Blowhard's Petition for En Banc Re-Hearing of Appeal

[Famspear]

That's fine...however, how can the government force someone to sign something saying they believe something to be true and correct when they don't. I can sit here and tell you right now, I've read all the court cases and what the IRS has said and I still do not believe them.

No, Steve, you DO believe them. You just DISAGREE with them. You are trying to transmute your awareness of what the law is (i.e, your awareness that the courts have ruled the way they have ruled) into a "belief." You can call it your own "belief," but that does not change the point that your so-called "belief" is not the kind of "belief" to which the text of the jurat on a tax return is referring. Also, your "belief" is not the kind of "belief" that negates willfulness under the criminal tax statutes.

It's ridiculous to conclude someone didn't file, and then charge them with failing to file, when they did file just because what you wrote is not in accordance with the IRS's or the courts beliefs or becuase you refused to sign a jurat stating you personally believe what they said is true and accurate.

Huh? Wanna run that by me again?

And if you honestly believe the "bow and arrow" theory[,] why should you be forced to lie and sign something saying you believe something else?

Sorry, but you don't "honestly believe" it. A mere "SteveSy" belief, if you will, is not sufficient. You must have a GOOD FAITH belief, an HONEST belief. If you are aware that your so-called "belief" about the tax law does not comport with what the courts have ruled, then you do not have a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law, no matter how strongly your "SteveSy belief" that the courts are wrong may be. Instead, what you have is an actual awareness of what the law is -- coupled with a DISAGREEMENT with that law in the form of a "SteveSy belief" that the real law is somehow not really the law, and that the "SteveSy law" is somehow real. That's not a good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law. That's a "studied" but incorrect conclusion that the law is something other than what you are aware the courts have ruled the law to be.

It's not a matter of making up your own legal rules.

Yes it is. That's exactly what you, Steve, do. And that's exactly what Hendrickson does.

That specifically says "I", not the court, IRS or Famspear but the person signing it. Just because the courts, IRS or you believe differently does not require everyone else to also believe it.

No, sorry, it's not a question of what the courts "believe." The law is what the courts rule the law to be. The law has no "SteveSy existence" separate from what the courts have ruled, regardless of how strongly you, Steve, argue that the courts are "wrong."

I mean this is so fundamentally wrong its pitiful.

Oh, what a tragedy! Petey is required to file federal income tax returns under penalty of perjury in accordance with what he is aware the courts have ruled! We won't let him use his own "law" to argue that he shouldn't have to sign under penalty of perjury regarding his "belief" about his "Peter Hendrickson law."

Sell it to Irwin Schiff, Steve.

Maybe he [Hendrickson] is wrong and maybe he knows it and is only trying to scam. It certainly doesn't mean everyone believes the court or the IRS concerning the income tax.

Again, the "belief" to which you refer is not the "belief" that the perjury statute covers, and it's not the "belief" that the tax statutes cover. Your "belief" is nothing more than a disagreement with a known legal duty -- a duty of which you are aware. When you try to decide for yourself what the law is, you, like any defendant in a criminal case, must take the risk of being wrong. That's the law. Sorry.

I can post several examples right now, that weren't overturned by the Supreme Court where a circuit court got it completely wrong concerning the income tax. Many of you will even admit they were wrong which proves they are not incapable of being wrong.

No, if I argue that a particular court was "wrong," what I mean is that I disagree with its rationale, or that other courts have ruled another way, and that maybe this court is in the minority. But I do not delude myself into "believing" (in the SteveSy sense) that the court's ruling is not an authoritative ruling on the law. You don't seem to handle these nuances very well, Steve.

[cynicalflyer]

No, if I argue that a particular court was "wrong," what I mean is that I disagree with its rationale, or that other courts have ruled another way, and that maybe this court is in the minority. But I do not delude myself into "believing" (in the SteveSy sense) that the court's ruling is not an authoritative ruling on the law. You don't seem to handle these nuances very well, Steve.

And I think herein lies much of the confusion in TP land and with Steve in light of his prior answer to my question why he thought the income tax is "wrong".

The "logic" seems to follow that:
1) I do not like government activity X.
2) I do not want government to conduct activity X.
3) I think the government conducting activity X is unconstitutional.
4) The income tax is used in part to fund in part activity X.

Through the TP "mind" this gets processed into.

Conclusion: The income tax is something I do not like, do not want government engaged in, and think is unconstitutional. All these make the income tax "wrong".

Moreover, when I asked SteveSy how he meant "wrong"(Inefficent? Too regressive? Morally? Ethically?) The answer came back "all of the above".

But there is a giant difference between saying a law is morally or ethically wrong and saying it is constitutionally wrong or that a court's ruling on it is "wrong" as a matter of authority.

There are a great many people who would argue the income tax is "wrong" in a policy sense (inefficient, too regressive) or that it violates some moral law or societal ethical norm.

However, all but the most beyond the realm of reason (i.e. typical TPs, SteveSy apparently among them) would argue that because something is immoral or unethical in their opinion, it must be unconstitutional or somehow legally wrong to collect the income tax.

When St. Augstine, and later in Letter from a Birmingham Jail Martin Luther King, Jr., argued that "an unjust law is no law at all" this was to suggest that a temporal law that did not "square with the moral law or the law of God" wasn't "valid", only that it was trumped by the higher moral obligation to one another and/or God. When Thurgood Marshall went into the U.S. Supreme Court to argue Brown, he did not rely on claims the law was immoral or call the justices and judges below idiots, morons, etc. Instead, he argued things like the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection. He won (any guess how Pete's going to fare?)

So if you really think the income tax is "wrong" in a moral sense, King and for that matter Henry David Thoreau demonstrated the proper way of things. Not to invent your own law, but go ahead and disobey the law you think is unjust and then take your jail term.

[SteveSy]

However, all but the most beyond the realm of reason (i.e. typical TPs, SteveSy apparently among them) would argue that because something is immoral or unethical in their opinion, it must be unconstitutional or somehow legally wrong to collect the income tax.

I do not believe its unconstitutional because its immoral or unethical. I believe its unconstitutional becuase of the historical facts. The simplest of which is where is anyone, anyone at all, during or shortly after the ratification saying a general income tax is an indirect tax? I can find several saying the general opinion is that it is a direct tax.

Certainly if it was so well known and obvious someone, anyone would have said it during that period yet, not a single quote can be found.

[Famspear]

I do not believe its [sic] unconstitutional because its [sic] immoral or unethical. I believe its unconstitutional becuase [sic] of the historical facts. The simplest of which is where is anyone, anyone at all, during or shortly after the ratification saying a general income tax is an indirect tax? I can find several saying the general opinion is that it is a direct tax.

Certainly if it was so well known and obvious someone, anyone would have said it during that period yet, not a single quote can be found.

"Historical facts" do not make something unconstitutional, even assuming that all your "SteveSy historical facts" are correct. The absence of a comment by the Founding Fathers, etc. (to the effect that a general income tax was considered an "indirect" tax) is of no moment. This is another imaginary "SteveSy rule": If I can't find some statement by the Founding Fathers somewhere that supports my opponent's argument, then I, SteveSy, must be right."

No.

Under the U.S. legal system, where people disagree about whether something is constitutional, the constitutionality is and always has been something ultimately determined by a court of law, not by "SteveSy" or (someone else) performing his (or her) own idiosyncratic "historical analysis." It's a legal question, not a historical question. Yes, history is relevant, and yes, the courts sometimes consider "history" -- but history is not the sole detemining factor in a legal determination. And the determination is legally valid and binding only if it's made in the form of a court ruling. (Sorry, Steve, that leaves your "historical analysis" out in the cold.)

Further, under the Sixteenth Amendment, it does not matter whether a particular "general" federal income tax is a "direct" tax or an "indirect" tax. Steve would have us read the Sixteenth Amendment as though it said:

"Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several states and without regard to any census or enumeration as long as the income tax in question is not a direct tax."

That's not what it says. I'll spare you the quotation of the actual text. I think you probably know it by heart by now.

[ASITStands]

So if you really think the income tax is "wrong" in a moral sense, King and for that matter Henry David Thoreau demonstrated the proper way of things. Not to invent your own law, but go ahead and disobey the law you think is unjust and then take your jail term.

Another way, which never occurs to tax deniers, would be to file a return in the normal manner, pay the tax and make a claim for refund based on whatever argument you wish.

Failing to persuade the IRS during administrative process of the validity of your argument, and perhaps even failing to convince tax and appellate courts, the next step would be to acquiesce to the demands of filing and paying and making a claim for refund.

I doubt it would work any better on claim for refund than it did during administrative process or review, though maybe it would defeat any corollary criminal investigation.

Anyway, the way described above is the only real way to protest the tax as it now stands.

[Paul]

I can find several saying the general opinion is that it is a direct tax.

And, if it is, then the 16th Amendment removes the ONLY restriction on Congress' power to enact a direct tax, other than one on exports. So, if you are right and the income tax is direct, what's the problem?

[SteveSy]

I can find several saying the general opinion is that it is a direct tax.

And, if it is, then the 16th Amendment removes the ONLY restriction on Congress' power to enact a direct tax, other than one on exports. So, if you are right and the income tax is direct, what's the problem?

Whatever Paul, the Supreme Court has made it very clear the 16th did not modify or amend the rule of apportionment concerning direct taxes of any kind.

Here are the cases I was referring to:

While courts may have offered differing views of the income tax over time, the United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the federal income tax for 80 years. Since 1916, the Court has construed the tax as an indirect tax authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the U.S. Constitution, as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11, 16-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916).

- United States v. Melton, 86 F.3d 1153 (4th Cir. 05/22/1996)

The cases cited by Francisco clearly establish that the income tax is a direct tax, thus refuting the argument based upon his first theory. See Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 19, 36 S. Ct. 236, 242, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916) (the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to take the income tax "out of the class of excises, duties and imposts and place it in the class of direct taxes").

- United States v. Francisco, 614 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 02/06/1980)

Dickstein's argument that the sixteenth amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly is devoid of any arguable basis in law. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit recently noted "the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition." In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989). For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct non-apportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves, see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct.

- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 11/27/1990)


Wow Brushaber said two exact opposite things...lol One of the circuit courts are clearly wrong. I, nor anyone else, have reason to just adopt their opinions as fact. Obviously they are capable of error.

Just for informational purposes here is what Brushaber said about the 16th:

but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption...

btw, Francisco was sanctioned for arguing the income tax was an indirect tax according to Brushaber. Its almost hilarious reading opinions of judges clearly acting like they're superior berating the defendant when they expose how incompetent they are in their opinion. I mean, these are self professed experts at the law yet they can't even comprehend simple English in a Supreme Court case and you think I should accept their word as fact and adopt it as my own belief? Give me a break. How am I to know which judge to believe and who I shouldn'tt concerning the income tax, certainly some of them are wrong, how do I know they're not all wrong?

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Whatever Paul, the Supreme Court has made it very clear the 16th did not modify or amend the rule of apportionment concerning direct taxes of any kind.

No, that's incorrect. Quite to the contrary. The Supreme Court and all federal courts have made it clear that the Sixteenth Amendment did indeed modify the rule of apportionment concerning INCOME taxes. Since 1913, the courts have, without a single exception, ruled that income taxes are not required to be apportioned -- regardless of whether any particular income tax was deemed (or would have been deemed) in the Pollock decision to be a direct tax or not.

This is old, old ground you're trying to rehash, Steve.

EDIT: Steve is yet another example of an individual trying hard, so hard, to "believe" something preposterous when that "belief" coincides with his own self-interest. In this case, his self-interest is not only financial but also emotional. Steve would have us believe that the Sixteenth Amendment does not remove the apportionment requirement (if any) for income taxes, despite the point that the Amendment specificaly says that income taxes are not required to be apportioned. Steve would have us believe that that the Supreme Court or other federal courts have ruled that income taxes are required to be apportioned, despite the fact that every single time a tax protester has gone to a federal court and has made Steve's argument, the court has rejected it.

On the one hand, Steve rejects the rulings of judges in courts of law, saying that he, Steve, "decides the law" for himself. Yet he strains to find snippets of the texts in various court cases and "scotch tapes" (registered trademark) those snippets together to support his argument that the courts have "clearly" ruled something that the courts have clearly never ruled.

Oh, what a miserable life for you, Steve.

[Famspear]

By the way, Steve, go back and look at the cases you just cited. Look at the bolded material. And think, think, think about what you wrote.

The court in Francisco said that the income tax is a direct tax. We know that the income tax in that case was not apportioned. Yet, the court upheld the tax. Even in THIS case where a federal court ruled a post-1913 income tax to be a direct tax, the tax was upheld.

In Collins, the court did not say (if I recall correctly, as I haven't read the entire case in a while) that the federal income tax was a "direct" tax. What the court said was that the Sixteenth Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is "direct" -- which of course is correct. The Amendment DOES authorize such a tax. That does not mean that the Amendment created the power to tax incomes. That does not mean that the Amendment "creates" an income tax that is a direct tax. That does not mean that the current income tax IS a direct tax. It just means that the Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is direct.

The whole point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to make the question -- of whether a particular federal income tax is "direct" or not -- legally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment requirement. And that's exactly what happened.

Look at the Francisco and other cases you yourself cited. The result: If it's a federal income tax, it's not required to be apportioned, regardless of whether it's a direct tax or not.

Again, Steve, you grasp and thrash frantically at actual inconsistencies (and yes the court's statement in Francisco, that the current income tax is a "direct" tax, is indeed an inconsistency, a minority position, with respect to most other court cases, where the income tax is typically called "indirect") and nuances (as in Collins) and you ignore the actual results in Francisco and Collins -- results that illustrate the loony nature of your own theory about the Sixteenth Amendment.

[SteveSy]

By the way, Steve, go back and look at the cases you just cited. Look at the bolded material. And think, think, think about what you wrote.

The court in Francisco said that the income tax is a direct tax. We know that the income tax in that case was not apportioned. Yet, the court upheld the tax. Even in THIS case where a federal court ruled a post-1913 income tax to be a direct tax, the tax was upheld.

That's almost funny. The court upheld the tax based on an erroneous assumption...see Brushaber. A big whoosh for you.

In Collins, the court did not say (if I recall correctly, as I haven't read the entire case in a while) that the federal income tax was a "direct" tax. What the court said was that the Sixteenth Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is "direct" -- which of course is correct. The Amendment DOES authorize such a tax.

No it does not see Brushaber, Baltic mining and Tyee.

Here is a basic reason why. Such a tax would not be controlled by the rule of apportionment nor uniformity, it would have created a new power of taxation. All indirect taxes must be uniform and all direct taxes must be apportioned. It would be a new kind of tax allowing for arbitrary taxation with no rule as to how it must be laid. The Supreme Court exposed this possibility as an erroneous assumption.

That does not mean that the Amendment created the power to tax incomes. That does not mean that the Amendment "creates" an income tax that is a direct tax. That does not mean that the current income tax IS a direct tax. It just means that the Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is direct.

Wrong, see Brushaber and numerous other SC cases.

The whole point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to make the question -- of whether a particular federal income tax is "direct" or not -- legally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment requirement. And that's exactly what happened.

Wrong, see Brushaber and numerous other SC cases. The 16th merely prevented the reasoning used in Pollock nothing more nothing less.

Look at the Francisco and other cases you yourself cited. The result: If it's a federal income tax, it's not required to be apportioned, regardless of whether it's a direct tax or not.

How about you look at them and realize that not even the circuit courts are sure how a general income tax is constitutional. All they do know is it is, they're just not sure how.

Again, Steve, you grasp and thrash frantically at actual inconsistencies (and yes the court's statement in Francisco, that the current income tax is a "direct" tax, is indeed an inconsistency, a minority position, with respect to most other court cases, where the income tax is typically called "indirect") and nuances (as in Collins) and you ignore the actual results in Francisco and Collins -- results that illustrate the loony nature of your own theory about the Sixteenth Amendment.

The point being which you obviously missed or just want to miss is that the courts have very different interpretations of how the income tax is constitutional. Both can not be true, it can not be an indirect tax and not direct and at the same time direct and not indirect. There is no such thing as the quantum tax theory. More importantly it shows that there is reason to not just accept their opinions as fact. You sit there and act like its impossible to believe contrary to the courts opinion. I've shown why there is reason to not accept everything they say as fact. What we're talking about is not a "nuance", it concerns the very foundation which a general income tax is constitutional. If a tax on the income of the average person is a direct tax then it still requires apportionment, end of story.

[Dezcad]

If a tax on the income of the average person is a direct tax then it still requires apportionment, end of story.

Maybe I'm jumping in here a little late Steve, but if you think the above is true then-

What was the purpose and effect of the 16th Amendment?

[SteveSy]

If a tax on the income of the average person is a direct tax then it still requires apportionment, end of story.

Maybe I'm jumping in here a little late Steve, but if you think the above is true then-

What was the purpose and effect of the 16th Amendment?

To stop the reasoning used in Pollock. That is, to stop the court from resorting to the source to take what was otherwise an excise tax out of the category of indirect taxation and place it in the category of direct taxation, the source being property in that case. The corporation in Pollock was a huge business renting and leasing property on a commercial level. All corporations were and had been taxable by excise on their activity prior to Pollock. There were numerous cases prior showing just that.

In Taft's message to congress and in the debates around the time of the proposed 16th amendment it was clear congress and the president had great concern about the huge amount of business wealth that was escaping taxation. The very first thing they did to try and resolve the issue prior to the amendment was to create the corporate excise tax act of 1909 which worded the act in such a way as to make it clear what they were taxing so that the reasoning in Pollock would not be used. To make sure it never happened again they drafted the 16th amendment. The purpose of the amendment was to stop a certain type of reasoning from being used by the courts, not to remove the apportionment requirement from any type of direct taxation. Its absolutely clear that was the intention and the purpose of the amendment when reading the congressional record.

Like I said if we are to assume it allows congress to lay a direct tax without the requirement of apportionment we would also have to assume it is also without requirement of uniformity. The implications of such a power of taxation would be devastating. It would allow the government to arbitrarily pick anyone or thing to tax differently than all the rest even in the same class. Congress was not trying to create a new power of taxation.

[Famspear]

By the way, Steve, go back and look at the cases you just cited. Look at the bolded material. And think, think, think about what you wrote.

The court in Francisco said that the income tax is a direct tax. We know that the income tax in that case was not apportioned. Yet, the court upheld the tax. Even in THIS case where a federal court ruled a post-1913 income tax to be a direct tax, the tax was upheld.

That's almost funny. The court upheld the tax based on an erroneous assumption...see Brushaber. A big whoosh for you.

In Collins, the court did not say (if I recall correctly, as I haven't read the entire case in a while) that the federal income tax was a "direct" tax. What the court said was that the Sixteenth Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is "direct" -- which of course is correct. The Amendment DOES authorize such a tax.

No it does not see Brushaber, Baltic mining and Tyee.

Here is a basic reason why. Such a tax would not be controlled by the rule of apportionment nor uniformity, it would have created a new power of taxation. All indirect taxes must be uniform and all direct taxes must be apportioned. It would be a new kind of tax allowing for arbitrary taxation with no rule as to how it must be laid. The Supreme Court exposed this possibility as an erroneous assumption.

That does not mean that the Amendment created the power to tax incomes. That does not mean that the Amendment "creates" an income tax that is a direct tax. That does not mean that the current income tax IS a direct tax. It just means that the Amendment AUTHORIZES an income tax that is direct.

Wrong, see Brushaber and numerous other SC cases.

The whole point of the Sixteenth Amendment was to make the question -- of whether a particular federal income tax is "direct" or not -- legally irrelevant with respect to the apportionment requirement. And that's exactly what happened.

Wrong, see Brushaber and numerous other SC cases. The 16th merely prevented the reasoning used in Pollock nothing more nothing less.

Look at the Francisco and other cases you yourself cited. The result: If it's a federal income tax, it's not required to be apportioned, regardless of whether it's a direct tax or not.

How about you look at them and realize that not even the circuit courts are sure how a general income tax is constitutional. All they do know is it is, they're just not sure how.

Again, Steve, you grasp and thrash frantically at actual inconsistencies (and yes the court's statement in Francisco, that the current income tax is a "direct" tax, is indeed an inconsistency, a minority position, with respect to most other court cases, where the income tax is typically called "indirect") and nuances (as in Collins) and you ignore the actual results in Francisco and Collins -- results that illustrate the loony nature of your own theory about the Sixteenth Amendment.

The point being which you obviously missed or just want to miss is that the courts have very different interpretations of how the income tax is constitutional. Both can not be true, it can not be an indirect tax and not direct and at the same time direct and not indirect. There is no such thing as the quantum tax theory. More importantly it shows that there is reason to not just accept their opinions as fact. You sit there and act like its impossible to believe contrary to the courts opinion. I've shown why there is reason to not accept everything they say as fact. What we're talking about is not a "nuance", it concerns the very foundation which a general income tax is constitutional. If a tax on the income of the average person is a direct tax then it still requires apportionment, end of story.

No Steve, the only "whooshing" going on here is your "whooshing."

You are uncomfortable with the fact that there are two lines of cases interpreting what the Court said in Brushaber. I have already explained this ad nauseam, although the explanation was in another forum, at another web site. You act like you think you yourself discovered the Francisco case. Different federal courts have interpreted Brushaber differently -- and all federal courts come to the same result: After 1913, no federal income tax is required to be apportioned.

......the courts have very different interpretations of how the income tax is constitutional.

BINGO! You finally got it!

Both can not be true, it can not be an indirect tax and not direct and at the same time direct and not indirect.

BINGO, Steve! The rationales in various cases are inconsistent! You finally get it! Welcome to the world of the law!

There is no such thing as the quantum tax theory. More importantly it shows that there is reason to not just accept their opinions as fact. You sit there and act like its [sic] impossible to believe contrary to the courts opinion.

Oops, I knew it was too good to last.

Yes, Steve, in the sense that quantum theory (in physics) deals with incertainty about the nature of the reality of the universe at the sub-atomic particle level, tax law (and law in general) is analogous to quantum theory. Great analogy on your part! It IS POSSIBLE FOR CASES TO SAY CONTRADICTORY THINGS. The law is full of contradictions. It is not only possible for different courts to reach the same ultimate conclusion through contradictory rationales, it actually happens.

Steve, you've never been through the law school experience, and you struggle with the concept that different courts have interpreted Brushaber in contradictory ways, and that you are uncomfortable with those contradictions. This aspect of law is not something new to people who have already been through law school.

Side note: In fairness to Steve, I think that those of us who have been through law school or who have otherwise studied law in depth need to remember that for someone like Steve, reading these cases can be disconcerting. Some non-lawyers, perhaps especially computer tekkies and engineering "types", may have a tendency to struggle with law because of the desire to approach law the way one would approach writing a computer program or setting up a scientific experiment.

To your credit, Steve, you are to some limited degree trying to "logic" or "reason" your way through all this, Steve. Law does not work the way you want it to work. The problem is, in part, that you lack the training to deal with legal texts, and in part that you lack the experience in dealing with the law, and in part that you lack the emotional detachment that you need to deal with tax law in particular. You are so caught up in your own view of how things should be that you strain to convince yourself (and others, obviously) that what you want the world to be is somehow "reality." This approach won't work in the real world of tax law, and it won't work here at Quatloos.

[Dezcad]

If a tax on the income of the average person is a direct tax then it still requires apportionment, end of story.

Maybe I'm jumping in here a little late Steve, but if you think the above is true then-

What was the purpose and effect of the 16th Amendment?

To stop the reasoning used in Pollock. That is, to stop the court from resorting to the source to take what was otherwise an excise tax out of the category of indirect taxation and place it in the category of direct taxation, the source being property in that case. The corporation in Pollock was a huge business renting and leasing property on a commercial level. All corporations were and had been taxable by excise on their activity prior to Pollock. There were numerous cases prior showing just that.

I'm not saying that I agree with your statements above, but even according to your bolded statement above, you are saying that the 16th Amendment's effect is to not allow the income tax to be looked at as direct. If that is the case, even according to Steve's rules, the income tax must be constitutional since the 16th Amendment cannot allow the court to take the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

[SteveSy]

Yes, Steve, in the sense that quantum theory (in physics) deals with incertainty about the nature of the reality of the universe at the sub-atomic particle level, tax law (and law in general) is analogous to quantum theory. Great analogy on your part! It IS POSSIBLE FOR CASES TO SAY CONTRADICTORY THINGS. The law is full of contradictions. It is not only possible for different courts to reach the same ultimate conclusion through contradictory rationales, it actually happens.

I accept that...however don't expect me to accept their word as fact now that you admitted one must be wrong.

Steve, you've never been through the law school experience, and you struggle with the concept that different courts have interpreted Brushaber in contradictory ways, and that you are uncomfortable with those contradictions. This aspect of law is not something new to people who have already been through law school.

I'm not uncomfortable, in fact I'm very comfortable knowing that they are not infallible and therefore I have no reason to adopt their opinions as my personal beliefs.

Side note: In fairness to Steve, I think that those of us who have been through law school or who have otherwise studied law in depth need to remember that for someone like Steve, reading these cases can be disconcerting. Some non-lawyers, perhaps especially computer tekkies and engineering "types", may have a tendency to struggle with law because of the desire to approach law the way one would approach writing a computer program or setting up a scientific experiment.

See here is the problem. I accept that they are in fact human, capable of error. I also accept that they are offering nothing but their own opinions of what is or is not. Because they are not infallible I have no reason to just believe they're right and I'm wrong and adopt their beliefs as my own. In fact I know I'm right that the 16th does not allow a direct tax without apportionment according to Brushaber, which means the court in Fransisco is wrong even though they have law degrees and hold the title of "judge". This also means that just because they hold a law degree and are titled "judge" does not mean they're automatically right.

To your credit, Steve, you are to some limited degree trying to "logic" or "reason" your way through all this, Steve. Law does not work the way you want it to work. The problem is, in part, that you lack the training to deal with legal texts, and in part that you lack the experience in dealing with the law, and in part that you lack the emotional detachment that you need to deal with tax law in particular. You are so caught up in your own view of how things should be that you strain to convince yourself (and others, obviously) that what you want the world to be is somehow "reality." This approach won't work in the real world of tax law, and it won't work here at Quatloos.

I'm only using logic to destroy your argument that I should somehow accept their beliefs as my own simply because they are judges as if they're without a doubt always going to get it right over my own interpretations.

[SteveSy]

to stop the court from resorting to the source to take what was otherwise an excise tax out of the category of indirect taxation and place it in the category of direct taxation, the source being property in that case.

I'm not saying that I agree with your statements above, but even according to your bolded statement above, you are saying that the 16th Amendment's effect is to not allow the income tax to be looked at as direct. If that is the case, even according to Steve's rules, the income tax must be constitutional since the 16th Amendment cannot allow the court to take the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

No, I'm not saying it allows the income tax to be looked at as direct. I'm saying it prevents the court from looking to the source to remove it from the category of indirect taxation and placing it in the category of direct taxation where it doesn't belong. This is not to say any tax that uses income as its basis of measurement will always be in the category of indirect taxes, it simply means it can't be moved from one class to another. In short it must have been there to begin with for the rule to apply.

[Cpt Banjo]

I'm not saying that I agree with your statements above, but even according to your bolded statement above, you are saying that the 16th Amendment's effect is to not allow the income tax to be looked at as direct. If that is the case, even according to Steve's rules, the income tax must be constitutional since the 16th Amendment cannot allow the court to take the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

No, Stevie says the purpose of the Amendment was simply to preclude looking at the source of the income to determine whether the tax is direct. But this doesn't rule out his trying to use some other rationale to try to characterize the tax as direct (e.g., that it's not a proper "excise" or that it's really a capitation or some other harebrained notion), even though no such rationale has ever been employed by any court.

Stevie's position is simply that the language of the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says and that there may still be some kind of income tax that has to be apportioned. Of course, the fact that there is no legal basis for such a position isn't a problem because as we all know Stevie, and not the courts, gets to determine the law.

[SteveSy]

I'm not saying that I agree with your statements above, but even according to your bolded statement above, you are saying that the 16th Amendment's effect is to not allow the income tax to be looked at as direct. If that is the case, even according to Steve's rules, the income tax must be constitutional since the 16th Amendment cannot allow the court to take the income tax out of the category of indirect taxation.

No, Stevie says the purpose of the Amendment was simply to preclude looking at the source of the income to determine whether the tax is direct.

But that doesn't automatically mean its indirect all cases either. That's a logical fallacy."If I have the flu, then I have a sore throat. I have a sore throat. Therefore, I have the flu."

But this doesn't rule out his trying to use some other rationale to try to characterize the tax as direct (e.g., that it's not a proper "excise" or that it's really a capitation or some other harebrained notion), even though no such rationale has ever been employed by any court.

I beg to differ, there are many quotes in provided by the Supreme Court in Pollock without condemnation that show a general income tax would be require a direct tax.

Stevie's position is simply that the language of the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says and that there may still be some kind of income tax that has to be apportioned. Of course, the fact that there is no legal basis for such a position isn't a problem because as we all know Stevie, and not the courts, gets to determine the law.

Yes there is a basis, the court in Brushaber proves it. They make it very clear the 16th doesn't mean what it appears to say. If we were to read it literally we would have to assume congress can lay a tax without apportionment and without uniformity, something not cognizable or permissible per the Supreme Court.

[Famspear]

I accept that...however don't expect me to accept their word as fact now that you admitted one must be wrong.

Well, not precisely. I've pointed out that case law is contradictory.

. . . I'm very uncomfortable knowing that they are not infallible and therefore I have no reason to adopt their opinions as my personal beliefs.

That's because you are deluding yourself into thinking that there's some "law" out there somewhere that you can "find" for yourself that is separate from what the courts rule. The phrase "adopt their opinions as my personal beliefs" illustrates the emotional problem.

See here is the problem. I accept that they are in fact human, capable of error. I also accept that they are offering nothing but their own opinions of what is or is not. Because they are not infallible I have no reason to just believe they're right and I'm wrong and adopt their beliefs as my own. In fact I know I'm right that the 16th does not allow a direct tax without apportionment according to Brushaber, which means the court in Fransisco is wrong even though they have law degrees and hold the title of "judge". This also means that just because they hold a law degree and are titled "judge" does not mean they're automatically right.

Bolding added.

I'm only using logic to destroy your argument that I should somehow accept their beliefs as my own simply because they are judges as if they're without a doubt always going to get it right over my own interpretations.

Bolding added.

Can you say "transference"?

[SteveSy]

. . . I'm very uncomfortable knowing that they are not infallible and therefore I have no reason to adopt their opinions as my personal beliefs.

That's because you are deluding yourself into thinking that there's some "law" out there somewhere that you can "find" for yourself that is separate from what the courts rule. The phrase "adopt their opinions as my personal beliefs" illustrates the emotional problem.

I have an emotional problem because I won't accept or adopt someone's opinion, proven to be wrong on occasion, as my own? lol How many times in the past has authority been proven wrong concerning their own laws? Here's a fine example, Galileo. The authority in that period held unanimously that he was wrong and even punished him for publicly disagreeing with them. We know he was right and they were wrong even though they all agreed along with their scholars he was wrong. I'm not saying I'm a modern day Galileo, I'm simply demonstrating that your reasoning is flawed. See "Appeal to authority" fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Sounds like you're frustrated that the wall of infallibility you've constructed for the courts has come tumbling down upon your head.

Here's the irony Famspear, this fine nation was predicated upon people ignoring and not accepting the law as directed and dictated by their government and the courts, they were assuming they were right and the government and the courts were wrong. You now want me to accept that the very thing that the colonists did was unacceptable and untenable. If that is true then we shouldn't have U.S. courts to begin with.