Rubbing SteveSy's nose (& Weston White's nose) in Pollock

[Famspear]

But wait! Maybe the United States Court of Appeals is just as screwed up as I am, right Stevie? So, let's see what the United States Supreme Court itself said about what the Supreme Court meant in Pollock?

Heerrrrrre we go....

. . . . .the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless .... to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent .....Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock case[,] in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations", its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635.

---from Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916).

Gosh darn it, Steve, the Supreme Court agrees with MY interpretation of Pollock, not yours. How did that happen?

But of course, I guess Steve will tell us that the U.S. Supreme Court was just wrong about what the U.S. Supreme Court meant. So, from now on, I'll watch my Ps and Qs, and I'll be sure to cite "SteveSy" as the authority for the meaning of the texts of U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

[SteveSy]

Bonjour SteveSy! The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:

....[the taxpayer] relies on the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429 (initial decision), 158 U. S. 601 (decision on rehearing) (1895), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that a tax upon income from real and personal property is invalid in the absence of apportionment.

In making his argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to impose a tax on wages without apportionment among the States, the appellant [taxpayer] has chosen to ignore the precise holding of the Court in Pollock, as well as the development of constitutional law in this area over the last ninety years. While ruling that a tax upon income from real and personal property is invalid in the absence of apportionment, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and are not subject to the necessity of apportionment. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 158 U. S. at 635.

--from Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶9103 (2d Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).

So, if I were to go into a federal court in an actual case and I were to cite Pollock, whose interpretation of Pollock would I be required to use -- under the U.S. legal system?

Multiple choice:

A. The interpretation of SteveSy? (as in, "Your Honor, SteveSy says so") or

B. The interpretation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit?

Je frotterai ton nez dans le Pollock encore, Stevie!

Oh goody we get to play the circuit court quote game!

Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation

- United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 08/09/1991)

It is clear from a reading of the Act, as well as the revenue acts which preceded it, and the cases interpretive of its provisions, that an income tax is a direct tax upon income as therein defined. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1

- United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 04/20/1988)

I guess my quote overrules yours since mine came 4 years later from the 2nd! lol..


Face it Famspear you put all your eggs in the "they'll say anything to justify their opinion" basket. It truly amazes me that people like you tout quotes from the Federal Courts as if god has spoken when they're so easily shown as ignorant to the matter. The truth is once someone actually does the research they'll find the courts present little in the way of consistency, historical fact, and a lot of just off the hip nonsense, concerning something that is supposedly so well established for over 100 years that to even bring it up is frivolous. If they can't even come to a consensus out what the frigging tax is, or even more fundamental how its constitutional, after a 100 years then its not so clear. they're not quite sure how its constitutional, but they damn sure know it is, however that is. They call each others position frivolous on what the tax is for Christ sake, and you hold them up not as an authority but the authority. Now that's hilarious!

[Prof]

So Stevesy, one circuit says that the income tax is a constitutional unapportioned direct tax and another says it is a constitutional excise tax. As a result of this difference between the Circuit courts, what legal result? I.e., does this difference of approach make any legal difference?

[SteveSy]

So Stevesy, one circuit says that the income tax is a constitutional unapportioned direct tax and another says it is a constitutional excise tax. As a result of this difference between the Circuit courts, what legal result? I.e., does this difference of approach make any legal difference?

Well if you believe the constitution should operate like that then good for you. Personally I don't think its wise just to swallow the federal koolaid where they're not sure how something is constitutional they just know it is and to argue otherwise is frivolous. That sounds pretty Orwellian to me. If they're going to take someone's means to feed and take care of their family then certainly the people who are having that taken away deserve to know, with consistency, how its constitutional. I mean people are having a cow over terrorists having water poured in their face and how its unconstitutional. But taking someone's earnings for life is of little importance the authority said they could do it and its constitutional, they're just not sure how yet. Btw, don't question our inconsistency that's frivolous!

What if both of them are half right? Besides it doesn't matter they have zero credibility in my book and hopefully more people would realize they don't deserve any. The only thing people should know is that if you happen to be unlucky enough to be in front of them you'll lose. You know what, the same can be said for any government that abuses its people.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Famspear you make the same mistake every other TA does because you squint your eyes really, really hard and see what you want to see rather than what they said.

The Sitka "quote" in the posting above appears to be a fake. I just did a word search on the text of the case as printed in CCH, and the language simply does not appear. I haven't checked Sloan yet. But that's a bit beside the point.

No, Steve. I didn't make a mistake.

But you keep making the same mistakes, over and over.

One of the mistakes you seem to make -- over and over -- is to forget that the Quatloos regulars have already studied these cases a thousand times. You flail around, figuratively waving your emotional "arms", and acting like your hair is on fire about my supposed erroneous reading of the "employments" passage in Pollock. You just can't accept that the Supreme Court was talking about INCOME FROM EMPLOYMENTS. Yet you forget that the Supreme Court -- and other courts like the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit -- have interpreted the "employments" language of Pollock case in precisely that way - tax on INCOME from employments.

You, like many other tax protesters (or in your case, quasi-tax-protesters, I guess), still can't seem to get your brain around the concept that these teachings that are presented to you are not merely the personal opinions of the Quatloos regulars. We are reporting to you on what the law is, NOT on what WE THINK THE LAW SHOULD BE, and NOT on WHAT WE WISH THE LAW TO BE, and NOT what we believe the MOST LOGICAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE. Where a particular point of law has been decided in a court, when we use the phrase "what the law is," we mean WHAT THE COURT HAS RULED.

And, in the case of Pollock, where the statement (the one about taxation of "employments" that we've been arguing about) is perhaps "dicta" rather than "holding", the rule is similar: the subsequent interpretations of courts of law are authoritative -- not the supposedly "logical" interpretations of "SteveSy" or "Famspear."

Steve, you waste a lot of time and energy constructing your elaborate, supposedly "logical" arguments about why the Quatloos regulars are "wrong" about what the courts mean in these texts. Your approach is invalid. It's not proper legal analysis.

As many readers here know, I am an attorney-CPA and I have been practicing only as a CPA for some years. A while back, my accounting colleagues and I were in our CPA office one day. An attorney friend of ours from a law firm in the building came in to borrow some of our tax research materials. He was sitting there in our office, studying the materials.

One of my CPA colleagues walked over and asked the attorney what tax issue he was researching. The attorney told him.

My CPA colleague responded with something like "Oh, I can tell you, that XXXX [fill in blank] is indeed the correct answer."

The attorneys' response was absolutely on point. He said, "The main issue is not so much whether that answer is correct. I'm looking for authority for the answer."

Before trying to "logic" your way through understanding a court opinion with your own idiosyncratic "reasoning," what you should be doing -- at least at some preliminary stage of your analysis -- is ALSO looking at how the courts interpret that opinion in subsequent, actual cases. A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y. That's how the U.S. legal system works.

[Weston White]

Gosh darn it, Steve, the Supreme Court agrees with MY interpretation of Pollock, not yours. How did that happen?

But earlier you were raving about the specific use of the word revenue... now though I see you appear to have fallen back upon the more correct use of the term income... at least you appear to be getting back onto track. I do like that you are actually quoting cases, perhaps there is a tad bit of hope remaining for your lost soul yet! To early to tell though, you have a very long path ahead of you still. Congratulations are in order though!

[Famspear]

Gosh darn it, Steve, the Supreme Court agrees with MY interpretation of Pollock, not yours. How did that happen?

But earlier you were raving about the specific use of the word revenue... now though I see you appear to have fallen back upon the more correct use of the term income... at least you appear to be getting back onto track. I do like that you are actually quoting cases, perhaps there is a tad bit of hope remaining for your lost soul yet! To early to tell though, you have a very long path ahead of you still. Congratulations are in order though!

Ah, now Weston White is trying to lecture us on the correct use of terms like "income" and "revenue." Weston, my sister's dog knows more about the correct use of these terms than you do.



No, Weston, you do not like the fact that I quote cases. When I quote cases, you falsely claim that my quotes don't appear in the cases. When I give citations, you falsely claim that I don't give citations.

You are trolling, Weston.

In response your your unsupported blather, I sometimes provide responses WITHOUT providing quotes or citations. You then complain that I'm not providing quotes or citations -- even though you consistently fail to admit you are wrong when the quotes and citations we do provide blow you out of the water.

You are trolling, Weston.

Then, when Quatloos regulars start providing quotes and citations again, you respond with sarcastic blather as you just did. More trolling.

So, now I'm getting "back on track," eh Weston? Got a long road ahead of me, eh?

No. Weaksauce, Weston. Sell it to the IRS Revenue Officer who comes after you in the levy process. Sell it to the members of your Tyrannical Response Team.

[Imalawman]

Here's the entire paragraph. Steve, I said that some lower courts had gotten the issue somewhat wrong, mostly because they weren't addressing that issue directly and were sloppy with the distinction. What you won't find is a court that is addressing the issue head-on coming to the same conclusion. When it matters, the courts do get it right. (But thanks for actually citing to case law) In addition, the debate still is ongoing to a limited extent as whether tax on income from rental property and other similar income taxes is a direct tax. Note, this court does not say, "taxes on income from wages is a direct tax." However, other courts do state that taxes on wages is an indirect tax.

Also basic to Mr. Sloan's “freedom from income tax theory” is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a “master”-not “servant”-of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws *501 of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. “All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages,” regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell, 755 F.2d at 519; cf. Studley, 783 F.2d at 937 (Studley's argument that “she is not a ‘taxpayer’ because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a ‘person’ under the Internal Revenue Code.”). Moreover, the tax code imposes a “direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves,” such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan's proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.

U.S. v. Sloan 939 F.2d 499, 501 (C.A.7 (Ind.),1991)

[Cpt Banjo]

Even Professor Jensen, whom Stevie has cited in the past, views Pollock as having implicitly approved the constitutionality of a tax on wages:

Apparently, it was the application of the tax to income from real and personal property that caused constitutional problems; a tax on the income from property was deemed to be equivalent to a tax on the property itself. Although the Court hinted that an unapportioned tax which fell only on earned income would have been acceptable (because it would not have been a direct tax), n43 the tax on income from property was so central to a structure aimed at high-income taxpayers that the statute in its entirety was constitutionally flawed. In modern parlance, the tax on property could not be severed from the rest of the revenue act.

N43 The hint was that a tax on income from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations" was an excise tax not subject to apportionment. Pollock, 158 U.S. at 637. "In the case before us there is no question as to the validity of this act, except [the] sections ... which relate to the subject which has been under discussion" - i.e., taxing income from property. Id. at 635; see also 1 Bittker & Lokken, supra note 8, P 1.2.2, at 1-19 (noting the intimation "that a tax on salaries, wages, and business profits would not be a direct tax").

…With the income from property constitutionally removed from the base of an unapportioned tax, and with an exemption amount of $ 4000, the statute was gutted. The Court therefore concluded that the entire statute had to fall, including the part - the tax on earned income - that by itself might have survived constitutional scrutiny. n190

N190 See supra note 43 and accompanying text. It is not clear why earned income might be treated differently, except that it is easier to fit a tax on income from property into the conceptual boxes created by Hylton. There is one piece of possibly relevant historical evidence. In the deliberations that led to the first direct tax on real estate, Treasury Secretary Wolcott prepared a report concluding, among other things, that "taxes on the profits resulting from certain employments" such as taxes on "lawyers, physicians, and other professions, upon merchant traders, and mechanics, and upon mills, furnaces, and other manufactories" - a form of tax that had been used in some states - were "presumed" not to be "of that description which the Constitution requires to be apportioned among the States." Wolcott Report, supra note 159, at 2706-07. Of course, Federalist officeholders were not inclined to see constitutional limits on national taxing power.

Erik M. Jensen, The Apportionment of "Direct Taxes": Are Consumption Taxes Constitutional?, 97 Columbia L. Rev 2334 (1997)

Apropos of Jensen’s last comment, it might also be said that Antifederalists like Gallatin were inclined to see constitutional limits on national taxing power.

[Famspear]

For those who may have missed it, here's the fakery from SteveSy. He claims that the following is a quote from a case called United States v. Sitka:

It is clear from a reading of the Act, as well as the revenue acts which preceded it, and the cases interpretive of its provisions, that an income tax is a direct tax upon income as therein defined. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1

--According to Steve, this is supposedly from United States v. Sitka, 845 F.2d 43 (2nd Cir. 04/20/1988),

Steve wrote:

I guess my quote overrules yours since mine came 4 years later from the 2nd! lol..

Oh, ha, ha, Steve. No, we have another rule in law: The quote that you claim appears in the text must actually appear in the text. No fakery.

As noted above, the SteveSy "quote" is a fabrication. It simply does not appear in the case.

Steve is picking up Weston White's behavior.

EDIT: As Steve noted later in this thread, it was just a mistake, not intentional on Steve's part. The quote was from another case. Steve, you nearly gave me a heart attack.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

Famspear you make the same mistake every other TA does because you squint your eyes really, really hard and see what you want to see rather than what they said.

The Sitka "quote" in the posting above appears to be a fake. I just did a word search on the text of the case as printed in CCH, and the language simply does not appear. I haven't checked Sloan yet. But that's a bit beside the point.

Its not a fake I looked all of them up myself.

And, in the case of Pollock, where the statement (the one about taxation of "employments" that we've been arguing about) is perhaps "dicta" rather than "holding", the rule is similar: the subsequent interpretations of courts of law are authoritative -- not the supposedly "logical" interpretations of "SteveSy" or "Famspear."

Steve, you waste a lot of time and energy constructing your elaborate, supposedly "logical" arguments about why the Quatloos regulars are "wrong" about what the courts mean in these texts. Your approach is invalid. It's not proper legal analysis.

Whatever....coming from an anonymous no one.

Well when you figure out what is meant by a tax "ON" something and a tax from something let me know.

Before trying to "logic" your way through understanding a court opinion with your own idiosyncratic "reasoning," what you should be doing -- at least at some preliminary stage of your analysis -- is ALSO looking at how the courts interpret that opinion in subsequent, actual cases. A-U-T-H-O-R-I-T-Y. That's how the U.S. legal system works.

If you're tryin to prove my argument will lose in court then you might as well give up, I know that already. I also know that a woman trying to convince a court in Afghanistan that its not right she gets stoned for being raped will also lose.

So what a court says something Famspear? Its meaningless when trying to find the truth. They are people just like you and I. Simply having the title judge does not endow you with the word of God. If you're counting on them to protect your rights you're a fool. They're an arm of the government, they are hand selected due to their opinions and beliefs. If the majority of congress thought it was constitutional to seize your property without cause, guess what, over time that would be considered constitutional.

The court lost its position as the protector of rights when it bent over and utterly changed course when FDR threatened to pack the court.

[Famspear]

posting removed

replaced:

I'm having a bit of technical trouble with my Quatloos post, but Steve, if you're the one who's saying that the Sitka "quote" is real, then you've lost me. The quote does not appear in any reprint of the case I have found.

[SteveSy]

posting removed

Did you find it? I don't misquote cases. You may not like my opinion but you'll never show that I make crap up from cases.

[Famspear]

Steve, what is your precise source for the supposed "Sitka" quote?

[SteveSy]

Steve, what is your precise source for the supposed "Sitka" quote?

Ummm I forget. I used to subscribe to a source that had all the cases online. I'll look, its on my other laptop.

[Prof]

1. Your answer is just another version of "the courts are corrupt."

2. You did not answer my question. I'll rephrase. If the income tax on individuals is an excise, then the court's who view it as a direct tax are mistaken. Why does not mistake matter, since both sets of courts come to the same result-- the tax is lawful. Try to answer instead of using the "all courts just rule for the government" argument, for, as you well know, taxpayers frequently win in litigation with the government -- just not on the issue of constitutionality or other TP gibberish.

[Famspear]

On Sitka, CCH shows no such verbiage.

Also, here's a copy of Sitka:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... 5.864.html

My word search on this version shows no such language.

And no such verbiage here:

http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-app ... 43/285184/

I don't have Westlaw or Lexis.

PS: I got confused on who posted what (Steve or Weston). I can't believe Steve would deliberately post a fake quote. If it's a mistake on Steve's part, it's got to be just that - a mistake.

[SteveSy]

1. Your answer is just another version of "the courts are corrupt."

They're not corrupt in the sense of intentionally misrepresenting the truth. They're unintentionally biased is a better way of saying it. They're hand picked because of their beliefs. If I could hand pick judges who have a license to practice then I could get the results I favor also.

2. You did not answer my question. I'll rephrase. If the income tax on individuals is an excise, then the court's who view it as a direct tax are mistaken. Why does not mistake matter, since both sets of courts come to the same result-- the tax is lawful. Try to answer instead of using the "all courts just rule for the government" argument, for, as you well know, taxpayers frequently win in litigation with the government -- just not on the issue of constitutionality or other TP gibberish.

It could be that it is indeed it takes a direct tax to tax a person's gross earnings, not their profit. It could also be that a tax that is measured by income is an excise provided that there is some nexus to an identifiable government created privilege.

They could both be half right.

[SteveSy]

My bad, I cut the wrong court.
Keasbey & Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d 894 (3rd Cir. 02/17/1943)

My source was Vesuslaw

[Prof]

1. Now you're adding elements.

2. If the tax is an excise, why is the exercise of a government privilege a necessary compontent? The 16th A contains no such limitation. Neither does the Constitution. This sounds like a "jurisdictional" argument per Lost Horizons.

3. I simply do not understand this statement: "It could be that it is indeed it takes a direct tax to tax a person's gross earnings, not their profit. "