Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

[funwithsafety]

This was later changed to: Internal Revenue Code".
Amended in 1953 and 1987. However, the amendments did not change the fact that it only applies to the District of Columbia and the federal territories and possessions.

Many positions based on an incomplete understanding of the "income" tax have
been litigated over the years, and some of those positions have aspects which
make them appear to have a superficial resemblance to what is presented here.
However, even a cursory reading of most of the cases included in these IRS
presentations will make it clear (show) that they are off-point to the knowledge
provided here. Here is a blunt and obvious example:

"Petitioner's assertion that wages are not income is absurd!" Of course it is absurd. "Wages" certainly ARE "income", and we would not say any different, knowing that in the context of such a trial, the only "wages" that will be spoken of are those defined at 3401(a) and 3121(a) of 26 USC. The court is not referring to 'earnings', or 'pay', only the custom defined legal term "wages", that has a unique custom meaning in the tax laws. But the reader is, of course, being invited to misunderstand this distinction...

Most of the remainder of these cases will be along the same lines, each taxing to
a greater or lesser degree the reader's ability to remember these key words as they are misrepresented as to their statutory definitions by confusing their sometimes complex meanings, application, and combination with everyday common terms.

(Sometimes the only way to recognize the misdirection in any given ruling in
these presentations is to read the whole case.)

A few of these presented rulings will simply be more-or-less outright wrong. One
must be mindful that a court is free to rule in near-total defiance of the actual
words and meaning of the law if one or both of the litigants fail to guide its
reasoning by an informed presentation of a case.

Further, even when a court is not taking advantage of a litigant's ignorance,
judges are not gods. One of the reasons we write our laws down is that judges
often make incorrect rulings. The next guy going into court on the same cause is
equipped and entitled, under our legal system, to rely on the words of the law,
not some Judge's latest ruling (although the IRS will cite that ruling if it serves the
government's purposes).

Consequently, the ability of the IRS to gather up a few cases which it tries to
construe as supporting its favored misunderstanding of the law is immaterial.
This is particularly true as regards to the "words of art" issues on which we are
focusing here. Let's look at the mechanism, 26 USC 7701(c): “Includes and
including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise
within the meaning of the term defined,” is key to virtually all of the "words of
art" in the law with which these cases are concerned, "wages", "employee",
"employer", "trade or business", etc.

No less an authority than the United States Supreme Court reminds
us to refrain from reading anything into a statute when Congress has
left it out:

" 'Where Congress includes particular language in one section
of a statute but omits it in another ..., it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion.' " Russello v United States, 464 US 16,
23, 78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) {Quoting United States
v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA 1972)}

As previously noted, some of the key definitions upon which the
broadest misapplication of the law are based (regarding “wages”, in
this example) involve the custom legal meaning of "TERMS" like
“employee”, “employer” and “United States” as used in the law and
reproduced in the code (all of which we will discuss in detail below).
These sections read as follows:

3401(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employee'' includes
an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a
State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of
Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more
of the foregoing. The "TERM" ''employee'' also includes an
officer of a corporation.
3401(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employer'' means
the person for whom an individual performs or performed any
service, of whatever nature, as the employee [as defined
above] of such person…
and:
3121(e)(2) United States
The "TERM" ''United States'' when used in a geographical
sense includes the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.


Now, keeping in mind the declaration by the Supreme Court in
Russello and your logical analysis, look at the following definitions in
the U.S code which are not relied upon to mislead (at least not for the
same purposes or in the same way as their counterparts which are the
subjects of this discussion), and recognize that when Congress
means to include the private sector it clearly says so:
Title 26 Subtitle C, Chapter 21, Subchapter C, Section 3121:
(FICA Income Tax) (NOTE: application of this tax is based upon
citizenship and residency, not on being an "employee" as such)
Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the "TERM" ''employee'' means -
(1) any officer of a corporation; or
(2) any individual who, under the usual common law rules
applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship,
has the status of an employee;
and,
Title 26, Subtitle D, Chapter 38, Subchapter A, Sec. 4612.
[Petroleum Tax] For purposes of this subchapter-
(4) United States
In general
The "TERM" ''United States'' means the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any
possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
and also,
Title 20, Chapter 69, Section 6103 (Education)
As used in this chapter:
(8) Employer- The "TERM" "employer" includes both public
and private employers.

Even if you were to be extraordinarily generous in your interpretation
of 7701(c)’s definition of “includes and including” and treat its
meaning as being the same as the old regulatory clarification to which
we previously referred, (and which, by the way, is still in use in the
regulations for Title 27, at 27 CFR 72.11):

Meaning of Terms: The terms “includes and including” do not
exclude things not enumerated which are in the same general class.

The best that could be claimed in favor of the government’s preferred
characterization of our key "TERMs" is that “employee” in Section
3401 be understood to include other federal workers whose
descriptions are not specifically listed (and “employer” the agencies
for which they work); and that “United States” in 3121 be understood
to include other federal territories and possessions similarly left off the
enumerated list.

Though it is irrelevant to logical analysis of section 7701(c) (and the
other sections which its definition applies) -- except to underscore its
meaninglessness -- saying that something shall not be deemed to be
excluded does not mean that it must or should be deemed to be
included, regardless of how it is defined or classified, or whether
necessary referents are provided. After all, what it DOESN'T say is,
“Includes and including: The terms ''includes'' and ''including'' when
used in a definition contained in this title shall be construed as
expanding the class represented by the common meaning of the word
defined with the addition of the explicitly listed items”. If it could have
done so without having the scheme promptly ruled unconstitutional for
claiming its provisions apply to private-sector activities, Congress
could have cleared up a lot of confusion long ago. Because Congress
did not must be given proper significance. As the United States
Supreme Court observes:

"The construction of a statute by those charged with its
execution should be followed unless there are compelling
indications that it is wrong, especially when Congress has
refused to alter the administrative construction, and such
deference is particularly appropriate where an agency's
interpretation involves issues of considerable public
controversy and Congress has not acted to correct any
misperception of its statutory objectives." CBS, INC. v FCC, 453
US 367 (1981)

The existing language has been on the books for more than 64 years
and Congress has revised the code a few hundred times during that
period.

The IRS has offered a ridiculous “supporting explanation" of all this to the effect that the use of "includes xx" in key places in the code is because of doubts at one time as to whether public-sector entities were covered by the IRC. This proposition might have a little hang time if the relevant references were found in an addendum or supplement (and if it could be credibly asserted that anyone would otherwise have doubted that, for instance, the guy sorting mail at the
Senate Office Building is an employee within the common meaning of the word), but not when they constitute the sole definition of the term. There is no other list to which the public-sector references can be added; they ARE the list, and they have been since 1862. (The IRS doesn’t attempt to explain why, if what it suggests is true, Congress didn’t spare us our doubts and simply add one little section applying to the whole code saying, "Public sector workers, officials and
organizations are to be considered subject to the requirements of this
title in the same fashion as are private citizens and organizations.".)"

A few more observations by the United States Supreme Court:

· “where general words [such as the provisions of 7701(c)]
follow specific words in a statutory enumeration, the general
words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature
to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words”
Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 US 105, 114-115 (2001)
· “Under the principle of ejusdem generis, when a general term
follows a specific one, the general term should be understood
as a reference to subjects akin to the one with specific
enumeration.” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Train Dispatchers,
499 US 117 (1991)
· “…a word is known by the company it keeps (the doctrine of
noscitura sociis). This rule we rely upon to avoid ascribing to
one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its
accompanying words, thus giving “unintended breadth to the
Acts of Congress.” Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 US 303,
307 (1961)” Gustafon v. Alloyd Co. (93-404), 513 US 561
(1995)
· "When the words of a statute are unambiguous, the first canon
of statutory construction -- that courts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a
statute what it says there -- is also the last, and judicial inquiry
is complete." Connecticut National Bank v. Germain, 503 US
249 (1992)

[funwithsafety]

MEMO

TO: Clients of the Supreme Law Firm

FROM: Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)

DATE: January 3, 2004 A.D.

SUBJECT: scope of the definitions in the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

Dear Clients:

The Public Salary Tax Act (“PSTA”), like many Acts of Congress that we have examined in recent years, is worded and structured to mislead the public into making incorrect conclusions about the scope of people and places to which it applies. This memorandum takes a close look at the specific definitions which Congress included in the PSTA, and comes to a surprising conclusion that will surely expose conventional wisdom for being false and erroneous in this matter.
Because Title 26 of the United States Code has not yet been enacted into positive law as such, it is necessary to revert to the published Statutes at Large to locate the original statutes in question. The PSTA begins at 53 Stat. 574, dated April 12, 1939, where the following crucial paragraph is found:

Sec. 1. Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the definition of “gross income”) is amended by inserting after the words “compensation for personal service” the following: (“including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing)”.
[bold emphasis added]

It is obvious to any intelligent reader that the phrase “officer or employee of a State” is a controlling phrase in Section 1 above. Many who read this original statute interpret it to mean that Congress has here imposed the federal income tax on officers and employees of the several States of the Union, of which there are now 50 in number. Judges have also interpreted this phrase in the same way, but without doing the additional work required to confirm the applicable and controlling definition of “State”. When we do that additional work, however, we are forced to arrive at an entirely different conclusion.

By taking the added time required to read the entire PSTA from start to finish, it is immediately apparent that the controlling term “State” is simply not defined. Instead, at Section 206 of the PSTA, Congress repeats a very bad habit of referring the reader to a completely different Act of Congress, namely, Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, as follows:

Sec. 206. The terms used in this Act shall have the same meaning as when used in Chapter I [sic] of the Internal Revenue Code.

This is a very bad habit on the part of Congress, for several reasons. First of all, defining the term “State” here would require no more text than what we see in Section 206. Secondly, the reader is discouraged from making the “jump” to Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, without knowing ahead of time where, exactly, that Chapter can be located in the Internal Revenue Code. Finally, it will become more obvious, as we proceed through this analysis, that such obstacles are imposed on the reader for the purpose of obscuring the real meaning of “State” as that term is actually defined in the PSTA.

The reference to Chapter 1 above can be found at 53 Stat. 32 in the Statutes at Large, at Section 64 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, entitled “Definitions”:

Sec. 64. Definitions. For definitions of a general character, see section 3797.

Once again, instead of defining key terms where the reader would normally expect them to be, Congress again asks the reader to make yet another “jump” to Section 3797 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. This Section can be found at 53 Stat. 469 in the Statutes at Large, as follows:
Sec. 3797. Definitions

(10) State ‑‑ The word “State” shall be construed to include the Territories and the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Here, we must pause and carefully examine all applicable evidence to assist us with understanding this definition. We do appear to have arrived at the definition of “State” that we have been seeking. However, any capable reader can see that the federal Territories and the District of Columbia are the only places that were expressly mentioned in this definition. None of the 50 States of the Union is mentioned. So, it is fair to ask if this omission was an intentional act of Congress, or not. On this point, confer also at the term “inclusio unius est exclusio alterius” in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (i.e. whatever was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded).

In order to arrive at a definitive answer to this question, it is instructive to examine another definition of “State” in those sections of the IRC which concern Social Security. At IRC 3121(e), we find the following definition:

The term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

A now famous letter from Congresswoman Barbara Kennelly provides us with very valuable insights into the meaning of the term “State” as defined by IRC 3121(e). After receiving an inquiry from an American Citizen, she referred his inquiry to experts in the offices of the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service. Both offices responded by confirming that IRC section 3121(e) actually limits the meaning of “State” to each of the places mentioned, and it does not also define “State” to embrace any of the 50 States of the Union in addition to those places that are mentioned.

Rep. Kennelly’s reply letter is so valuable for several reasons. First of all, it is apparent that Kennelly did not know the answer initially; that is why she found it necessary to refer the original question to the Congressional experts in statutory construction.

Secondly, Kennelly got the same answer from the experts in both offices ‑‑ the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service ‑‑ giving much added weight to their answers. Then, Kennelly simply reiterated their answers in her written reply to the Citizen’s original question, without so much as doubting their answers in any way, or for any reason.

Finally, using published rules of statutory construction, we are justified in applying those very same rules to the definition of “State” in the PSTA, with results that are identical to those provided to Rep. Kennelly by experts in the offices of the Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Research Service.

Accordingly, when it was first enacted in 1939 A.D., the meaning of “State” in the Public Salary Tax Act was limited by Congressional intent to the federal Territories and to the District of Columbia. That meaning was subsequently amended when Alaska and Hawaii later joined the Union. The pattern of changes that occurred in Section 3797 above is rather conclusive, chiefly because the “Territories” are no longer mentioned in the present definition at Section 7701(a)(10) of the Internal Revenue Code, to wit:

The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Alaska and Hawaii were included in that definition of “State” because they were both federal Territories before they joined the Union. Thus, Alaska and Hawaii only fit this special definition of “State” before they joined the Union, but they were dropped from this special definition after they joined the Union. The controlling definition had to be changed because Alaska and Hawaii were both defined in the PSTA as “States” before admission to the Union, but not afterwards. This apparent anomaly is perfectly clear, once the legal and deliberately misleading definition of “State” is understood.

A detailed analysis of these Code changes is found in Chapter 5 of “The Federal Zone.” The precise history of changes to the Internal Revenue Code is detailed in Appendix B of that book. The changes made to the United States Code when Alaska joined the Union were originally assembled in the Alaska Omnibus Act. The changes made to the federal Codes when Hawaii joined the Union were assembled in the Hawaii Omnibus Act.

In summary, therefore, the meaning of “State” in the Public Salary Tax Act is presently governed by the definition found at IRC section 7701(a)(10). The bulk of verifiable evidence already published in Chapter 5 of “The Federal Zone,” supplemented by the further analysis we have done above, now makes it abundantly clear that the word “State” is presently limited to the District of Columbia and does not embrace any of the 50 States of the Union.

If Congress had intended to include the 50 States of the Union in its definition of “State” in the PSTA, it could and it should have done so, as it has done so in other statutes. For example, at IRC section 4612(a)(4)(A), Congress has expressly mentioned the 50 States in so many words, when it defined the “United States” there as follows:

In General. ‑‑ The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.[bold and underlined emphasis added]

In conclusion, therefore, when the Public Salary Tax Act uses the term “officer or employee of a State”, that Act is not referring to any of the officers or employees of any of the 50 States of the Union that presently correspond to the 50 stars on the American flag.

On the contrary, using well established rules of statutory construction, the legal advice of experts in statutory construction, and evidence from changes in the PSTA when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, we are fully justified in concluding that the phrase “officer or employee of a State” refers only to officers or employees of the District of Columbia.

The PSTA further clarified this matter at Section 210, which is published in the Statutes at Large at 53 Stat. 577, as follows:

Sec. 210. For the purposes of this Act, the term “officer or employee” includes a member of a legislative body and a judge or officer of a court.

Once again, the rules of statutory construction require us to conclude that the term “officer or employee” as used in the PSTA includes only a member of a legislative body whose compensation originates in the District of Columbia, and a judge or officer of a court whose compensation originates in the District of Columbia. These officers and employees, therefore, refer only to voting members of Congress, federal judges, and to the other officers who are employed by the federal judiciary. That’s it!

The Public Salary Tax Act does not impose the federal income tax upon any of the officers or employees of the 50 States of the Union.

Further elaboration of the several points discussed above can be found in the documents located at the following Internet URL’s:

“31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service”
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

“The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue”
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm

“Congresswoman Suspected of Income Tax Evasion”
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/irc3121.htm

APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION against IRS
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/erath/injunction.htm

APPLICATION FOR ORDER DISSOLVING THE IRS
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/giordano/dissolve.irs.htm

“Let’s Dismantle IRS: This Racket is Busted”
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/dismantle.irs.htm

[webhick]

I merged the following two threads by "funwithsafety" together:

Public Salary Tax Act of 1939
more about the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

[Nikki]

Dear funwithsafety (and thank you for using a condom):

Two simple questions:

1 - Why is it that Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and others in a similar financial position have never attempted to use any of the theories you espouse? Is it because they, and the hundreds of accountants and lawyers they employ to reduce their tax burden ate too stupid to see these blatantly obvious facts which Pete and others (although each of them has found a different secret) have uncovered?

2 - Why is it that every single person who has attempted to use any of the miraculous discoveries has ended up paying taxes, penalties, and interest; that not a single one of them has been able to make their theory win?

Answer these two simple questions, please.

[wserra]

Many positions based on an incomplete understanding of the "income" tax have ....

Well, whaddaya know. It's our old friends from the TPs' MLM, cashoutco-op.com. We've discussed these guys before. And "funwithpasting" here justs lifts a whole load of gibberish verbatim from that site - which, s/he should understand, could lead to posts being deleted.

Links are better - but then you'd have to write your own stuff.

Actually, I suppose that cashoutco-op might have lifted the junk from Modeleski or Hendrickson, and funwithpasting eliminated the middleman.

[LPC]

I left my hip boots at home, so I'm not going to wade through all the crap that FWS has cut-and-pasted, but my recollection is that the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 allowed state and local governments to tax the salaries of federal officers and employees, and also extended the federal income tax to the salaries of state employees. See http://www.taxhistory.com/1939b.html

Sort of like how the Buck Act allowed state and local governments to tax federal employees living on federal forts and other areas under exclusive federal control within the states.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Did "anyone" pay particular "attention" to the "massive" amount of "quotes" in FWS's "rant"?

FWS: You need to quit while you're way behind, slick. Looks like you need to keep that safety on lest you shoot yourself in the foot again.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....
Many positions based on an incomplete understanding of the "income" tax have
been litigated over the years, and some of those positions have aspects which
make them appear to have a superficial resemblance to what is presented here.
However, even a cursory reading of most of the cases included in these IRS
presentations will make it clear (show) that they are off-point to the knowledge
provided here. ....

"'Will you walk into my parlor ?" said the spider to the fly;
"'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you did spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many curious things to show when you are there."
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."

"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high.
Will you rest upon my little bed ?" said the spider to the fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest a while, I'll snugly tuck you in !"
"Oh no, no," said the little fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again who sleep upon your bed!"

Said the cunning spider to the fly: "Dear friend, what can I do
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you ?
I have within my pantry good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome---will you please to take a slice ?"
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "kind sir, that cannot be:
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"

"Sweet creature!" said the spider, "you're witty and you're wise;
How handsome are your gauzy wings; how brilliant are your eyes !
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlor shall;
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And, bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."

The spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready to dine upon the fly;
Then came out to his door again, and merrily did sing:
"Come hither, hither, pretty fly, with pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple; there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead !"

Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,

Thinking only of her brilliant eyes and green and purple hue,
Thinking only of her crested head. Poor, foolish thing! at last
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast;
He dragged her up his winding stair, into the dismal den--
Within his little parlor--but she ne'er came out again!

And now, dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly, flattering words I pray you ne'er give heed;
Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale of the spider and the fly.
Mary Howitt



Even after almost a hundred years, the spiders are still out there on the web.

[funwithsafety]

All right you scrooge hearted protectors of the hypnagogic unreality:

If the 16th amendment truly brought all Americans into the income taxable realm, then why would a special act - The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 - be necessary to enlarge the class of public employees who were not yet entrapped by the scheme??? HEH?

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1301, Congressman Boehne of Indiana:
“It is my understanding that by the passage of this bill only about 6 percent of all State and local employees will fall into the category of Federal income-tax payers….

Oh! why would they have to pass a bill to trap another 6% of American in the scheme if the 16th amendment and the IRC already had them in the net?

The "from whatever source" language and the "any person" fiction should have been enough to trap these previously FREE souls.

Lucy (I mean UGLY Nikki) you have some 'splanin' to do!"

Congress did not pass any other law intended to impose a direct tax on income until 1939, when the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was passed. The Public Salary Tax Act, Section 1, (which is now designated as 26 USC 1) imposed a tax upon the income of federal employees, U.S. citizens, and non-resident aliens (but using rather limited and oddly worded language...).

The Public Salary Act serves to illustrate that unless the class of persons subject to the income tax is not specifically enumerated, those unenumerated Americans are free souls!

PS - all of you could benefit from a humanities class or two at a jr college!

[Gregg]

All right you scrooge hearted protectors of the hypnagogic unreality:

If the 16th amendment truly brought all Americans into the income taxable realm, then why would a special act - The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 - be necessary to enlarge the class of public employees who were not yet entrapped by the scheme??? HEH?

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1301, Congressman Boehne of Indiana:
“It is my understanding that by the passage of this bill only about 6 percent of all State and local employees will fall into the category of Federal income-tax payers….

Oh! why would they have to pass a bill to trap another 6% of American in the scheme if the 16th amendment and the IRC already had them in the net?

The "from whatever source" language and the "any person" fiction should have been enough to trap these previously FREE souls.

Lucy (I mean UGLY Nikki) you have some 'splanin' to do!"

Congress did not pass any other law intended to impose a direct tax on income until 1939, when the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 was passed. The Public Salary Tax Act, Section 1, (which is now designated as 26 USC 1) imposed a tax upon the income of federal employees, U.S. citizens, and non-resident aliens (but using rather limited and oddly worded language...).

The Public Salary Act serves to illustrate that unless the class of persons subject to the income tax is not specifically enumerated, those unenumerated Americans are free souls!

PS - all of you could benefit from a humanities class or two at a jr college!

You are at the very least taking a quote out of context. You could benefit from a law class at an accredited law school (we, like the federal government do not recognize findings by "Private Attorney General" types) and might I also suggest a reading comprehension class or two at a local middle school.

I do not have the entire record of the testimony you quoted above (fear not, I'm sure I or someone will have it before long) but I suspect he was talking about some federal workers who worked on, say, military bases who someone had decided could not be taxed by their states, or something like that. It also may very well address the fact that yes, in the early years, especially before WWII a combination of less money being made by the average person and the tax tables of the day did not dip down as low as it now does meant that a lot of people didn't owe any income tax because they didn't make enough. It is still true to this day that less than half of the population does not owe any income tax simply because they make less than the minimum AGI. (And a lot of them are children who make nothing at all or very little)

And finally, your little barb about "oddly worded language", you must first realize that law has to be written with a certain amount of precision, and part of the reason why is because mental midgets like you and Peter Hendrickson insist on trying to twist words and phrases into such strange contortions that you can with a straight face attempt to assert (for instance) that the "United States" includes Guam, Puerto Rico, The District of Columbia etc... but NOT Vermont, New York, Ohio, California etc....

How many tax deniers have to lose everything and go to prison to convince you enlightened ones that not only do the tax laws do in fact apply to everyone, but that you cannot make an assertion of how you've butchered the language of the law and make it stick until you get a Federal Judge to agree with your lunacy, which despite many attempts has NEVER happened.

[funwithsafety]

Gregg Said: "but I suspect he was talking about some federal workers who worked on, say, military bases who someone had decided could not be taxed by their states, or something like that. It also may very well address the fact that yes, in the early years, especially before WWII a combination of less money being made by the average person and the tax tables of the day did not dip down as low as it now does meant that a lot of people didn't owe any income tax because they didn't make enough".

Nice try - even if I were to concede (and I do) that many Americans were not taxed because of low rates, you offer NO explanation why a specific ACT OF CONGRESS had to be written and passed so that State and Federal Employees (regardless of where they worked) could be subject to the tax.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 does not address tax tables or income levels or employment on military bases or any of your other sophist obfuscations and you well know it.

Gregg if your lips are moving your...well, you know the rest.

As for the other post you reference, it's not my work product but it is food for thought. That is if you ever actually would dare to think. There is a reason why scholasticism (the dark ages)was wiped out by the renaissance and scientific reason after the 12th century. It had to make a come back in American Law Schools!

WAKE UP and FREE the PEOPLE!

[LPC]

If the 16th amendment truly brought all Americans into the income taxable realm, then why would a special act - The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 - be necessary to enlarge the class of public employees who were not yet entrapped by the scheme??? HEH?

In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), the Supreme Court held that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938).

So the Supreme Court decided Helvering v. Gerhardt in 1938, and Congress enacted the Public Salary Tax Act in 1939. You do the math.

From Jefferson Co., Alabama v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (1999):

Until 1938, the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine was expansively applied to prohibit Federal and State Governments from taxing the salaries of another sovereign's employees. See, e.g. , Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie Cty., 16 Pet. 435, 450 (1842); Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113, 124 (1871). In Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U. S. 466, 486-487 (1939), the Court expressly overruled prior decisions and held that a State's imposition of a tax on federal employees' salaries "lays [no] unconstitutional burden upon [the Federal Government]." Although taxes "upon the incomes of employees of a government, state or national, ... may be passed on economically to that government," the Court reasoned, the federal design tolerates such "indirect [and] incidental" burdens. Id. , at 487. Since Graves , we have reaffirmed "a narrow approach to governmental tax immunity," New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 735 ; we have closely confined the doctrine to "ba[r] only those taxes that [are] imposed directly on one sovereign by the other or that discriminat[e] against a sovereign or those with whom it deal[s]," Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803, 811 (1989). In contracting the once expansive intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, we have recognized that the area is one over which Congress is the principal superintendent. See New Mexico , 455 U. S., at 737 -738.

Indeed, congressional action coincided with the Graves turnaround. In the Public Salary Tax Act, under consideration before Graves was announced and enacted shortly thereafter, see Davis , 489 U. S., at 811 -812, Congress consented to nondiscriminatory state and local taxation of federal employees' "pay or compensation for personal service," 4 U. S. C. §111. Section 111 effectively "codified the result in Graves ," and thereby "foreclosed the possibility that subsequent judicial reconsideration ... might reestablish the broader interpretation of the immunity doctrine." Davis , 489 U. S., at 812 ; see also id. , at 813 (the immunity for which §111 provides is "coextensive with the prohibition against discriminatory taxes embodied in the modern constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity").

(footnotes omitted)

[Brian Rookard]

As for the other post you reference, it's not my work product but it is food for thought.

If you like crap sandwiches.

As Dan has already posted ... the reason for the change was because of the change in intergovernmental immunity doctrine which previously had prevented one government from taxing the employees of another government (eg. the feds taxing state employees). That bar was removed ... and a change in the law ensued.

[Famspear]

If the 16th amendment truly brought all Americans into the income taxable realm, then why would a special act - The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 - be necessary to enlarge the class of public employees who were not yet entrapped by the scheme??? HEH?

And:

. . . .you offer NO explanation why a specific ACT OF CONGRESS had to be written and passed so that State and Federal Employees (regardless of where they worked) could be subject to the tax.

Duh.... Hey, Einstein! Ever heard of the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine? The primary purpose of the Public Salary Act of 1939 was:

to impose federal income tax on the salaries of all state and local government employees. Prior to adoption of the Act, salaries of most government employees, both state and federal, generally were thought to be exempt from taxation by another sovereign under the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity. This doctrine had its genesis in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), which held that the State of Maryland could not impose a discriminatory tax on the Bank of the United States. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion for the Court reasoned that the Bank was an instrumentality of the Federal Government used to carry into effect the Government's delegated powers, and taxation by the State would unconstitutionally interfere with the exercise of those powers.

--from Davis v. Michigan Dep't of the Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 109 S. Ct. 1500, 89-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9456 (1989).

The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to overrule the Pollock decision. In Pollock, the Supreme Court held that an income tax on income from property (such as dividends, interest, and rent) should be treated as a direct tax (meaning that such taxes were required to be apportioned among the states according to population). The Amendment removed the relevance of "source" of the income and provided that Congress may tax incomes from any source, without any apportionment requirement. Welcome back to reality, Einstein.

Oh, and Einstein, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but Congress has passed lots and lots of federal income tax laws that imposed federal income taxes on individuals, etc., -- going back as far as the Civil War. Don't ask for details unless you really want them.

[funwithsafety]

lpc said: "That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938)".

So the Supreme Court decided Helvering v. Gerhardt in 1938, and Congress enacted the Public Salary Tax Act in 1939. You do the math.

Ok - if in 1938 it suddenly became "consitutional" to tax these folks, why the act in 1939.

I did the math - you can't add!

[Brian Rookard]

I did the math - you can't add!

Dan can add.

And you can't read.

R.I.F.

[Famspear]

lpc said: "That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938)".

So the Supreme Court decided Helvering v. Gerhardt in 1938, and Congress enacted the Public Salary Tax Act in 1939. You do the math.

Ok - if in 1938 it suddenly became "consitutional" to tax these folks, why the act in 1939.

Digging yourself a deeper hole, Einstein.....

In 1939, the Supreme Court in the case of Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 (1939), completely discarded the former doctrine that state or federal employees were constitutionally immune from non-discriminatory income taxation by the other sovereignty. This subjected[,] to federal taxation[,] the incomes of all state or local employees[,] whether they were employed in an agency engaged in an essential governmental function or not. However, in order to prevent undue hardship by the retroactive taxation of incomes hitherto considered immune, Congress enacted the Public Salary Tax Act, supra.

---from Meigs v. United States, 115 F.2d 13, 40-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9731 (1st Cir. 1940) (bolding added).

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit went on to point out that the Public Salary Tax Act sought to prevent that undue hardship by providing:

[ . . . ] that where a taxpayer asserted immunity as a state employee as to taxes prior to the taxable year beginning January 1, 1939, such immunity would be allowed, under certain procedural circumstances [ . . . ], if the same result would have been reached prior to the O'Keefe decision.

---Id. (bolding added).

[funwithsafety]

SpermFEAR said:

Oh, and Einstein, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but Congress has passed lots and lots of federal income tax laws that imposed federal income taxes on individuals, etc., -- going back as far as the Civil War. Don't ask for details unless you really want them.

Agreed - many tax laws have been passsed. That's your arguement that all Americans are subject to the income tax! WOW - There have been many Chevy's registered at the DMV but that doesn't mean all people drive Chevy's. Fallicy of Generalization I think.

If the IRS is so powerful and all Americans are their subjects, then why is IRS limited by:

Section 6331(a)
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any
officer, employee, or elected official, of the United
States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of the United States or the District of
Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as
defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or
elected official.

Why does the IRS leave section (a) off the Noitces of Intent or Notices of Levy they send to employers and businesses.

There is NO reference in the statutes giving them power over the wages or property of anyone else in the case of collections.

WHY?

Anyway your rediculous post proves my point. The ACT was constructed to include people in the income tax scheme who were (or were thought to be?) outside the application of the IRC and the 16th amendment.

You folks constantly throw "from any source" language around and the "any person" crap around and it is clear that you are incorrect in your assertions. Else why were some "persons" thought not to be subjects of the income tax!

Holly cow you will defend you meal ticket at the expense of all!

This is also fun food for the those still capable crewing solid stuff: http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/RUMLTAXES.html


TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

by Beardsley Ruml,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Mr. Ruml read this paper before the American Bar Association during the last year of the war [World War II]. It attracted then less attention than it deserved and is even more timely now, with the tax structure undergoing change for peacetime. His thesis is that given (1) control of a central banking system and (2) an inconvertible currency, a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue. All taxation, therefore, should be regarded from the point of view of social and economic consequences. The paragraph that embodies this idea will be found italicized in the text. Mr. Ruml does not say precisely how in that case the government would pay its own bills. One may assume that it would either shave its expenses out of the proceeds of taxes levied for social and economic ends or print the money it needs. The point may be academic. The latter end of his paper is devoted to an argument against taxing corporation profits. --- Editor.

[funwithsafety]

[quote="Brian Rookard

Dan can add.

And you can't read.

Really - 1938 comes, I think, before 1939 - hummmm...

[Famspear]

Aggreed [sic] - many tax laws have been passsed [sic]. That's your arguement [sic] that all Americans are subject to the income tax! WOW - There have been many Chevy's registered at the DMV but that doesn't mean all people drive Chevy's. Fallicy [sic] of Generalization I think.

No, it's not. And no, you don't think.

If the IRS is so powerful and all Americans are their subjects, then why is IRS limited by:

Section 6331(a)
Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.

Dear Clueless One: Americans are not the "subjects" of the IRS.

And the IRS is not "limited" by section 6331(a) -- not in the way you think. You conveniently left out the most important part of the text of 6331(a). Here's the text of subsection (a) in full:

If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section.

(bolding added).

Nothing in the second sentence "limits" the application of the first sentence of subsection (a).

Why does the IRS leave section (a) off the Noitces [sic] of Intent or Notices of Levy they send to employers and businesses.

Why do tax protesters make up their own imaginary rules about what must be contained in an IRS notice? Why can't some tax protesters correctly spell words like "Notices" the same way every time in a single sentence? Who knows? Who cares?

There is NO reference in the statutes giving them power over the wages or property of anyone else in the case of collections.

Duh.... re-read subsection (a). And have you ever heard of Brian v. Gugin? And don't ask about that case unless you want to hear about it.

Anyway your rediculous [sic] post proves my point. The ACT was constructed to include people in the income tax scheme who were (or were thought to be?) outside the application of the IRC and the 16th amendment.

Duhh. Einstein. Re-read the posts above.

You folks constantly throw "from any source" language around and the "any person" crap around and it is clear that you are incorrect in your assertions. Else why where [sic] some "persons" thought not to be subjects of the income tax!

Duh, re-read the Sixteenth Amendment, Einstein. Source, source, source, source, source.

No, it's clear we are correct and you are clueless. Go look for a court case where somebody made the argument you're making in a federal court in a federal income tax case -- and the court ruled in that person's favor on that argument. Fool's errand.

Holly [sic] cow you will defend you meal ticket at the expense of all!

Ah, the old tax protester refrain: "Any lawyer or CPA who tells me what the law really is must somehow be corrupted by his or her own selfish economic interest in preserving the Evil Tax System."

Sell it to Irwin Schiff, Larken Rose, Bonita Lynne Meredith, Kent Hovind, Robert Clarkson, Peter Hendrickson, etc., etc., etc.

And it's "holy" cow. Not "holly" cow. "Holly" cow might be a Christmas thing, I don't know....

TAXES FOR REVENUE ARE OBSOLETE

In the same sense that the Law of Gravity is obsolete.