President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Stephen Hale ANDERSON of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Eastern Oregon College of Education (1949-1951), Brigham Young University (1955-1956 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Utah (1957-1960 Bachelor of Laws @UUtah S.J. Quinney College of Law @SJQuinney Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society @UtahAlumni Order of the Coif) Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Review (@UtahLawReview) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS - IRS.gov IRS I.R.S. #IRS Internal Revenue Service I R S @IRSNews #IRSNews I. R. S. 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

President Ronald R. Reagan (Ronald Reagan) Judicial Nominee, Stephen Hale ANDERSON of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States Federal Circuit Judge, Tenth (10th) Circuit, United States Court of Appeals, Denver, Colorado, Alumni of Eastern Oregon College of Education (1949-1951), Brigham Young University (1955-1956 @BYU @BYUalumni), University of Utah (1957-1960 Bachelor of Laws @UUtah S.J. Quinney College of Law @SJQuinney Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society @UtahAlumni Order of the Coif) Editor-in-Chief Utah Law Review (@UtahLawReview) Epic Fail in United States Federal Income Tax case
——————————————————————
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)
_________________________________________________
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/
======================================
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/
======================================
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
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
_________________________________________________
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
——————————————————————
PN463 – Nomination of Stephen H. Hale for the Judiciary: 99th Congress
………………………………………………..
https://www.congress.gov/nomination/99th-congress/463
——————————————————————
https://congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%22111%22%2C%2297%22%2C%2299%22%5D%2C%22nominee-state%22%3A%22Utah%22%2C%22nomination-status%22%3A%22Hearings+by+committee%22%7D
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%5B%22114%22%2C99%5D%2C%22nominee-state%22%3A%22Utah%22%7D
——————————————————————
https://www.congress.gov/nominations?q=%7B%22nominee-state%22%3A%22Utah%22%2C%22congress%22%3A%5B%2299%22%5D%7D
——————————————————————
9/24/1985 93. Senate of the United States – U.S. Senate
………………………………………………..
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/1985/09_24_1985.pdf
——————————————————————
10/24/1995 House of Representatives
………………………………………………
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-1995-10-24/pdf/CREC-1995-10-24-pt1-PgD1243.pdf
________________________________________________

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s