President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David GUSTAFSON (1983-2008 TAX ATTORNEY) of Greenville, South Carolina, United States Federal Judge, United States Tax Court, New York, NY, Alumni of Bob Jones University (1978 @BJUedu @BJUAlumni summa cum laude), Duke University School of Law (1981 with distinction @DukeLaw Order of the Coif @DukeLawAlumni), executive editor Duke Law Journal (1980-1981 @DukeLawJournal), United States FEDERAL INCOME TAX case EPIC FAIL

April 6 2010 T.C. Memo. 2010-68 UNITED STATES TAX COURT  RICHARD ENRIQUE ULLOA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent  Docket Nos. 2053-09, 4514-09  Filed April 6, 2010 pg. 16
President George W. Bush (George Bush @TheBushCenter) Judicial Nominee, David GUSTAFSON (1983-2008 TAX ATTORNEY) of Greenville, South Carolina, United States Federal Judge, United States Tax Court, New York, NY, Alumni of Bob Jones University (1978 @BJUedu @BJUAlumni summa cum laude), Duke University School of Law (1981 with distinction @DukeLaw Order of the Coif @DukeLawAlumni), executive editor Duke Law Journal (1980-1981 @DukeLawJournal), United States FEDERAL INCOME TAX case EPIC FAIL
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
——————————————————————
United States Federal Judge David GUSTAFSON in the United States Tax Court (#USTaxCourt) in New York City, New York, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
pg.

– 16 –

See

United States v. Collins,

920 F.2d 619,

629

(10th Cir. 1990)

(citing

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19

(1916),

and noting that

THE

SUPREME COURT

HAS

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

“SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation,
not just in federal enclaves”);

Rev. Rul. 2006-18,

2006-1 C.B. 743
——————————————————————
Rev. Rul. 2006-18

2006-1 C.B. 743
——————————————————————
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2006-15_IRB/ar07.html
_________________________________________________
pg.

– 16 –

See United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noting that the Supreme Court has recognized that the “sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves”); Rev. Rul. 2006-18,
………………………………………………..
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ulloa.TCM.WPD.pdf
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
April 6 2010 T.C. Memo. 2010-68 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD ENRIQUE ULLOA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent  Docket Nos. 2053-09, 4514-09 Filed April 6, 2010
_________________________________________________
April 6 2010

T.C. Memo. 2010-68

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

RICHARD ENRIQUE ULLOA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket Nos. 2053-09, 4514-09

Filed April 6, 2010

United States Tax Court Judge

David GUSTAFSON
………………………………………………..
April 6 2010 T.C. Memo. 2010-68 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD ENRIQUE ULLOA, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent  Docket Nos. 2053-09, 4514-09 Filed April 6, 2010
2/14/2008
………………………………………………..
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/text/20080214-8.html
——————————————————————
4/17/2008
………………………………………………..
http://www.finance.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=dcffc984-c372-880b-ecae-5f8c2a204aa3
——————————————————————
4/17/2008
………………………………………………..
http://www.finance.senate.gov/download/?id=9969159b-cece-47ce-929a-1d3085e6ddcc
——————————————————————
6/18/2008
………………………………………………..
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=8742e506-f0fa-4d93-91b4-8de8963f80a7
——————————————————————
7/7/2008 – PN1330 – Nomination of David Gustafson for United States Tax Court
………………………………………………..
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/110th-congress/1330
——————————————————————
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?i110:I02395:i110COLLIER.html
——————————————————————
https://senatus.wordpress.com/category/nominations/page/73/
——————————————————————
http://ballotpedia.org/David_Gustafson
________________________________________________

President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, Susan Harrell Black (Susan H. BLACK a/k/a Susan Sims Harrell) of Valdosta, Georgia, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Fairborn High School (1961 @FairbornSkyhawk), Florida State University (1964 B.A. @FloridaState), University of Florida College of Law (1967 J.D. @UFLaw @UnivOfFL), University of Virginia School of Law (1984 LL.M. @UVALaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 1
________________________________________________
President George Herbert Walker Bush (George H. W. Bush @GeorgeHWBush) Judicial Nominee, Susan Harrell Black (Susan H. BLACK a/k/a Susan Sims Harrell) of Valdosta, Georgia, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Fairborn High School (1961 @FairbornSkyhawk), Florida State University (1964 B.A. @FloridaState), University of Florida College of Law (1967 J.D. @UFLaw @UnivOfFL), University of Virginia School of Law (1984 LL.M. @UVALaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
——————————————————————
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
Second

[for nearly a century]

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation
not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

(10th Cir. 1990)
——————————————————————
Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)
_________________________________________________
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 4
_________________________________________________
Dec. 29 2014

Irvin E. Taliaferro v. United States, 14-12062 (11th Cir. 2014)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: December 29th 2014

Docket Number: 14-12062

Case: 14-12062

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

11th Circuit
Eleventh Circuit

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK

Circuit Judges
________________________________________________
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges
________________________________________________
6/4/1992 S. Hrg 102-505 Part 9 – Library of Congress
………………………………………………..
http://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/sotomayor/shrg105-205pt9.pdf
——————————————————————
8/11/1992 PN933 – Nomination of Susan H. Black for the Judiciary: 102nd
………………………………………………..
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/102nd-congress/933——————————————————————
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/sotomayor-district-hearing.pdf
——————————————————————
http://www.floridabar.org/tfb/TFBProfess.nsf/840090c16eedaf0085256b61000928dc/25b0965d6160575985256d50006481db?OpenDocument
——————————————————————
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/judicial?PageNum_rs=16&
_________________________________________________

President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Stanley MARCUS (R) of New York, NY, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Queens College, City University of New York (1967 B.A. @CUNYLawSchool magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (1971 L.D. @Harvard_Law @Harvard), Religion and the Constitution, and Trial Advocacy, Brooklyn Law School (@BrooklynLaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 4
________________________________________________
President William Jefferson Clinton (Bill Clinton @BillClinton) Judicial Nominee, Stanley MARCUS (R) of New York, NY, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Eleventh (11th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Atlanta, Georgia, Alumni of Queens College, City University of New York (1967 B.A. @CUNYLawSchool magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (1971 L.D. @Harvard_Law @Harvard), Religion and the Constitution, and Trial Advocacy, Brooklyn Law School (@brooklynlaw), Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
——————————————————————
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
Second

[for nearly a century]

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation
not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

(10th Cir. 1990)
——————————————————————
Second [for nearly a century] “the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)
_________________________________________________
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2764990/irvin-e-taliaferro-v-united-states/
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia  (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges
_________________________________________________
Dec. 29 2014

Irvin E. Taliaferro v. United States, 14-12062 (11th Cir. 2014)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: December 29th 2014

Docket Number: 14-12062

Case: 14-12062

Date Filed: 12/29/2014

11th Circuit
Eleventh Circuit

Stanley MARCUS

Adalberto Josè JORDAN

Susan H. BLACK

Circuit Judges
………………………………………………..
Irvin Taliaferro v. USA Case: 14-12062 Date Filed: 12/29/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-12062 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-00094-WLS IRVIN E. TALIAFERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FREEMAN, IRS, Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (December 29, 2014) MARCUS JORDAN BLACK Circuit Judges pg. 1
__________________
11/7/1997 PN667 – Nomination of Stanley Marcus for the Judiciary: 105th
——————————————————————
http://www.loc.gov/law/find/nominations/sotomayor/shrg105-205pt2.pdf
_______________________________

David W. McKeague of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)

pg. 53 T. D. 2313 Income tax Treasury Department Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue Washington D. C March 21 1916 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co. decided January 24 1916 W. H. Osborn Commissioner of Internal Revenue Approved March 30 1916 Byron R. Newton Acting Secretary of the Treasury
_________________________________________________
David W. McKeague of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
pg. 54 T. D. 2313 Income tax Treasury Department Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue Washington D. C March 21 1916 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co. decided January 24 1916 W. H. Osborn Commissioner of Internal Revenue Approved March 30 1916 Byron R. Newton Acting Secretary of the Treasury
_________________________________________________
Jul. 22 1996

United States v. MacZka,

UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner,
v.
Randall C. MACZKA, Respondent

957 F. Supp. 988

No. 1:96-MC-41

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan –
957 F. Supp. 988

(W.D. Mich. 1996)

United States District Court,

W.D. Michigan,

Southern Division

July 22, 1996

District Judge

David W. McKeague
pg. 55 T. D. 2313 Income tax Treasury Department Office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue Washington D. C March 21 1916 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co. decided January 24 1916 W. H. Osborn Commissioner of Internal Revenue Approved March 30 1916 Byron R. Newton Acting Secretary of the Treasury
………………………………………………..
*990

United States v. Mundt,

29 F.3d 233,

237

(6th Cir.1994)

The

Sixth Circuit

quoted at length the

Tenth Circuit’s opinion

in

United States v. Collins,

920 F.2d 619,

629

(10th Cir.1990)

(citations omitted),

cert. denied,

500 U.S. 920,

111 S.Ct. 2022,

114 L.Ed.2d 108

(1991)

*991

… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation,
not just in federal enclaves,

see

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19

[36 S.Ct. 236,

239-42,

60 L.Ed. 493]

(1916);

efforts to argue otherwise

have been

sanctioned

as

frivolous….

Mundt,

29 F.3d at 237

(quoting

Collins,

920 F.2d at 629)
——————————————————————
*990

United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233, 237 (6th Cir.1994)

The Sixth Circuit quoted at length the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in

United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir.1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991)

*991

… For seventy-five years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves, see Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 [36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493] (1916); efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous…. Mundt, 29 F.3d at 237 (quoting Collins, 920 F.2d at 629)
——————————————————————
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/957/988/1581452/
==========================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

THIS CONCLUSION

but

ENFORCED A REGULATION AS TO THE MODE OF EXERCISING POWER

under particular circumstances,

IT DID NOT

in any way

DISPUTE THE ALL-EMBRACING TAXING AUTHORITY POSSESSED BY CONGRESS, INCLUDING

necessarily therein the

POWER TO IMPOSE INCOME TAXES IF

only

THEY CONFORMED TO

the

CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS

which were

APPLICABLE TO THEM
………………………………………………..
THE CONCLUSION

reached in the Pollock Case

DID NOT

in any degree

INVOLVE HOLDING THAT INCOME TAXES

generically and necessarily

CAME WITHIN THE CLASS

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

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
………………………………………………..
NOTHING COULD

serve to

MAKE THIS CLEARER

than to recall that in the Pollock Case,

IN SO FAR AS THE LAW TAXED INCOMES

… ( 158 U.S. 637 ),

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
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent

As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

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 and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it

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’

( 158 U.S. 637 ),

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
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition …

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

… of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment … would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; … they would result in bringing the provisions … into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
ALL DIRECT TAXES BE APPORTIONED
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

under it if acceded to would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another that is they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, … the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying … and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system …
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT

although

THE

CONSTITUTION,

AS A

RESULT

OF THE

AMENDMENT,

in express terms

EXCLUDES THE CRITERION

of source of income,

THAT CRITERION yet REMAINS

FOR THE

PURPOSE

OF

DESTROYING

THE

CLASSIFICATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

BY TAKING

AN

EXCISE

OUT OF THE

CLASS

TO WHICH IT BELONGS

AND TRANSFERRING IT

TO A

CLASS

IN WHICH IT

CANNOT

BE PLACED

consistently

WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

Indeed, from another point of view,

THE

AMENDMENT

DEMONSTRATES

that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that

IT WAS

DRAWN

WITH THE

OBJECT

OF

MAINTAINING THE LIMITATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

AND

HARMONIZING THEIR OPERATION
………………………………………………..
THE

AMENDMENT

CONTAINS NOTHING

REPUDIATING

OR

CHALLENGING

THE

RULING

in the Pollock Case

THAT THE WORD

‘DIRECT’

HAD A

BROADER SIGNIFICANCE,

since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership,

AND THEREFORE THE

AMENDMENT

at least

IMPLIEDLY

MAKES SUCH

WIDER SIGNIFICANCE

a

PART

OF THE

CONSTITUTION,

-a condition

WHICH

clearly DEMONSTRATES

that THE

PURPOSE

WAS

NOT TO CHANGE

THE

EXISTING INTERPRETATION

except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself,

AND THEREBY

to TAKE AN

INCOME TAX

OUT OF THE

CLASS

OF

EXCISES,

DUTIES,

AND

IMPOSTS,

AND PLACE IT IN THE

CLASS

OF

DIRECT TAXES
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution

Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word ‘direct’ had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

the contention that the

AMENDMENT

treats a

TAX

on

INCOME

as a

DIRECT TAX

although it is

RELIEVED

from

APPORTIONMENT

and is necessarily therefore

NOT SUBJECT

to the

RULE

of

UNIFORMITY

as such

RULE

only applies to

TAXES

which are

NOT DIRECT,

thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning,

IS

also

WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived

[240 U.S. 1, 19]

forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class
=============================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what is on

page 2580

of the

MARCH 27, 1943

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
_________________________________
________
Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580

“So the AMENDMENT

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment INCOME within the scope of the general INCOME-TAX law, but did not change the character of the TAX

It is still fundamentally an EXCISE or DUTY with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces INCOME

The INCOME TAX is, therefore, not a TAX on INCOME as such

It is an EXCISE TAX with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the INCOME they produce

The INCOME is not the subject of the TAX:

it is the basis for determining the amount of TAX
——————————————————————
“So the amendment

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax

It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such

It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce

The income is not the subject of the tax:

it is the basis for determining the amount of tax”
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
======================================
… For

seventy-five

years,

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in

federal enclaves …
_________________________________________________
That

IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO

The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

REPORT No. 84-168A, 784 / 275

Report No. 84-168 A 784/275

“SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING the FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS”

dated May 25, 1979

updated Sept. 26, 1984

Updated September 26, 1984

HJ 4625 U.S.A.

American Law Division

by Howard Zaritsky ; updated by John R. Luckey

Published 1984 by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress in [Washington, D.C.]
………………………………………………..
DIRECT TAXES

WERE,

notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment,

STILL SUBJECT

TO THE

RULE

OF

APPORTIONMENT

AND

INDIRECT TAXES

WERE STILL THE SUBJECT

OF THE

RULE

OF

UNIFORMITY
………………………………………………..
“THE SUPREME COURT,

in a decision written by Chief Justice White,

first NOTED that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

DID NOT

AUTHORIZE

ANY NEW type of

TAX,

NOR DID IT

REPEAL

OR

REVOKE

THE

TAX CLAUSES

OF

ARTICLE I

OF THE

CONSTITUTION,

quoted above
………………………………………………..
Rather,

THE COURT FOUND

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

SOUGHT TO

RESTRAIN THE COURT

FROM VIEWING

AN

INCOME TAX

AS A

DIRECT TAX

because of its close effect on the underlying property”

(pg 5)
——————————————————————
“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above

Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity

Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property”

(pg 5)
——————————————————————
http://www.lib.miamioh.edu/multifacet/record/mu3ugb3100641
======================================
How does one become a United States Federal Court Judge without knowing that the United States Federal Income Tax is an Indirect (Excise) Tax❓

What justification can the United States Court possibly offer for this decision❓
………………………………………………..
STARE DECISIS does not apply because the citation the court provides is from a different Circuit (10th)
………………………………………………..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
——————————————————————
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis
——————————————————————
http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/
_________________________________________________
Precedent does not apply because the Court cites the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case, not a United States Supreme Court case
………………………………………………..
Is the Court inept❓
——————————————————————
Is the Court not smarter than a Fifth-grader❓
_________________________________________________
Is the Court too lazy to do proper legal research❓
——————————————————————
Is the Court lacking in reading comprehension❓
_________________________________________________
Section 372(c)(1) of the Judicial Code provides in relevant part that
——————————————————————
Judicial Misconduct or Disability
======================================
ethical rule or principle might have violated

breach of judicial ethics
——————————————————————
“any person alleging that a circuit ․ judge ․ has engaged in conduct

“prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts”
——————————————————————
These descriptions may constitute knowingly false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001”
=====================================
In support of this very serious charge
—————————————————————
(18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a felony statute)
………………………………………………..
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
——————————————————————
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
_________________________________________________
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
_________________________________________________
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
_________________________________________________

————————————————————
Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

(28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364)
======================================
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! – Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-fI
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov (IRS L📍a ®💲 Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, 1916)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-gp
_________________________________________________
Why Does the Congress of the United States of America Let the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) Lie about the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916)❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-g2
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) Judiciary Committee (@HouseJudiciary) Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015), in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hk
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States Congress (@USCongress): The United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) and United States Senate (@USSenate), Joint Committee on Taxation (@jctgov) Allowed the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) to Rely on Inferior Courts of the United States who Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-i4
________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iA
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iL
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States, Sanction Litigants, When the Court Misstates the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
_________________________________________________
Why has Jack Lew, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (@USTreasury), Let the #IRS Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kl
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals,
for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kx
_________________________________________________

United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)

Form 1040 IRS #IRS I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stephen Hale ANDERSON, Circuit Judge Monroe G. McKAY, and Circuit Judge Carlos F. LUCERO, in the United States Court of Appeals, for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, Colorado, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
_________________________________________________
Dec. 24 1998

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
H. Eugene LYMAN and Arlene W. Lyman,

166 F.3d 349

83 A.F.T.R.2d 99-354,

99-1 USTC P 50,199,

1999 CJ C.A.R. 41

No. 98-4109

United States Court of Appeals,

Tenth Circuit
10th Circuit

Dec. 24, 1998

Tenth Circuit Judge

Stephen Hale ANDERSON,

Monroe G. McKAY,

Carlos F. LUCERO,

Circuit Judges

ORDER AND JUDGMENT
………………………………………………..
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens
throughout the nation
not just in federal enclaves”

See

Cox,

99 F.3d 1149

(citing

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19,

36 S.Ct. 236,

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

* If the court is only able to cite page numbers (12-19) because nothing in the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White supports its ORDER, maybe the court should go back to law school
——————————————————————
Since 1916, the Supreme Court has recognized that “the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.” See Cox, 99 F.3d 1149 (citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916))
_________________________________________________
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/166/166.F3d.349.98-4109.html
======================================
FACT: The Unanimous SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES recognized that:

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an “ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION” “that the 16th AMENDMENT PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY” a “DIRECT” “INCOME TAX” “NOT” “SUBJECT to the REGULATION of APPORTIONMENT applicable to ALL OTHER DIRECT TAXES”
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that the

16th AMENDMENT

PROVIDES” “POWER to LEVY”

a

“DIRECT” “INCOME TAX”

“NOT” “SUBJECT

to the

REGULATION

of

APPORTIONMENT

applicable to

ALL OTHER

DIRECT TAXES”
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

We are of opinion however that the confusion is not inherent but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation that is a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it as follows:
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

JOHN R. STANTON, Appt.,
v.
BALTIC MINING COMPANY et al.

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 103, 107]

As in

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

240 U.S. 1 ,

60 L. ed. –,

36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236, . . .
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

THE

16th AMENDMENT

conferred no new power of taxation,

but simply

PROHIBITED

THE

previous complete

and

plenary

POWER

OF

INCOME TAXATION

possessed by Congress

from the beginning

FROM BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE

CATEGORY

OF

INDIRECT TAXATION

to which it inherently belonged,

AND being PLACED

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

IN THE

CATEGORY

OF

DIRECT TAXATION

subject to

apportionment

by a consideration of the sources from which the

income

was derived,-that is, by testing the

tax

not by what it was, a

tax

on

income,

but by a mistaken theory deduced from the

origin

or

source

of the

income taxed
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 103, 112]

But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed

[240 U.S. 103, 113]

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed
——————————————————————
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103

36 S.Ct. 278

60 L.Ed. 546

No. 359

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

THIS CONCLUSION

but

ENFORCED A REGULATION AS TO THE MODE OF EXERCISING POWER

under particular circumstances,

IT DID NOT

in any way

DISPUTE THE ALL-EMBRACING TAXING AUTHORITY POSSESSED BY CONGRESS, INCLUDING

necessarily therein the

POWER TO IMPOSE INCOME TAXES IF

only

THEY CONFORMED TO

the

CONSTITUTIONAL REGULATIONS

which were

APPLICABLE TO THEM
………………………………………………..
THE CONCLUSION

reached in the Pollock Case

DID NOT

in any degree

INVOLVE HOLDING THAT INCOME TAXES

generically and necessarily

CAME WITHIN THE CLASS

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

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
………………………………………………..
NOTHING COULD

serve to

MAKE THIS CLEARER

than to recall that in the Pollock Case,

IN SO FAR AS THE LAW TAXED INCOMES

… ( 158 U.S. 637 ),

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
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 16]

Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent

As this conclusion but enforced a regulation as to the mode of exercising power under particular circumstances, it did not in any way dispute the all-embracing taxing authority possessed by Congress, including necessarily therein the power to impose income taxes if only they conformed to the constitutional regulations which were applicable to them

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class

[240 U.S. 1, 17]

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 and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it

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’

( 158 U.S. 637 ),

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
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition …

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

… of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment … would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; … they would result in bringing the provisions … into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
ALL DIRECT TAXES BE APPORTIONED
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

under it if acceded to would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another that is they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, … the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying … and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system …
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

UNLESS IT CAN BE SAID THAT

although

THE

CONSTITUTION,

AS A

RESULT

OF THE

AMENDMENT,

in express terms

EXCLUDES THE CRITERION

of source of income,

THAT CRITERION yet REMAINS

FOR THE

PURPOSE

OF

DESTROYING

THE

CLASSIFICATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

BY TAKING

AN

EXCISE

OUT OF THE

CLASS

TO WHICH IT BELONGS

AND TRANSFERRING IT

TO A

CLASS

IN WHICH IT

CANNOT

BE PLACED

consistently

WITH THE

REQUIREMENTS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

Indeed, from another point of view,

THE

AMENDMENT

DEMONSTRATES

that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that

IT WAS

DRAWN

WITH THE

OBJECT

OF

MAINTAINING THE LIMITATIONS

OF THE

CONSTITUTION

AND

HARMONIZING THEIR OPERATION
………………………………………………..
THE

AMENDMENT

CONTAINS NOTHING

REPUDIATING

OR

CHALLENGING

THE

RULING

in the Pollock Case

THAT THE WORD

‘DIRECT’

HAD A

BROADER SIGNIFICANCE,

since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership,

AND THEREFORE THE

AMENDMENT

at least

IMPLIEDLY

MAKES SUCH

WIDER SIGNIFICANCE

a

PART

OF THE

CONSTITUTION,

-a condition

WHICH

clearly DEMONSTRATES

that THE

PURPOSE

WAS

NOT TO CHANGE

THE

EXISTING INTERPRETATION

except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself,

AND THEREBY

to TAKE AN

INCOME TAX

OUT OF THE

CLASS

OF

EXCISES,

DUTIES,

AND

IMPOSTS,

AND PLACE IT IN THE

CLASS

OF

DIRECT TAXES
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution

Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word ‘direct’ had a broader significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what

U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:

indicates:
_________________________________________________
What the UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

the contention that the

AMENDMENT

treats a

TAX

on

INCOME

as a

DIRECT TAX

although it is

RELIEVED

from

APPORTIONMENT

and is necessarily therefore

NOT SUBJECT

to the

RULE

of

UNIFORMITY

as such

RULE

only applies to

TAXES

which are

NOT DIRECT,

thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning,

IS

also

WHOLLY WITHOUT FOUNDATION
——————————————————————
[240 U.S. 1, 18]

From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish

Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived

[240 U.S. 1, 19]

forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class
=============================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

36 S.Ct. 236

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
——————————————————————
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS NOT

what is on

page 2580

of the

MARCH 27, 1943

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
_________________________________
________
Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580

“So the AMENDMENT

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment INCOME within the scope of the general INCOME-TAX law, but did not change the character of the TAX

It is still fundamentally an EXCISE or DUTY with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces INCOME

The INCOME TAX is, therefore, not a TAX on INCOME as such

It is an EXCISE TAX with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the INCOME they produce

The INCOME is not the subject of the TAX:

it is the basis for determining the amount of TAX
——————————————————————
“So the amendment

(16th)

made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax

It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property which produces income

The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such

It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce

The income is not the subject of the tax:

it is the basis for determining the amount of tax”
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
======================================
Since 1916

THE

SUPREME COURT

has

RECOGNIZED

that “THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

A

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens throughout the nation not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
That

IS IN DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO

The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

REPORT No. 84-168A, 784 / 275

Report No. 84-168 A 784/275

“SOME CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING the FEDERAL INCOME TAX LAWS”

dated May 25, 1979

updated Sept. 26, 1984

Updated September 26, 1984

HJ 4625 U.S.A.

American Law Division

by Howard Zaritsky ; updated by John R. Luckey

Published 1984 by Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress in [Washington, D.C.]
………………………………………………..
DIRECT TAXES

WERE,

notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment,

STILL SUBJECT

TO THE

RULE

OF

APPORTIONMENT

AND

INDIRECT TAXES

WERE STILL THE SUBJECT

OF THE

RULE

OF

UNIFORMITY
………………………………………………..
“THE SUPREME COURT,

in a decision written by Chief Justice White,

first NOTED that

THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

DID NOT

AUTHORIZE

ANY NEW type of

TAX,

NOR DID IT

REPEAL

OR

REVOKE

THE

TAX CLAUSES

OF

ARTICLE I

OF THE

CONSTITUTION,

quoted above
………………………………………………..
Rather,

THE COURT FOUND

that THE

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

SOUGHT TO

RESTRAIN THE COURT

FROM VIEWING

AN

INCOME TAX

AS A

DIRECT TAX

because of its close effect on the underlying property”

(pg 5)
——————————————————————
“The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above

Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity

Rather, the Court found that the Sixteenth Amendment sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax because of its close effect on the underlying property”

(pg 5)
——————————————————————
http://www.lib.miamioh.edu/multifacet/record/mu3ugb3100641
======================================
What justification can the Circuit Court of Appeals possibly offer for this frivolous decision❓
………………………………………………..
STARE DECISIS does not apply because the citation the court provides is from a different Circuit
………………………………………………..
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis
——————————————————————
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/stare+decisis
——————————————————————
http://legalresearch.org/writing-analysis/stare-decisis-techniques/
_________________________________________________
Precedent does not apply because the Circuit cites s United States Supreme Court case only by page numbers (12-19) which do NOT support its position
………………………………………………..
Is the Court inept❓
——————————————————————
Is the Court not smarter than a Fifth-grader❓
_________________________________________________
Is the Court too lazy to do proper legal research❓
——————————————————————
Is the Court lacking in reading comprehension❓
_________________________________________________
Section 372(c)(1) of the Judicial Code provides in relevant part that
——————————————————————
Judicial Misconduct or Disability
======================================
ethical rule or principle might have violated

breach of judicial ethics
——————————————————————
“any person alleging that a circuit ․ judge ․ has engaged in conduct

“prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts”
——————————————————————
These descriptions may constitute knowingly false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001”
=====================================
In support of this very serious charge
—————————————————————
(18 U.S.C. § 1001 is a felony statute)
………………………………………………..
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
——————————————————————
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
_________________________________________________
Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law

A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
_________________________________________________
Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently
_________________________________________________

————————————————————
Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980

(28 U.S.C. §§ 332(d)(1), 351-364)
======================================
$10 Million Challenge ! ! ! ! ! – Financial & Tax Fraud Education Associates, Inc., the publishers of Quatloos.com, will pay the sum of $10 million in cash to the first person who can prove to the satisfaction of any U.S. Court of Appeals or the U.S. Supreme Court that there is no law that makes the average American liable to pay the income tax
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-fI
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov (IRS L📍a ®💲 Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493, 1916)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-gp
_________________________________________________
Why Does the Congress of the United States of America Let the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) Lie about the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916)❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-g2
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943. pg 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hc
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) Judiciary Committee (@HouseJudiciary) Allowed the Inferior Courts of the United States to Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decision delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015), in Direct Contradiction to: Congressional Record – House March 27, 1943 pg. 2580, and Congressional Research Service Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-hk
________________________________________________
Why Has the United States Congress (@USCongress): The United States House of Representatives (@USHouseRep) and United States Senate (@USSenate), Joint Committee on Taxation (@jctgov) Allowed the Internal Revenue Service (#IRS) to Rely on Inferior Courts of the United States who Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided January 24 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-i4
________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on The Constitution, Let the Inferior Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iA
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States Misstate Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-iL
_________________________________________________
Why has the United States Senate (@USSenate) COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Let the Inferior Federal Courts of the United States, Sanction Litigants, When the Court Misstates the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jx
_________________________________________________
THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX, AND INCOME IS MERELY THE BASIS FOR DETERMINING ITS AMOUNT (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Congressional Record, PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 78th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION, VOLUME 89-PART 2, MARCH 27, 1943 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE (PAGES 2579 TO 2581))
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-jS
_________________________________________________
Why has Jack Lew, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury (@USTreasury), Let the #IRS Misstate the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) Sixteenth Amendment Income Tax Decisions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice White in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Rail Road Company, 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided January 24, 1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company, 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278, 60 L.Ed. 546, No. 359 (Argued October 14 and 15, 1915, Decided February 21, 1916), for 34 years (1981-2015): “the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct (non-apportioned) income tax,” in Direct Contradiction to: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD – HOUSE March 27, 1943. pages 2579-2581, and The CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 275 “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws,” dated May 25, 1979, Updated September 26, 1984, HJ 4625: the Sixteenth Amendment…sought to restrain the Court from viewing an income tax as a direct tax…did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution,…Direct taxes were,…still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect [excise] (“income”) taxes were still the subject of the rule of uniformity”❓

——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kl
_________________________________________________
United States Federal Circuit Judge Stanley MARCUS, Circuit Judge Adalberto Josè JORDAN, and Circuit Judge Susan H. BLACK, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Atlanta, Georgia, Disrespect the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-ka
_________________________________________________
David W. McKeague of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, formerly United States Federal District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan – Southern Division, Disrespects the Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States (@SCOTUS) and the Congress of the United States of America (@USCongress)
——————————————————————
http://wp.me/p5tuFO-kJ
_________________________________________________