvious (at least, for me).

[LPC]

I understand Justice White's reasoning in Brushaber, and it makes sense to me. I'm saying that the way he constructed his sentences was awful.

I agree. It is in many ways one of the most convoluted and poorly written opinions I've ever read.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
I understand Justice White's reasoning in Brushaber, and it makes sense to me. ...

Perhaps there is a parallel universe;

I understand Stephen Hawking's reasoning but it makes sense to me because of his communication skills - having digested A Brief History of Time, as correlated to my education.

I only "understand" White's reasoning as a result of being among the Quatloos community for an extended period of time.

Score 10 for Hawking, 1 for White.

Clearly, more education would be appropriate.

[notorial dissent]

FWIW, I agree with Famspear and LPC here. I think this is possibly the poorest piece of legal writing I have ever intentionally subjected myself to, and I can see why it is confusing to people. The logic and rationale are there, but it is buried under a swamp of needless and prolix prose. I just don't see why he couldn't have come straight out and said what he meant rather than embroidering it for whole rambling paragraphs. Since all he really needed to say was that the amendment did not alter the "two great classes of taxes", but that it did exempt or relieved a group of taxes "income" from the apportionment rule, and therefore, the Income Tax laws as written were constitutional.

[nattyb]

Since all he really needed to say was that the amendment did not alter the "two great classes of taxes", but that it did exempt or relieved a group of taxes "income" from the apportionment rule, and therefore, the Income Tax laws as written were constitutional.

All he needed to say, and which he did say through all of his convolution, was that income taxes were indirect taxes- always were regardless of any amendment.
This was a period in history where there was a convergence of ideas regarding taxes. It is evident that the Pollock court was not going to allow an income tax so they created the source argument. White thought that was illogical. Along comes the 16th Amendment and Brushaber again challenges the income tax law with convoluted arguments all based on what White thought to be a misinterpretation of the Amendment. So White comes up with this conclusion that all the Amendment did was do away with the old source argument from Pollock.

It is kinda like what we are seeing today with the courts and Obama care. Congress wants to force everyone to get health insurance. Some say they can do that through the commerce clause. Others say they can't force us to do anything without an amendment. TPs would say it only applies to "federal citizens" not sovereigns. Obama says no new taxes. So here comes Roberts saying Congress can't force us to get insurance but they can impose a tax on those who don't as long as it is not onerous enough to be considered a penalty. Now the challenge is whether or not Congress can supplement those in States that did not expand Medicaid.

[Pottapaug1938]

I recall reading a book about the New Deal, and in particular about one of FDR's proposed initiatives (I can't recall what it was). At one point, one of the chief architects was at some sort of gathering where Chief Justice Stone was also present; and at one point he made a comment along the lines of "you can do almost anything with the taxing power", as if to hint at a way to make the initiative withstand Supreme Court review without overtly crossing an ethical boundary.

[Micheal360]

Maybe we should study other opinions by Chief Justice White from that era. I wonder if this one was an anomaly. Hey, I think I might do some research on that.

In my spare time.

When I get around to it.

If you go back to the Pollock decision and read the dissenting opinions I think you can get your mind around White's logic in Brushaber.

In 1894, White was newly appointed to the court. In Pollock he challenged the majority opinion as to their faulty logic in overturning that tax act. In 1916, White was the last remaining member on the court from the Pollock court. I don't think you can understand White's reasoning in Brushaber until you understand White's dissenting opinion in Pollock. In essence, White is giving his former colleagues the old "I told you so, now there, ha!"

You are drawing the wrong conclusion. Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET has tried to point this out in his past postings. Chief Justice White decisions on what the 16th amendment did and did not do are clearly distinctive. There is no interpretation. For some odd reason people are drawing the conclusion that Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET or I are going to petition the tax court with this belief. I want to make it clear that we are not and have never thought about doing so.

Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET has Filed appeals with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the IRS. They have their own procedures. Jameson MY SOCK PUPPET wants me to to post the letter For reasons I don't know. Doesn't matter what you say on this form, people are just going to draw their own conclusions and think that they are right. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the IRS has never refuted this letter.

To the IRS,

I believe that the IRS has violated my constitutional right of due process which I am guaranteed within the provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

I believe that my income should be exempted because it is not taxable income in the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it in the meaning of the Constitution.

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

Cited by chief justice White Fuller "It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller does not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another."

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

This is the text of the Amendment:

'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.'

Cited in the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) case
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. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... invol=1#18

I believe the IRS is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions and are operating in bad faith.

I believe all my income tax debt is from the misuse of the 16th amendment and should be exempted.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department of revenue are obligated to investigate on this issue and deliver a clear decision whether or not this information is correct or incorrect. I know Framer will say that it's incorrect, because he is the income tax champion of the world's. He is the only one who possesses this unique ability to read.

If you have to interpret the text in this letter, you might want to take a reading class. Because it clearly explains what the 16th amendment didn't. And this is case law and the Department of revenue, IRS, in the lower courts have to be in compliance with Chief Justice Whites decisions and interpretation of the 16th amendment. It is quite clear that the lower courts would be violating anybody's constitutional rights of due process under the Fifth Amendment if they were to present this argument. This is not my belief that Chief Justice Whites interpretation of the 16th amendment is correct. It is a fact that it is correct. There is no interpretation of his interpretation. But somehow I'm sure somebody will try to disagree with that.

Edited to eliminate split personality problem. AndyK

[.]

Enough BS. Ban 'em both.

[Pottapaug1938]

Agreed. Jamie and his cockpuppet have had the law explained to him; but all we get from him is rehashed and discredited tax denier gibberish. He's had his chance; and it's achingly obvious that, if he remains here, he will waste our time with more of the same.

Jamie, I hope that you don't live in the Boston area. I'm afraid that I'll be driving along somewhere; and with your head in the clouds and your brain in neutral you will step out in front of my car without troubling to see that I'm approaching.

[wserra]

I thought I'd respond for the IRS to Jamie's letter. They have enough to do around now, and they can't tell it like it is. That would be rude.

To the IRS,

Howdy.

I believe that the IRS has violated my constitutional right of due process which I am guaranteed within the provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

That's nice. Of course, your belief and a Metrocard will get you on the subway.

I believe that my income should be exempted because it is not taxable income in the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it in the meaning of the Constitution.

That's nice too. Who appointed you to the Supreme Court?

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty.

Well, I wouldn't say "defined". True, it is classified as such.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

Sometimes yes, sometimes not so much. I'm going to omit the lengthy quote from Brushaber, Jamie. I seem to recall that the folks over at a site called "Quatloos" have told you ad nauseam why it doesn't mean what you say it means. Matter of fact, I'm sure they're getting tired of doing so.

I believe the IRS is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions and are operating in bad faith.

Oh? We don't think so.

I believe all my income tax debt is from the misuse of the 16th amendment and should be exempted.

Oh? We don't think so.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department of revenue are obligated to investigate on this issue and deliver a clear decision whether or not this information is correct or incorrect.

We are? Like you, Jamie, we are only obligated to do what the law requires. Please point out where the law requires us to respond to letters from wackos. Oh, you want a private letter ruling? Well, that's something else. Please send your request along with the appropriate fee - approximately $2000 in guaranteed funds, please, given the nature of your request.

But here's a free hint, Jamie - the guys at Quatloos answered your questions correctly, and it didn't cost you a dime.

Love,
The Commish

[Famspear]

I believe all my income tax debt is from the misuse of the 16th amendment and should be exempted.

I believe that all the women in the world find me astonishingly suave and debonair, and that they should be lovin' on me.

Of course, I somehow developed this belief through none other than my idiosyncratic interpretation of the text of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Brushaber. Gosh, there's so much good stuff to be gleaned from that text!

Hey, if Jameson/Micheal can do it, why can't I?

[Judge Roy Bean]

... The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the IRS has [sic] never refuted this letter. ...

A simple question: Why should they?

[Hyrion]

I believe ...

I believe ....

Hmm.... if this is about belief as Jameson/Micheal seem to believe..... does it become a reality if more people hold the same belief?

I believe I'll test that belief...... lesseeee.... we need something good......

I believe that Jameson/Micheal will be involved in a freak accident with the LHC and find himself aboard the Star Trek Enterprise D in an alternate reality. Come on folks, help the belief come true.

[Hyrion]

Interesting.... any bets on how long Jameson/Michael has till he's facing a State/Federal Court hearing rather then just dealing with the IRS review section?

On the one hand, I'd like to bet he has till 2017 - of which time he'll have plenty of further opportunity to dig himself in deeper. The bet is based on a recent posting with the subject "Ottaviano Disciples Lose on Pure Trust Claim". They were covering the tax years 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The ruling was dated Mar 24, 2015.

From the horses own mouth (I apologize for any insult regards the intelligence of horses):

My hearing request application for abatement of personal income tax on the tax years 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.

Given he started down the rabbit hole in 2004, that would give him 2 years.

On the other hand, it sounds like the IRS review has already begun. As a result, I give him 6 months.

[NYGman]

... The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the IRS has [sic] never refuted this letter. ...

A simple question: Why should they?

I love the fact that he believes that both the IRS and MA DOR have an affirmative obligation to refute his gibberish letters, and he is taking their lack of response as a victory.

There would be no reason to reach out to rather the IRS or MA DOR unless they had him on their radar already. I wonder how far down this rabbit hole he actually is....

It is funny though that he is trying to argue a contrary position from Brushaber, and is having no luck here, no matter how many times he tries to tell us what he believes. The fact that no one agrees with him, and that many posters here do have legal training, or tax expertise, should be a sign of things to come, if he tries to make the same argument to the IRS/MA DOR.

Some people believe there is a Tooth Dairy, others believe in Santa Clause, some people believe the earth is flat, there are some who believe the earth is nearly 6000 years old. These people are not experts, and while they may have strong beliefs, the experts would be right in saying none of these things are true.

As much as you believe Brushaber supports your position that the income tax is not applicable to you, the FACT is, you are wrong. You are not a legal scholar, you do not understand how to analyze a legal opinion, you do not understand legal writing or legal principals, you are not qualified to have a belief in this area.

I will also add, the intent of our government is to impose an income tax. They enacted the 16th amendment to get around the Pollock decision, you better believe they would have addressed Brushaber if it impacted their desire to implement an income tax. However, as Brushaber doesn't say what you think it says, they didn't do this.

[LPC]

To the IRS,

I believe that the IRS has violated my constitutional right of due process which I am guaranteed within the provisions of the Fifth Amendment.

Here's a hint about the meaning of "due process": It is NOT the same as "a result I don't like."

I believe that my income should be exempted because it is not taxable income in the provisions of the 16th amendment nor is it in the meaning of the Constitution.

Your belief that your income is not income carries about the same weight as your belief that your dog is not a dog.

The income tax is defined by the Supreme Court to be an excise tax or a duty.

And excises and duties do not need to be apportioned, just like taxes on incomes do not need to be apportioned under the 16th Amendment.

Moreover, whatever the reasons for the constitutional provisions, there they are, and they appear to us to speak in plain language.

Cited by chief justice White Fuller "It is said that a tax on the whole income of property is not a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution, but a duty, and, as a duty, leviable without apportionment, whether direct or indirect. Mr. Chief Justice Fuller does not think so. Direct taxation was not restricted in one breath, and the restriction blown to the winds in another."

You're quoting from Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895). However:

“[T]there is no escape from the conclusion that the [16th] Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided....” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Any argument that relies upon the Pollock decisions is therefore almost certainly wrong.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

This is the text of the Amendment:

'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.'

That's the 16th Amendment, which was proposed in 1913 and ratified in 1916, but Chief Justice Fuller left the Supreme Court in 1910, and so it's fairly certain he never wrote any opinions for the Supreme Court quoting the 16th Amendment.

Cited in the BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) case
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. ....

So taxes on all incomes can be imposed without apportionment.

I believe the IRS is not in compliance with the Supreme Court decisions and are operating in bad faith.

What Supreme Court decisions? Brushaber? Brushaber says that the federal income tax is constitutional. How can the IRS not be in compliance with a decision that says that the tax that is being collected is constitutional?

I believe all my income tax debt is from the misuse of the 16th amendment and should be exempted.

I believe that I am the Emperor of Ice Cream.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Department of revenue are obligated to investigate on this issue and deliver a clear decision whether or not this information is correct or incorrect.

And if they don't, you should stamp your little feet and hold your breath until they do.

If you have to interpret the text in this letter, you might want to take a reading class. Because it clearly explains what the 16th amendment didn't.

All it explains is that, under the 16th Amendment, the federal income tax is constitutional without apportionment.

And this is case law and the Department of revenue, IRS, in the lower courts have to be in compliance with Chief Justice Whites decisions and interpretation of the 16th amendment.

What makes you think they aren't?

Repeating the same conclusion over and over again doesn't "explain" anything.

[Hyrion]

I just realized something. Jameson/Michael has never actually "connected the dots". In other words, he's never explained how the rulings he's quoting leads to the conclusions he's formed. Not once, ever. He points at the Court citations and then claims they mean something different then what is clearly stated.

In a Court Of Law, I believe he's supposed to present a clear line of reasoning for how he gets from point A to his conclusion of point G... yet in none of these threads has he ever outlined how he even gets to point B. For example he concludes:

It is quite clear that the lower courts would be violating anybody's constitutional rights of due process under the Fifth Amendment if they were to present this argument.

And yet he never identifies how such a ruling would be violating anyone's constitutional rights.

He states many "beliefs" - but again, no identification how he arrived at those beliefs. In my humble opinion, his beliefs are nothing more then an attempt to be able to claim a "good faith belief" on why he choose not to file his taxes properly - and like everyone else, he'll fail at that goal.

All my humble opinions of course.

[Famspear]

I just realized something. Jameson/Michael has never actually "connected the dots". In other words, he's never explained how the rulings he's quoting leads to the conclusions he's formed. Not once, ever....

Yes, and he does not seem to be aware of this fact. He keeps dumping copy-and-paste quotations from cases like Brushaber, and then following the dumps with his written conclusion.

Essentially, there should be at least three parts in this kind of analysis (at least, in the form in which he is trying to present his argument).

First, you quote from the text of the case. He's done that.

Second, you carefully explain what the case really means. (This is the part he's left out.)

Third, you state your conclusion (he's done that).

It's step two that is missing.

Think of a chain link fence.

Think of step 1 as a fence post. Step 3 is the next fence post. Step 2 is the mesh of chain link that connects the two posts together.

What he is doing is presenting the two posts, without the chain link mesh in the middle. He has presented no connection between the two posts -- no connection between the Brushaber verbiage he's copied and the conclusion he wants to reach.

The chain link mesh that should be found between the two fence posts is analogous to what logicians call the inference -- the leap between premise (the first fence post) and conclusion (the second fence post). In order to get from the first post to the second post, you have to actually move - you have to show the connection.

Many people falsely perceive their data and their conclusions as being so close together that the two are practically "touching", so that there is somehow no need for an inference. This mistake induces the kind of frustration that Jameson/Micheal is feeling. He can't figure out why the rest of the world can't see what he urgently believes he "sees" so "clearly." He hasn't figured out that because there is a physical difference between the material he's quoting from Brushaber and the text of his own conclusions, he's missing a step in the analysis. The step he is missing is the written analysis he needs to write that would describe what he believes the text of Brushaber means, and how that "meaning" supposedly leads, in a logical way, to his conclusions. He hasn't provided a bridge for the gap between the two fence posts.

Of course, he has the additional problem of not understanding what he is reading in the Brushaber case. In short, even if he were to try, he would never be successful in bridging the gap between Brushaber and his conclusions. His understanding of the text of the opinion is wrong, and his conclusions do not logically follow from the actual meaning of the text.

EDIT: Edited once to clarify my first paragraph.