Question 1 discussion

[Famspear]

Improper, incomplete citation. And, this material is not even a statute. It's from a congressional committee report.

This is verbiage that tax protesters have tried to use to argue that if a valid "control number" is not present on a Federal tax form, the Federal income tax cannot be imposed on the taxpayer in question.

Sorry, but that's incorrect as a matter of law. And, the courts have rejected this type of argument -- over and over and over again.

[Famspear]

In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Federal tax law was was unconstitutional and void under the Fifth Amendment. The Court also rejected the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment. The Court ruled that the Federal income tax was constitutional.

In Stratton's Independence, Limited v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913), a mining corporation argued that the 1909 corporation tax act did not apply to that corporation. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the 1909 corporation tax act did apply to mining corporations, and that the proceeds of ores mined by the corporation from its own premises were income within the meaning of the 1909 tax act. The Court also ruled that the corporation was not entitled to deduct "the value of such ore in place and before it is mined" as depreciation within the meaning the 1909 Act.

In Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), the taxpayer was a corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber. In 1903, the taxpayer purchased certain timber land at a cost of about $20 per acre. As of December 31, 1908, the value of the land had increased to about $40 per acre. The Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 was enacted on August 5, 1909, and was effective retroactively to January 1, 1909. For the years 1909 through 1912, the taxpayer filed tax returns under the 1909 Act, showing gross receipts from the sale of manufactured lumber and, in arriving at the amount of net income subject to tax under the 1909 Act, deducted an amount based on the $40 per acre value, rather than the actual cost of about $20 per acre. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue argued that the taxpayer should be able to deduct only an amount based on the taxpayer’s historical cost basis of $20, rather than the $40 fair market value at the time the 1909 Act became effective. (Essentially, if the taxpayer were allowed to use the $40 per acre value as its basis rather than the actual $20 historical cost basis, a portion of the taxpayer’s gain -- the increase in value from 1903 to December 31, 1908 -- would go untaxed.) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, however, that under the 1909 Act – which had become effective January 1, 1909 -- the taxpayer should be taxed only on the increase in value after 1908. Increases in value prior to the effective date of the statute were not to be taxed under the terms of that statute. Thus, the taxpayer was entitled to deduct, from its gross receipts from the sale of finished lumber, a basis amount computed with reference to the $40 per acre value as of December 31, 1908. The key point missed by some tax protesters is that this case involved what is known as statutory construction, not constitutional interpretation. In this case, the Court was interpreting the 1909 statute. No issues involving the constitutional definition of income, or of income under any other tax statutes, were presented to or decided by the Court. Notice also, that the taxpayer did not argue -- and the Court did not rule -- that as a general proposition taxes could not be imposed retroactively. Indeed, the tax in this case was imposed retroactively; the statute was enacted in August of 1909 but was made effective retroactively to January 1, 1909.

In Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488, 129 S. Ct. 1142 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Earth Island Institute did not have standing to challenge certain Federal regulations in connection with an approval, by the U.S. Forest Service, of a sale of timber. No Federal tax issues were presented to or decided by the Court. The word “tax” does not even appear in the text.

In Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 225 U.S. 509 (1921), the Supreme Court upheld the federal income tax on the income of the estate of a dead person. Contrary to what tax protesters claim, the Court did not rule -- and has never ruled -- that the Federal income tax is limited to taxes on corporate income or corporate gain.

In Staples v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 737 (E.D. Pa. 1937), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the value of a building erected by a tenant on the landlord's property is not income to the landlord until the land is sold or otherwise disposed of by the landlord. That's it.

in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court ruled that a stock dividend wherein the stockholder received no cash or other property was not “income” to the stockholder.

In Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal income tax on certain income of federal judges was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court later overruled this decision. See O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939) and United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001).

[Jamie0331]

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977). (See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021,
1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.) "Silence can only be equated with fraud where
there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be
intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our
revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be
able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.
If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be
tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."

[HardyW]

Tax protesters love to play with words, and falsely cite this case over and over as somehow meaning something it does not mean,

Why would they do that? It would only make them look stupid and ignorant.

and it doesn't help them at all.

So why don't they quote something that does help them?

...

Ah yes. I see.

[Famspear]

Tax protesters used to quote from Tweel all the time. They believe that the Tweel decision somehow means that they don't owe Federal income tax, or don't have to pay Federal income tax.

Sorry. That won't work.

Here's what the case is about.

Under the U.S. Constitution, under the Fourth Amendment, the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches cannot be violated. However, the person's right is not violated if that person consents to the search.

The essence of the Tweel decision is that Internal Revenue Service personnel cannot give the taxpayer technically truthful information in a way that is misleading -- to induce a taxpayer to give the IRS information that is later used against the taxpayer. A valid consent search cannot be based on consent that was induced by the IRS based on misleading statements by the IRS -- even if those statements are technically true in a narrow sense.

[HardyW]

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297, 299, 300 (1977). (See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021,
1032; Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932.)

How can we "see also" when you don't provide links?

[Jamie0331]

The essential, foundational, original intent of Congress regarding “income” taxation and taxing
authority has been slowly perverted over the decades with actions under color of law. The
original intent was known long ago, and supported by this honorable court, but which have been
twisted to mean something completely different today. Despite the quoted cases by Respondent
in response to Petition, claiming arguments were only “frivolous,” none of these cited court
cases have ever had evidence in fact entered into the record, or presented as evidence to refute
Petitioner’s, or anyone else’s, lawful challenges to “prove” them “frivolous” outside hearsay and
presumption.
Respondent failed to rebut Petitioner’s affidavit, even in part, and it is well understood that “an
unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.” (Maxims of law).
This is a fundamental law issue, and the gravity of these questions impacts every man, woman
and child in America, and has, for nearly 100 years, been corrupted to extract finances from all
citizens under a slowly perverted system that has deceived and misled even our courts to this
day, as this evidence proves. These questions are very relevant to this court’s goals, per the
court’s web site which states; “The unique position of the Supreme Court stems, in large part,
from the deep commitment of the American people to the Rule of Law and to constitutional government.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Care to site the case?

[Jamie0331]

That is ridiculous! Are you going to Cite the lower courts?

[Jamie0331]

I have no links! I have case file! Really?

[Famspear]

That is ridiculous! Are you going to Cite the lower courts?

If it's ridiculous, then why are YOU doing it? Some of your citations for Federal income tax are not to the U.S. Supreme Court. Example: the Staples case. Some are not even citations to Federal court cases -- and some of them are not tax cases at all.

But, you've highlighted another one of your misconceptions -- a misconception shared by many tax protesters: the false idea that "lower court" decisions are not the law.

LOWER COURT DECISIONS ARE THE LAW.

Under the U.S. legal system, there is a hierarchy of courts, at both the Federal and state levels.

Read and understand:

THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS NOT FROM THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OR FROM THE HIGHEST COURT OF A STATE.


Did you get that?

Where did you get your law degree? Did you find it in a box of Cracker Jacks?

[Jamie0331]

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

[Dr. Caligari]

That is ridiculous!

What is? (Other than your spam posts).

Are you going to Cite the lower courts?

Why? Are they relevant to anything? If so, why don't you cite them?

[Jamie0331]

That is ridiculously stupid what you just said. C The supreme court trumps over the lower courts! Really?

[Jamie0331]

Misconceptions? You are missleading people to believe, nonsense?

[Jamie0331]

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

What are you talking about?

[Jamie0331]

Please tell me something that Intelligent!

[Jamie0331]

Don’t even say that a person profits from working!

[Famspear]

That is ridiculously stupid what you just said. C The supreme court trumps over the lower courts! Really?

That's right. You're helping me make my point.

But, that's not what you said. What you're objecting to is the use of lower court decisions -- even though YOU YOURSELF are citing lower court decisions.

Try to stay up with the group, Einstein.

A U.S. Supreme Court decision "trumps" a lower court decision ONLY with respect to points of law decided by the Supreme Court.

THE SUPREME COURT HEARS VERY FEW CASES. AS A RESULT, MOST CASE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES IS FROM THE LOWER COURTS -- FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE LOWER COURTS HAVE NOT BEEN REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

I hope you were able to read that, Einstein.

You have no meaningful ability to understand legal materials. Look up the word "arrogate'" in a good collegiate dictionary. You are arrogating -- which means that you are arrogant. You are impliedly, but false, claiming to have understanding that you do not have.

[Famspear]

Don’t even say that a person profits from working!

A person profits from working.