Hendrickson in the Detroit News

[Famspear]

OH and let us not forget about Eisner v. Macomber, where that case further proves what I had clarified about the meaning of from "whatever source derived" as meant within the XVI Amendment.

Oh, and let us not forget, Weston, that you have yet to cite a single court case that demonstrates what you are failing so miserably to demonstrate.

To summarize: The income tax is simply the realized gains or profits deriving from any of: "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." While excise taxes are the taxes from such items themselves.

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Zoom zoom zoooooooooommmmmmmmmmm!!

Nope, it is called quoting SCOTUS cases that soo prove my point . . . . .

No, your method of "analysis" is called "chaining." Using your "method" in a first semester law school class in property, or contracts, or torts, you would never pass the course. Your laughable "analysis" won't work in property law, contracts, or torts, and it won't work in tax law either.

[Weston White]

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life."

Fundamentalists say the Bible must be taken literally.

Therefore, Jesus is a loaf of bread.

No actually I think Jesus said distortionists are negligent and thus cannot be trusted, as they are sinners not only to himself but also to their brethren.

Such individuals do not follow the manta do unto others, they are all about the me, me, me, me. Ergo, selfish and socialistic.

[Weston White]

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Would you prefer that I post them one at time, because I can do that for you if you would like? Really it is no trouble at all. GTFOGUASFSDIIJTDFTAS!

BTW, that is not what is meant by chaining, see you are not even capable of understanding that simple word, just like you can't understand the phrase direct taxation.

But I tell you what, let us put the debate about my ability to pass a law course, which BTW, I am not enrolled in law school, off for another day, and in the meantime why don't you actually go and read through those cases and see if you are capable of actually learning something? Let us test your abilities, shall we? Or of course you can sit here and make another ten or more posts about your theories on "chaining"... which I will tell you upfront, is a topic I could honestly care less about.

[Famspear]

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life."

Fundamentalists say the Bible must be taken literally.

Therefore, Jesus is a loaf of bread.

No actually I think Jesus said distortionists are negligent and thus cannot be trusted, as they are sinners not only to himself but also to their brethren.

Such individuals do not follow the manta do unto others, they are all about the me, me, me, me. Ergo, selfish and socialistic.

I didn't know that "do unto others" was a "manta."

Sorry.... that was a cheap shot....

[Famspear]

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Would you prefer that I post them one at time, because I can do that for you if you would like? Really it is no trouble at all. GTFOGUASFSDIIJTDFTAS!

BTW, that is not what is meant by chaining, see you are not even capable of understanding that simple word, just like you can't understand the phrase direct taxation.

Posting them one at a time would be even worse for your "analysis", Weston.

And, no, I do understand the phrase "direct taxation". You do not.

[Famspear]

Hey, no fair! We're trying to restrict Weston White to the use of actual, correct methods of legal analysis. Leave the boy his fantasy, please!

[Weston White]

Jesus said, "I am the bread of life."

Fundamentalists say the Bible must be taken literally.

Therefore, Jesus is a loaf of bread.

No actually I think Jesus said distortionists are negligent and thus cannot be trusted, as they are sinners not only to himself but also to their brethren.

Such individuals do not follow the manta do unto others, they are all about the me, me, me, me. Ergo, selfish and socialistic.

I didn't know that "do unto others" was a "manta."

Sorry.... that was a cheap shot....

Yea there called typos, I realize that typos are something Quatloosians have a very difficult time with... even though they frequently make them themselves and are suppose to be people that are trained in reading comprehension and statutory construction and such, though man alive you throw a typo or a misspelled word in front of them and they suddenly become like a upgrade traveling big-rig on air-brakes.

Anyways it should have read mantra not manta... sorry for tripping up your "supreme" reading abilities and making you look like a total goof.

[Weston White]

Choke on it you dink.

OK, choke on what exactly? I entirely agree with those potions you highlighted, that is not the issue that is at hand here, please do try and keep up. OK, do you think you can do that please?

[Weston White]

WW you should know by know that when you cite a court case and take a snippet from it, others here will examine the case to see if the snippet is in context, or if the case has any relevance to the subject you are mewling about. My research took under 5 minutes. I am not a lawyer. You cross one in court, especially one specializing in tax matters and you pull this sh*t, they will punch your card son and send what is left of you home in a matchbox.

You miss the point, which is that is all that indirect taxes are, see... you do get that, right? By saying a tax on laboring is within such heads [classes] of taxes is no different than trying to fit the square peg into the round hole. It is just never going to happen. Though saying a tax upon laboring is within the the heads of direct taxation, fits perfectly, and historically that is proven to be the case. Income taxes are excise taxes and not capitation taxes. And the income tax has to do with corporate privileges and the like, the case even yourself cited, proves that. Looking at the POLLOCK decision further proves that, that was the issue at bar in that case, that is where the Act of 1909 came from as did the XVI Amendment, to counter those effects.

I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.
...
therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.
...

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE - JUNE 16, 1909

[From Pages 3344 – 3345]


Wow, and this is exactly how the every single one of the special terms included in the IRC all read, e.g. Subtitle C. Shocker!

BTW, I have been providing the links so you could easily look the cases up... you dink!

[Weston White]

To summarize: The income tax is simply the realized gains or profits deriving from any of: "taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges." While excise taxes are the taxes from or upon such activities or items themselves.

Your conclusion is pure unadulterated slop.

The Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. centered not on income tax but on a corporate tax, and the SCOTUS found that the Corporate Tax was not unconstitution (constitutional that is) and affirmed the lower court's opinion as such.

Let me repeat, it was about corporate taxation and whether or not a specific corporate tax in a specific tariff act was constitutional. Period. It had NOTHING to do with your presumptive conclusion above.

Also, your argument is flawed because the Stone Tracy Co. case took place in 1911, which was around 5 years BEFORE the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which means if the case was about income tax (and it was not), it would have mooted and superceded by the 16th Amendment.

You have taken a small fragment of a larger case and you have decided that it is important and bolsters your conclusion and think it will magically make a problem go away. It is the equivalent of taking the emblem off of a Corvette, and putting it on your Fusion and believing your Fusion will now blow a Corvette off the line.

The XVI Amendment was ratified in 1913 (its process began in 1909), dink, and the Act of 1909 had been in effect already as well, dink... and guess what that case defined excise taxes and indirect taxation in general, dink, and never was laboring defined therein. Are you actually saying that the meaning of excises taxes and of indirect taxation radically changed in those few years? Are you actually saying such non-sense? WOW! Because, there are many SCOTUS cases that state the XVI Amendment was the only modifying effect of indirect taxation and it did not serve do expand or create new powers, that it essentially gave Congress the power to levy income taxes... and all of this has to do with business activities and privileges that is it! And guess what, working for a living is not a business activity!

[Famspear]

The XVI Amendment was ratified in 1913, dink, and the Act of 1909 had been in effect already as well, dink... and guess what that cause defined excise taxes and indirect taxation in general, dink, are you actually saying that the meaning of excises taxes and of indirect taxation radically changed in those few years? Are you actually saying such non-sense? WOW! Because, there are many SCOTUS cases that state the XVI Amendment was the only modifying effect of indication taxation and it did not serve do expand or create new powers, that it essentially gave Congress the power to levy income taxes... and all of this has to do with business activities and privileges that is it! And guess what, working for a living is not a business activity!

Zoom zoom zzzzzzoooooooooommmoommmmm!

Wheeeeee!!!!! Off to Planet Weston!!!!!

[Weston White]

z00m, z00m, z00m...

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents
December 12, 1787

After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on December 12, 1787, by a vote of 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that ap peared in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser on December 18, 1787. The address was subsequently reprinted, often in Pennsylvania and other states, becoming in some way a semi-official statement of anti-federalist objections to the new Constitution. The author of the address was probably the same as the author of "Centinel," Samuel Bryan; at least there are notable similarities between the two works, and Bryan later claimed authorship in letters to Jefferson and to Albert Gallatin.
…

We have before considered internal taxation, as it would effect the destruction of the state governments, and produce one consolidated government. We will now consider that subject as it affects the personal concerns of the people.

The power of direct taxation applies to every individual, as congress, under this government, is expressly vested with the authority of laying a capitation or poll tax upon every person to any amount. This is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise, and will be paid, because all that a man hath will he give for his head. This tax is so congenial to the nature of despotism, that it has ever been a favorite under such governments. Some of those who were in the late general convention from this state have long laboured to introduce a poll-tax among us.

The power of direct taxation will further apply to every individual, as congress may tax land, cattle, trades, occupations, etc. in any amount, and every object of internal taxation is of that nature, that however oppressive, the people will have but this alternative except to pay the tax, or let their property be taken, for all resistance will be in vain. The standing army and select militia would enforce the collection.

In the preceding extract we gave the language of the court. The law is that an account shall be taken of "all offices and posts of profit." The next section makes it the duty of the assessors "to rate all offices and posts of profit, professions, trades and occupations, at their discretion, having a due regard to the profits arising therefrom." The emoluments of the office, then, are taxable, and not the office. But whether it be one or the other, we cannot perceive how a tax upon either conduces to comprehend within the terms of the act the office or the compensation of an officer of the United States. It will not do to say, as it was said in argument, that though the language of the act may import that offices and posts of profit were taxable, that it was the citizen who holds the office whom the law intended to tax, and that it was a burden he was bound to bear in return for the privileges enjoyed and the protection received from government, and then that the liability to pay the tax was a personal charge because the person upon whom it was assessed was a taxable person.

The first answer to be given to these suggestions is that the tax is to be levied upon a valuation of the income of the office. But besides, the obligation upon persons to pay taxes is mistaken and the sense in which a tax is a personal charge is misunderstood. The foundation of the obligation to pay taxes is not the privileges enjoyed or the protection given to a citizen by government, though the payment of taxes gives a right to protection. Both are enjoyed as well by those members of a state who do not because they are not able to pay taxes as by those who are able and do pay them. Married women and children have privileges and protection, but they are not assessed unless they have goods or property separate from the heads of families. The necessity of money for the support of states, in times of peace or war, fixes the obligation upon their citizens to pay such taxes as may be imposed by lawful authority. And the only sense in which a tax is a personal charge is that it is assessed upon personal estate and the profits of labor and industry. It is called a personal charge to distinguish such a tax from the tax upon lands and tenements, which are enforced without any regard to the persons who are the owners. Taxes are never assessed, unless it be a capitation tax, upon persons, as persons, but upon them on account of their goods and the profits made upon professions, trades and occupations. They are so imposed because public revenue can only be supplied by assessments upon the goods of individuals --

"comprehending under the word 'goods' all the estate and effects which everyone hath, of whatsoever sort they be; taxes regard the persons of men only because of their goods."

The goods, then, are taxed, and not the person. But those who are to pay the tax are taxable persons, because they are under an obligation to contribute from their means to the necessities of the state. The obligation, however, only becomes a charge upon the person in consequence of the power in the state to enforce the payment of taxes by coercion. The power extends to the sequestration of the goods and the imprisonment of the delinquent. A tax, according to the object upon which it is laid, may be a personal charge, but that is a very different thing from its becoming a charge upon the person in consequence of the coercion which may be provided by law to enforce the payment.

We have been more particular in noticing this argument because it enabled us to put the point upon which it was intended to bear upon right principles. Besides, as it was drawn from the statutes of Pennsylvania, it implied the supposition that her legislature, in these enactments upon taxation, had disregarded those principles. But this is not so. If the occasion was a proper one for this Court to do it, we might easily show that the act throughout was framed upon an enlightened recognition by the legislators of that state of all the principles upon which taxes are imposed. The only difficulty in the act has arisen from the terms directing assessments to be made upon all offices and posts of profit without restricting the assessments to offices and posts of profit held under the sovereignty of that state, and not excluding them from being made upon offices and posts of profit of another sovereignty -- the United States.

Dobbins v. Commissioners of Erie County, 41 U.S. 16 Pet. 435 435 (1842)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/41/435/case.html

[Famspear]

By saying a tax on laboring is within such heads of taxes is not different than trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.

Income taxes are excise taxes and not capitation taxes.

That's actually right, Weston.

[Weston White]

The XVI Amendment was ratified in 1913, dink, and the Act of 1909 had been in effect already as well, dink... and guess what that cause defined excise taxes and indirect taxation in general, dink, are you actually saying that the meaning of excises taxes and of indirect taxation radically changed in those few years? Are you actually saying such non-sense? WOW! Because, there are many SCOTUS cases that state the XVI Amendment was the only modifying effect of indication taxation and it did not serve do expand or create new powers, that it essentially gave Congress the power to levy income taxes... and all of this has to do with business activities and privileges that is it! And guess what, working for a living is not a business activity!

Zoom zoom zzzzzzoooooooooommmoommmmm!

Wheeeeee!!!!! Off to Planet Weston!!!!!

Wow, your replies have gone straight down the fucking hill compared to when I first got here, and geez it has not even been a month yet has it?

BTW, the CRS Annotated Constitution agrees with none of you people. Now do no you think the, seriously stop and think about this for a second, at least... if any of what you allege were even remotely correct, it would be not only included within such work, but also underlined and highlighted and include an audio file as well? Now I think the CRS, the Congressional Research Service knows much more about Constitutional law than all of you combined along with all of your petty little lower court judges.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html ... amdt16_hd8

Oh and check it: "Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]" ...Arguing with you all is utterly pointless, you do not even know your history for crying out loud! You are all straight up weak assholes!

[Weston White]

ATTENTION, ATTENTION UPDATE FOR MORONS:

"By saying a tax on laboring is within such heads [classes] of taxes is NO different than trying to fit the square peg into the round hole."

See, because it is incorrect, meaning the choice is wrong, it is not possible, meaning that it is beyond improbable. Can't happen, won't happen, unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful... get the point?

[Weston White]

I think that's called "chaining", Weston.

Would you prefer that I post them one at time, because I can do that for you if you would like? Really it is no trouble at all. GTFOGUASFSDIIJTDFTAS!

BTW, that is not what is meant by chaining, see you are not even capable of understanding that simple word, just like you can't understand the phrase direct taxation.

Posting them one at a time would be even worse for your "analysis", Weston.

And, no, I do understand the phrase "direct taxation". You do not.

If this was true would not be making the silly arguments that you do whenever SCOTUS is discussing what was the intended meaning of "direct taxes" as in "other direct taxes" within the Constitution, being that the subject was never actually clarified. If that were true would realize the obvious distinctions between capitation taxes and "other direct taxes" as a catch all in the same way that "imposts" as used in indirect taxation serves as a catch all. A categorical generalization. But obviously you do not.

[Gregg]

Wow, your replies have gone straight down the fucking hill compared to when I first got here, and geez it has not even been a month yet has it?

BTW, the CRS Annotated Constitution agrees with none of you people. Now do no you think the, seriously stop and think about this for a second, at least... if any of what you allege were even remotely correct, it would be not only included within such work, but also underlined and highlighted and include an audio file as well? Now I think the CRS, the Congressional Research Service knows much more about Constitutional law than all of you combined along with all of your petty little lower court judges.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html ... amdt16_hd8

Oh and check it: "Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]" ...Arguing with you all is utterly pointless, you do not even know your history for crying out loud! You are all straight up weak assholes!

If any of what you said was even remotely correct, don't you think one judge, somewhere, just one, in how many cases over damn near 100 years, just one judge, whould have agreed with you?

You are aggresively stupid or just pulling people's chains, neither of which is an attractive trait. (I'm an arrogant asshole, also not attractive, but I do happen to be right a lot of the time, which will keep me out of prison, something you should be worried about)

My goodness, if someone here brought up the law of gravity you'd find some reason to justify why it didn't apply to you, even though you don't manage to float away, which is of course the result of some conspiracy of corrupt judges....

I rashly suggested the other day you be put on Mod status and well, I was wrong, by the rules being an argumentative simplton is not grounds for that, but I will encourage everyone to stop replying to you, see you or acknowegding you in any way cause it seems to me you just have the attention starvation of a neglected toddler and right or wrong doesn't matter as long as the LOOK AT WESTON...

In closing, Weston, you are wrong on just about everything you have ever said here, if I were really interested, I'd check your birth certificate to make sure you spell your own name correctly, your information is just that reliable....some people were dropped on their head when they were a baby, but someone wound up and threw you, sparky..

[Famspear]

Wow, your replies have gone straight down the fucking hill compared to when I first got here, and geez it has not even been a month yet has it?

Heeyyyyyyy, and here I was all worried that you hadn't noticed, Weston!

Yes, Weston, several posters here are making fun of you. We are not taking you seriously. Until and unless we see a change in your behavior, this treatment will probably continue.

[Lambkin]

I rashly suggested the other day you be put on Mod status and well, I was wrong, by the rules being an argumentative simplton is not grounds for that, but I will encourage everyone to stop replying to you, see you or acknowegding you in any way

I don't think Weston has done anything to merit banning, but I also don't think we are going to get anywhere with him until the judicial hammer comes down on his head. He thinks "winning" means telling a yarn on a web site that convinces him he is right (obviously not hard). It will help if/when Pete goes to prison again, but ultimately Weston will probably have to make the trip himself. He'll understand gravity not when he goes off the cliff (he calls that flying) but when he actually hits the ground, maybe it will do the trick. Some people are that way, dumb as a box of rocks.

[Weston White]

If any of what you said was even remotely correct, don't you think one judge, somewhere, just one, in how many cases over damn near 100 years, just one judge, whould have agreed with you?

That is because there have not been any such cases there genius, though Hendickson, if they accept it will be the first, by all appearances. Gee, I wonder why there are not any such prior, cases... I guess you don't find that to be strange, I mean, with the silly things you believe in and all. Go figure.


As to the rest of you post... BIG, BIG, really BIG, who cares.