Justices Won't Hear Constitutional Challenge Of Income Tax

[Dr. Caligari]

By Joshua Rosenberg

Law360 (April 30, 2018, 5:00 PM EDT) -- The U.S. Supreme Court declined Monday to hear a taxpayer's claim that because income tax is essentially an excise tax in disguise, the federal government did not have the right to collect it, in a case originally filed in the U.S. Tax Court.

The high court, in a published order list, announced its denial of a certiorari request from Charles V. Schneider against the Internal Revenue Service.

Schneider, representing himself, argued in petitions to the Tax Court in July and December 2014 that because income tax on his earnings was an excise and therefore outside the federal government’s authority to collect as established by the 16th Amendment, he was not liable to pay.

“Since there is no statutory legal duty to perform, [Schneider] did not ‘fail’ to file federal income tax returns,” Schneider stated in a brief to the Eighth Circuit in April 2017. “Any court that ruled that the ‘income tax’ is anything other than an ‘excise’ has ruled in error.”

The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, authorizes the federal government to levy income tax.

The Tax Court found Schneider liable for more than $16,000 in deficiencies for the 2010 and 2011 tax years and $5,000 for the frivolity of his lawsuits. The Eighth Circuit and, by default, the U.S. Supreme Court have upheld that ruling.

Schneider “based his petitions entirely on his contention that the federal income tax laws do not apply to him or to his income” because his receipts were outside the purview of the 16th Amendment, the counsel for the IRS commissioner stated in a brief to the Eighth Circuit.

“This contention has been rejected as frivolous by this court and others on numerous occasions,” the IRS counsel wrote.

The IRS and Schneider were not immediately available for comment.

Charles V. Schneider represented himself.

The Commissioner of the IRS was represented by Thomas J. Clark, Randolph Lyons Hutter, Gilbert Steven Rothenberg and William Wilkins.

The case is Charles V. Schneider v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, case number 17-1362, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

[notorial dissent]

Doesn't seem to know what an excise is, or what the 16th says.

[AndyK]

It's a shame that the learned nine can't stoop to the appropriate finding of "Oh crap! Not this same old shit again."

Or better yer (assuming the Supremes utilize e-filing) just return it stamped either or

[notorial dissent]

Either way, comes out de-nined!!! But yeah. And still I'll bet he thinks that he is right.

[Pottapaug1938]

Either way, comes out de-nined!!! But yeah. And still I'll bet he thinks that he is right.

Of course! The courts are corrupt; the SCOTUS justices are afraid of getting audited, etc. etc. etc.

[Famspear]

The tax protester/tax denier dingbats can't even agree among themselves.

Some of these wackos argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because the tax is an excise, and others essentially argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because it is NOT an excise.

Duhhhhh.......

[Famspear]

Here's another thread on Mr. Schneider:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 51&t=11542

[notorial dissent]

Put 5 tax nuts in the same room and you'll get 8 different and competing theories.

[Dr. Caligari]

Here's another thread on Mr. Schneider:

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 51&t=11542

Mods:
Do you want to merge the threads?

[AndyK]

No merging. Other than that they both started with the same TP/TE, they've drifted into totally different directions.

[fortinbras]

The 16th Amendment makes income susceptible to federal tax, notwithstanding any nomenclature that the unwilling taxpayer may try to use to impede that process. Similarly, by making income susceptible to federal tax, the 16th Amendment eliminated and made moot the issue of whether the tax on income was a direct or an indirect tax (there was legal authority for both positions).

[AndyK]

The previous post was a paid announcement sponsored by the sekrit gummint conspiracy.

[grixit]

The tax protester/tax denier dingbats can't even agree among themselves.

Some of these wackos argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because the tax is an excise, and others essentially argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because it is NOT an excise.

Duhhhhh.......

That's just like how some argue they cannot be taxed because they are citizens and the tax is only for foreigners, while others claim that the tax is only for citizens and they are something else.

[notorial dissent]

The upshot being that as long as "they" don't have to pay taxes then logic, internal or otherwise, doesn't matter.

[Pottapaug1938]

The tax protester/tax denier dingbats can't even agree among themselves.

Some of these wackos argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because the tax is an excise, and others essentially argue that the Congress cannot validly impose the Federal income tax because it is NOT an excise.

Duhhhhh.......

That's just like how some argue they cannot be taxed because they are citizens and the tax is only for foreigners, while others claim that the tax is only for citizens and they are something else.

Sometimes, it's because they are Preamble citizens, not 14th Amendment citizens; sometimes, it's that they are citizens of the united States, and not of the United States; and sometimes, it's because they are American citizens, and not citizens of the United States (or do I have it backward? I don't care, anyway...).

[fortinbras]

These "arguments" are not, by any stretch, new or novel. They have been raised, and consistently rejected, before.

It is worth remembering that the whole point of the income tax and the 16th Amendment was to collect revenue to finance the federal govt, using a means other than tariffs which were the previous method, and, rather obviously, the intention was to collect from as many sources, as many people, as many types of income, as possible in order to fully fund the govt.

[Colonel_Buck]

The 16th Amendment makes income susceptible to federal tax, notwithstanding any nomenclature that the unwilling taxpayer may try to use to impede that process. (I thought that income had always been available for taxing.)

Similarly, by making income susceptible to federal tax, the 16th Amendment eliminated and made moot the issue of whether the tax on income was a direct or an indirect tax (there was legal authority for both positions). (I thought that up until Pollock all taxes on income were to be considered an indirect tax and the source of the income was immaterial. Pollock carved out an exception to this general rule for income derived from real property, labeling those taxes as direct. Taxes on income derived from not real property (your job, your investments, etc.) were still considered to be indirect. The 16th Amendment returned the situation to what it was before Pollock.)

[fortinbras]

Technically, the 16th Amendment does not make income tax an indirect tax, nor does it say explicitly that the income tax is a direct tax that is privileged from being apportioned. It rather cautiously states that the income tax, no matter what it is, is collectable without being apportioned.

There is legal authority on both sides, whether it is a direct or an indirect tax. The 16th Amendment effectively mooted the debate by making it unnecessary and ineffective.

As a generality, the definitions in the Tax Code seek to bring into the govt as much money as possible.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, exactly. It allows for taxon income(s) "Whatever source". So the "type" of income became totally, absolutely, utterly irrelevant. Kind of like 99.99% of tax protestor/gurus.

Ironically, I think that were the argument made today I think that ultimately the courts would come down on the side of it being allowable, just as they changed over time from the Civil War to the 20th C. We'll never know though since it is an irrelevant argument at this point.

[Blackbeard]

I love it when people try to argue that the Constitution is unconstitutional.