Category Archives: THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov (IRS L๐Ÿ“a ยฎ๐Ÿ’ฒ 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)

IRS I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service Liars
 
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov
(IRS L๐Ÿ“a ยฎ๐Ÿ’ฒ Lie about Supreme Court of the United States opinion 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, 1916)
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

pg. 18

IRS I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service Liars
2. ย Contention: ย The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves
………………………………………………..
The Law: ย 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”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
The SUPREME COURT has

โ€œrecognized that the

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZES

a

DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX

upon

United States citizens

throughout the nation,

not just in federal enclavesโ€
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
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:
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the Amendment:

โ€˜The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumerationโ€™

(ratified February 3, 1913)
_________________________________________________
[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”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 10]

We are of opinion, however

[240 U.S. 1, 11]

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:
——————————————————————
United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

10th Cir. 1990

67 A.F.T.R.2d 91-1037

91-2 USTC P 50,554
_________________________________________________
IV.

… 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….
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
IV.

To put the argument to rest, we quote the following from a Tenth Circuit opinion in which the court was responding to an identical tax-protester argument.

Article I, section 8 and the sixteenth amendment also empowers Congress to create and provide for the administration of an income tax; the statute under which defendant was charged and convicted, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201, plainly falls within that authority

… 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….
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/920/920.F2d.619.90-6077.html
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
U.S. Supreme Court

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO,

240 U.S. 103

(1916)

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

No. 359

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

[240 U.S. 103, 107]

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court:
_________________________________________________
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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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

(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________|WHAT
years, THE_______________|THE
SUPREME COURT________|SUPREME COURT
has RECOGNIZED________|RECOGNIZED
THAT THE________________|IS THAT THE
SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT|16th AMENDMENT
AUTHORIZES a___________|…PROHIBITED THE
DIRECT___________________|… POWER OF
NONAPPORTIONED TAX_|INCOME TAXATION
upon United States_______|… FROM BEING
citizens throughout______|TAKEN OUT OF
the nation,_______________|THE CATEGORY OF
not just in________________|INDIRECT TAXATION
federal enclaves,_________|…AND being PLACED
see Brushaber v._________|IN THE CATEGORY OF
Union Pac. R.R.,___________|DIRECT TAXATION
240 U.S. 1,________________|subject to
12-19,_____________________|apportionment
36 S.Ct. 236,______________|…see Stanton v.
239-42,___________________|Baltic Mining Co.,
60 L.Ed. 493______________|240 U.S. 103,
(1916);____________________|112-113
efforts to argue___________|36 S.Ct. 278
otherwise have___________|60 L.Ed. 546
been sanctioned__________|(1916)
as frivolous….
======================================
U.S. Supreme Court

Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.

Argued October 14 and 15 1915

Decided January 24 1916

240 U.S. 1

12 – 19

36 S.Ct. 236

239-42

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
======================================
Case
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS – IRS.gov

pg. 28

IRS I.R.S. Internal Revenue Service Liars
6. ย Contention: ย The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens
………………………………………………..
Some individuals and groups assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws
………………………………………………..
The Law: ย The constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment has invariably been upheld when challenged
………………………………………………..
Numerous courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorized a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws are valid as applied
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Numerous courts

have both

implicitly

and

explicitly

recognized that the

SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT

AUTHORIZED

a

NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT INCOME TAX

on

United States citizens

and that the

federal tax laws

are valid as applied
_________________________________________________
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY RECOGNIZED
_________________________________________________
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:
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the Amendment:

โ€˜The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumerationโ€™

(ratified February 3, 1913)
_________________________________________________
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
_________________________________________________
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
_________________________________________________
[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
………………………………………………..
[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
………………………………………………..
[240 U.S. 1, 19]

… 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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 11]

But it clearly results that the proposition โ€ฆ

[240 U.S. 1, 12]

… of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment โ€ฆ would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; โ€ฆ they would result in bringing the provisions โ€ฆ into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
ALL DIRECT TAXES BE APPORTIONED
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

Moreover, โ€ฆ 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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

This result, instead of simplifying โ€ฆ 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 โ€ฆ
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

8 of article 1

‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excisesโ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

That the authority conferred upon Congress by

8 of article 1

โ€˜to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excisesโ€™

is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

lay and collect income taxes
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 12]

And it has also never

[240 U.S. 1, 13]

been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

‘all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,โ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

Again, it has never moreover been questioned that the conceded complete and all-embracing taxing power was subject, so far as they were respectively applicable, to limitations resulting from the requirements of

art. 1, 8, cl. 1,

that

โ€˜all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States,โ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art I., 2, cl. 3,

‘direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,โ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and to the limitations of

art I., 2, cl. 3,

that

โ€˜direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states,โ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

‘no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be takenโ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

and of

art 1, 9, cl. 4,

that

โ€˜no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be takenโ€™
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the

TWO GREAT SUBDIVISIONS

EMBRACING the

COMPLETE

and

PERFECT

DELEGATION of the POWER to TAX

and the

TWO CORRELATED LIMITATIONS

as to such POWER โ€ฆ

‘IN the MATTER of TAXATION,

the

CONSTITUTION

recognizes the

TWO GREAT CLASSES

of

DIRECT

and

INDIRECT TAXES,

and lays down

TWO RULES

by which their IMPOSITION

MUST be GOVERNED, namely:

The

RULE of APPORTIONMENT

as to

DIRECT TAXES,

and the

RULE of UNIFORMITY

as to

DUTIES,

IMPOSTS,

and

EXCISESโ€™
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

In fact, the two great subdivisions embracing the complete and perfect delegation of the power to tax and the two correlated limitations as to such power were thus aptly stated by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller in

Pollock v. Farmersโ€™ Loan & T. Co.

157 U. S. supra, at page 557:

โ€˜In the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: The rule of apportionment as to direct taxes, and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts, and excisesโ€™
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

… the REQUIREMENTS of

APPORTIONMENT as to one of the great classes

and of

UNIFORMITY as to the other class

were not so much a LIMITATION upon the

COMPLETE

and

ALL-EMBRACING

AUTHORITY to TAX,

but in their essence were simply

REGULATIONS

concerning the MODE

in which the

PLENARY POWER was to be exerted

In the WHOLE HISTORY of the GOVERNMENT

down to the time of the adoption of the

16th AMENDMENT,

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

… NO QUESTION

HAS BEEN ANYWHERE MADE

AS TO THE

CORRECTNESS OF THESE PROPOSITIONS
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[240 U.S. 1, 13]

It is to be observed, however, as long ago pointed out in

Veazie Bank v. Fenno,

8 Wall. 533, 541,

19 L. ed. 482, 485,

that the requirements of apportionment as to one of the great classes and of uniformity as to the other class were not so much a limitation upon the complete and all-embracing authority to tax, but in their essence were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted

In the whole history of the government down to the time of the adoption of the 16th Amendment, leaving aside some conjectures expressed of the possibility of a tax lying intermediate between the two great classes and embraced

[240 U.S. 1, 14]

by neither, no question has been anywhere made as to the correctness of these propositions
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

This is the text of the Amendment:

‘The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any censusor enumerationโ€™
_________________________________________________
[240 U.S. 1, 17]

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned,

[240 U.S. 1, 18]

-or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived
_________________________________________________
Congressional Record โ€“ House March 27, 1943. pg 2580

โ€œSo 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 taxโ€
Congressional Record 1943Congressional Record 1943imageCongressional Record 1943
report by The Congressional Research Service

Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725

Report No. 84-168 A 784/275

titled

โ€œSome Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Lawsโ€

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.]

โ€œThe 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)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”

โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.lib.miamioh.edu/multifacet/record/mu3ugb3100641
_________________________________
________
………………………………………………..
Relevant Case Law:
——————————————————————
United States v. Collins

920 F.2d 619

629

10th Cir. 1990

67 A.F.T.R.2d 91-1037

91-2 USTC P 50,554

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
Roy W. COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant

No. 90-6077

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

Nov. 27, 1990

SEYMOUR

BALDOCK

BRORBY

Circuit Judges

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge

1. Jurisdiction

Article I, section 8 and the sixteenth amendment also empowers Congress to create and provide for the administration of an income tax; the statute under which defendant was charged and convicted, 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7201, plainly falls within that authority

Dickstein’s argument that the sixteenth amendment does not authorize a direct, non-apportioned tax on United States citizens similarly is devoid of any arguable basis in law

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit recently noted

“the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition”

In re Becraft,

885 F.2d 547, 548

(9th Cir.1989)

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,

see, e.g.,

Becraft,

885 F.2d at 549

(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions for raising frivolous sixteenth amendment argument in petition for rehearing);

Lovell v. United States,

755 F.2d 517, 519-20

(7th Cir.1984)

(Fed.R.App.P. 38 sanctions imposed on pro se litigants raising frivolous sixteenth amendment contentions)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/920/920.F2d.619.90-6077.html
======================================
Sept. 6 1989

Becraft

In re Lowell H. BECRAFT, Jr.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Kenneth W. NELSON, Defendant/Appellant

885 F.2d 547

548 – 549

885 F.2d at 549

64 A.F.T.R.2d 89-5656

15 Fed.R.Serv.3d 183

9th Cir. 1989

No. 88-1113

United States Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit

9th Circuit

Sept. 6, 1989

Ninth Circuit Judge
9th Circuit Judge
FERGUSON
NORRIS
WIGGINS
Circuit Judges

ORDER

Notwithstanding Becraft’s insistence that his argument regarding the inapplicability of the federal income tax laws to resident United States citizens raises numerous complex issues, his position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition:

The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws.2

We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition

For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens

See, e.g.,

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.,

240 U.S. 1,

12-19,

36 S.Ct. 236,

239-42,

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916);

Ward,

833 F.2d at 1539;

Lovell v. United States,

755 F.2d 517,

519

(7th Cir.1984);

Parker v. Commissioner,

724 F.2d 469,

471

(5th Cir.1984);

United States v. Romero,

640 F.2d 1014,

1016

(9th Cir.1981)

Indeed, in Lovell, one of the more recent cases explicitly rejecting a Sixteenth Amendment argument virtually identical to Becraft’s position in this case, the court sanctioned the pro se appellants for raising this and other federal tax exemption claims on appeal

See Lovell, 755 F.2d at 520

If a claim is sufficiently frivolous to warrant sanctions against a pro se appellant, it unarguably supports the assessment of sanctions against a seasoned attorney with considerable experience in the federal courts

While Becraft devotes a good portion of his brief, petition for rehearing, and reply to a discussion of the structure of the Internal Revenue Service and the control numbers designated to income tax forms pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, he does so only to provide support for his fundamental proposition that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned tax on citizens residing in the United States

Hence, his entire legal argument hinges on the constitutionality of directly taxing resident United States citizens
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/885/885.F2d.547.88-1113.html
======================================
Dec. 18 1984

Michael W. LOVELL

Phyllis D. Lovell

United States

Lovell v. United States

Michael W. LOVELL and Phyllis D. Lovell, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

755 F.2d 517

518 – 520

755 F.2d 517,

519-20

755 F.2d at 520

7th Cir. 1984

55 A.F.T.R.2d 85-917

85-1 USTC P 9208

No. 84-1547

United States Court of Appeals

Seventh Circuit

7th Circuit

Submitted Nov. 28, 1984.*
Decided Dec. 18, 1984.**

Seventh Circuit Judge
7th Circuit Judge
CUMMINGS, Chief Judge

CUDAHY

FLAUM

Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM

II.

And there is absolutely no doubt that the legal contentions advanced by the plaintiffs are frivolous; indeed, plaintiffs’ arguments are patently absurd

Plaintiffs also contend that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment

They are wrong; it does not

U.S. Const. amend. XVI;

Parker v. Commissioner,

724 F.2d 469,

471

(5th Cir.1984)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/755/755.F2d.517.84-1547.html
======================================
Feb. 6, 1984

Alton M. Parker, Sr.

Commissioner

Alton M. PARKER, Sr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee

724 F.2d 469,

471

(5th Cir.1984)

84-1 USTC P 9209

No. 83-4300

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit
5th Circuit

Feb. 6, 1984

Appeal from the Decision of the United States Tax Court

Fifth Circuit Judge
5th Circuit Judge
GEE

POLITZ

JOHNSON

Circuit Judges

POLITZ, Circuit Judge

Parker maintains that

“the IRS and the government in general, including the judiciary, mistakenly interpret the sixteenth amendment as allowing a direct tax on property (wages, salaries, commissions, etc.) without apportionment”

As we observed in

Lonsdale v. CIR,

661 F.2d 71

(5th Cir.1981),

the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax

The thirty words of this amendment are explicit:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”

The Supreme Court promptly determined in

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Ry. Co.,

240 U.S. 1,

36 S.Ct. 236,

60 L.Ed. 493

(1916),

that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax

Appellant cites

Brushaber

and

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,

240 U.S. 103,

36 S.Ct. 278,

60 L.Ed. 546

(1916),

for the proposition that the sixteenth amendment does not give Congress the power to levy an income tax

This proposition is only partially correct, and in its critical aspect, is incorrect

In its early consideration of the sixteenth amendment the Court recognized that the amendment does not bestow the taxing power

The bestowal of such authority is not necessary, for as the Court pointedly noted in Brushaber:

The authority conferred upon Congress by

Sec. 8 of article 1

“to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises”

is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine

And it has also never been questioned from the foundation … that there was authority given … to lay and collect income taxes

240 U.S. at 12-13,

36 S.Ct. at 239-240

The sixteenth amendment merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states

The immediate recognition of the validity of the sixteenth amendment continues in an unbroken line

See e.g.

United States v. McCarty,

665 F.2d 596

(5 Cir.1982);

Lonsdale v. CIR

Appellant cites

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,

220 U.S. 107,

31 S.Ct. 342,

55 L.Ed. 389

(1911),

in support of his contention that the income tax is an excise tax applicable only against special privileges, such as the privilege of conducting a business, and is not assessable against income in general

Appellant twice errs

Flint did not address personal income tax; it was concerned with corporate taxation

Furthermore, Flint is pre-sixteenth amendment and must be read in that light

At this late date, it seems incredible that we would again be required to hold that the Constitution, as amended, empowers the Congress to levy an income tax against any source of income, without the need to apportion the tax equally among the states, or to classify it as an excise tax applicable to specific categories of activities
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/724/724.F2d.469.83-4300.html
_________________________________________________
Jan. 11, 1982

United States v. McCarty

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
James W. McCARTY, Defendant-Appellant
665 F.2d 596

82-1 USTC P 9150

(5 Cir.1982)

5th Circuit

Fifth Circuit

Nos. 80-2231, 81-1021

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit
Jan. 11, 1982

James W. McCarty, pro se

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

5th Circuit Judge

Fifth Circuit Judge

GEE

GARZA

TATE

Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM

The Criminal Conviction Itself

In his appeal from the conviction itself, the defendant complains of inadequate instructions and also that he was not subject to any federal income tax since the Sixteenth Amendment did not really change the former constitutional requirement that direct taxation be apportioned according to population

This latter argument is made in the face of the express language of the Amendment,1 its undoubted express intention, and an unbroken line of jurisprudence to the contrary

See, e. g.,

Lonsdale v. C.I.R.,

661 F.2d 71,

72

(5th Cir. 1981)

The Sixteenth Amendment provides that:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/665/665.F2d.596.80-2231.81-1021.html
………………………………………………..
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/665/596/408342/
_________________________________________________
image
United States Federal Circuit Judge Bobby Ray BALDOCK, Circuit Judge Mary Beck BRISCOE, and District Judge John Watson LUNGSTRUM, 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)
_________________________________________________
Oct. 28 1996

John Cox, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit – 99 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1996)

99 F.3d 1149

78 A.F.T.R.2d 96-7015

96-2 USTC P 50,598

No. 95-9025

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

Oct. 28, 1996

BALDOCK

BRISCOE

Circuit Judges

LUNGSTRUM,** District Judge

Honorable John W. Lungstrum, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation

Petitioner John Cox appeals from an order of the United States Tax Court

For eighty 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

(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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
For eighty 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 (1916)
_________________________________________________
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/99/1149/639528/
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/099/99.F3d.1149.95-9025.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”
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
Case
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
………………………………………………..
Syllabus
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
[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
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
======================================
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/IRS-Debunks-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-2014
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Introduction
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Section I (A to C)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Section I (D to E)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Section II
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-II
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Section III
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-III
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
Section IV
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Anti-Tax-Law-Evasion-Schemes-Law-and-Arguments-Section-IV
_________________________________________________
THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS โ€“ IRS.gov
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf
_________________________________________________
Brief History of IRS
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Brief-History-of-IRS
_________________________________________________
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit (Case l:12-cv-02635-MJG) Filed 09/04/12 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND by Michael C. Worsham re U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) / Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”)
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
https://archive.org/stream/423227-md-1-2012cv02635-complaint/423227-md-1-2012cv02635-complaint_djvu.txt
_________________________________________________
United States Constitution

First Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

or

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

peaceably to assemble,

and

TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT

FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
………………………………………………..
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
_________________________________________________
Go Fund Me

#GoFundMe

gofundme.com/upsdgw
_________________________________________________