SteveSy wrote:Famspear wrote:Unfortunately, even if that statement were true, the statement would be worth nothing. The law is what the courts rule the law to be, not what a bunch of tax protesters argue is "found in history from anyone in that era." The federal courts -- including the United States Supreme Court in its 1881 decision in Springer -- are not only better interpreters of the legal history of the Constitution than you are, Steve, the courts are also authoritative. The courts have ruled the way I say they have ruled. The forest is what I say the forest is, not what you say it is, Steve. And the trees are what I say they are, not what you say they are.
True....but then the same could be said about every single tyrannical regime known to exist or existed. Everyone loses against them in the end, even if there are insignificant little wins in the process. It doesn't matter if those contending the government is acting illegal [sic] are right or not. Governments don't attain their massive iron fist power over their people by losing to them in court.
No, Steve, the reason that people lose on tax protester arguments is not that the system is "tyrannical". And the reason people lose in court on tax protester arguments is not because the Government uses a "massive iron fist power" over people. What a goofy argument, Steve (this, from SteveSy, who professes to have studied American history -- from someone who seems to imply that because of the availability of materials on the internet, he somehow has better grasp of U.S. constitutional history than some of the judges or justices of the federal courts)!
In rendering decisions on federal taxes, Federal judges are not under the control or influence of the Internal Revenue Service or the Justice Department or anybody else in the federal government. Indeed, the government wins some tax cases and loses others. The government loses big tax cases all the time, and not just income tax cases. Here's one clue: Go back and look at the 2006 Form 1040, line 71. Take a wild guess as to why that line is there. Courts rule against the government in federal income tax cases all the time. If you were right, Steve, I and many other CPAs and attorneys would be out of a job -- which I am not. You are wrong.
btw, if Springer was truly binding concerning all income taxes then Pollock either overruled Springer making it meaningless or Springer did not say what you think they said. Pollock would have lost because ALL income taxes would have been constitutional as an excise tax regardless. The Springer court offered no exclusions, if in fact they were talking about every type of tax on income.
Clue #1:
Springer is binding. The Court essentially ruled that a federal income tax is an indirect tax. However, see Clue #2.
Clue #2: Earth calling Steve: The
Pollock decision did indeed limit, or narrow (or partially overrule, if you like) the holding in
Springer (the holding that an income tax is an indirect tax)! The
Pollock court held that taxes on
income in the form of interest, dividends and rentals were to be treated as direct taxes (meaning that those particular income taxes were required to be apportioned). Unfortunately for tax protesters, a tax on
compensation from an occupation (whether called wage, salary, bonus, or anything else) is not a tax on interest, dividends or rentals. In 1895, the
Pollock court ruled that the
source of the income (income from property versus income from an occupation, for example) suddenly had to be considered in determining whether the income tax (on the
income from that source) was required to be apportioned. Under
Pollock, the SOURCE of the income was relevant from about 1895 to about 1913. But during that period, there was still no requirement that a tax on income from an occupation be treated as a direct tax. The
Pollock court expressly stated that its holding applied narrowly, and only, to one category of sources of income: income in the form of dividends, rents, and interest.
Clue #3: The
Pollock holding itself, as narrow as that holding was, was itself overruled by the Sixteenth Amendment. Under subsequent court decisions after 1913, you are back to square one. No income tax is required to be apportioned.
No provision of the United States Constitution prohibits any kind of income tax whatsoever. The only substantial constitutional restriction on an income tax is the one on the mode of imposition: all federal income taxes are probably required to be imposed with geographical uniformity (meaning, presumably, that you cannot impose the tax ONLY on incomes of residents of, say, New York and Montana, and not in the other parts of the country).
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
