Can Income Tax Actually Be Unconstitutional ?

[hpot]

I have just recently seen this video and it has some very interesting points on income taxes and its constitutionality. Is there any validity to this video?

America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&hl=en

I do not feel qualified to form a solid conclusion since law is not my expertise.

[eyesroll]

1. Um...16th 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 census or enumeration.

[mcscajun]

2. Before you form any conclusions....

read up a little, starting here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

Whether one believes in the constitionality of the income tax or not is irrelevant. You pay, or the IRS takes action, and protesting the constitutionality in Tax Court gets one Nowhere.

[razors edge]

5. You are absolutely right.

Just as one pays the mafia or they take action.

[judaspriestess]

16. ain't that the truth

believe me I know, I went the taxes are illegal route for a couple of years and they started knocking on my door in oh, 2003 right about when the Iraq war started. chimp in office unleashed the irs with a vengeance to help fund the war and go after people who owe back taxes. Needless to say my credit went from perfect to ruined. But they are only getting a fraction of what I owe them and credit can be rebuilt. I had hired an attorney who advertises nationally to get this crap resolved(payment plan or an offer which is accepted by the irs once in your life) and she did nothing and thats how it ended up on my credit because I took to long to get going on repayment.

Solution for me: Inc'd myself and now I write everything off 100% :)

[shance]

19. Are you stating it doesn't matter if its legal or not?

???

[judaspriestess]

48. if you are asking me

I tried to avoid paying taxes with the argument taxes are illegal but obviously it didn't work. I don't think it matters if I think they are legal or not. It was a rebellious tactic for me. There is an argument to be made and I got lost in the translation.
so instead of that route, I inc'd myself and I get to write off a whole lot more than what I used to be able to. Sole proprietors are the #1 target for the irs to audit and audits are at an all time high.
The whole thing for me is, pay as little as I can on taxes. I'll pay them but I don't want to pay 35%.

[flyingfysh]

3. a constitutional amendment allows income tax

[razors edge]

4. You saw the video,

if they refuse to show the legality, and cases are thrown out because of it, then there must be no law requiring it.

Unless you believe a prosecutor could be so stupid as to loose a case because he was too dumb to find an existing law.

[a la izquierda]

6. be careful with wikipedia.

they are not always accurate.

[mcscajun]

12. Quite so, but they're a good place to start.

The IRS site is another place to look:
"The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments"
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html

Particular emphasis here on Constitutionality arguments:
http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc139431529

[Iris]

51. esp. since "they" are not likely to be experts in law, either.

You could be reading the entry of 14 year old who just had his first wet dream after reading Ayn Rand.

[JHB]

7. No, it's not Unconstitutional, due to the 16th Amendment

16th 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 census or enumeration.

Those who try to claim it is unconstitutional do so on the notion that the 16th Amendment isn't as "legitimate" as the "original" (i.e., written by the founders) Consitiution.

[hpot]

9. Quote from New York Times

Dated January 25, 1916

"In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal government to levy a new tax."

edit: source was from the video

[hpot]

11. Found More

In 1916, the New York Times wrote of the Brushaber Case:

"The basic error of those who attacked the constitutionality of the tax, Chief Justice White holds... was in regarding the Sixteenth Amendment as empowering the United States to levy a direct tax without apportionment among the States according to population. In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax...

We are of the opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth 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." Income Tax Upheld In Broad Decision, N.Y. Times, p. 5, January 25, 1916.

In the early income tax cases of Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, Dodge and Thorne this Court ruled correctly. This Court had to rule as it did because the legislative record, the historical record and the will of the American People were necessarily relied upon as the foundation for this Court's position on the question.

http://www.vivienkellems.com/Philip_Hart_Part_4.html

[mcscajun]

14. From the IRS site about the 1916 ruling

Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

As Jeff In Milwaukee already said, you have to pay your income tax. Seriously.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

8. The Urban Legend that will not die...

The Income Tax is legal. Always has been. Those who have attempted to avoid paying their income taxes are all in jail -- those who have run companies specializing in helping others avoid paying their income taxes are all in jail.

Really. You have to pay your taxes.

Sorry.

[razors edge]

21. That is not correct.

Not all people who have refused to pay the income tax have lost in court and gone to jail. Most who have lost did so because the judge refused to allow them to present evidence in their own defense.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. They have lost and gone to jail...

Or alternatively, they have paid their taxes with penalty and interest.

The point here is that no judge or jury -- not one -- has ever ruled in favor of a tax protestor.

[razors edge]

30. Guess again.

DOJ Dismisses Felony Tax Prosecution
-- With Prejudice -- After PRA Defense Raised

On May 12, 2006 in Peoria, Illinois, the attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) begged the court to dismiss all charges against IRS victim Robert Lawrence in federal District Court.

The motion for dismissal came on the heels of a surprise tactic by Lawrence’s defense attorney Oscar Stilley.

The tactic threatened exposure of IRS’s on-going efforts to defraud the public. The move put DOJ attorneys in a state of panic that left them with only one alternative: beg for dismissal, with prejudice.

Stilley’s tactic paid off. Sixty days earlier, the DOJ had indicted Lawrence on three counts of willful failure to file a 1040 form, and three felony counts of income tax evasion. The federal Judge dismissed all charges with prejudice, meaning the DOJ cannot charge Lawrence with those crimes again.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTP2/UPDATES/Update2006-06-09.htm

:eyes:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

31. Don't need to...

Because I know.

Let's start with the idiotic notion that the IRS could not, with a metaphorical wave of its bureaucratic hand, assign OMB numbers to each and every one of its tax forms. Having been through the process, I know that the paperwork required to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act is a pain in the ass (ironic, no?), but it's simply a formality.

Then we'll go with the fact that there is a single form that the IRS maintains (I don't recall the number off the top of my head) that includes on it -- all the numbers for every IRS form in current use, and that form complies with the PRA and incorporates, by reference, all the others.

And then we'll end with the fact the PRA only precludes the government from levying any additional fines for failure to fill out an "unapproved" form. Read that last sentence again. Slowly. It doesn't mean that the government can't collect taxes from you -- it just means that if you don't file a form, your ass will get dragged into court every year (at considerable legal expense to you) and then you'll have to pay your taxes like everybody else.

[razors edge]

33. If what you say is true

then please explain why the IRS dropped felony tax evasion charges with prejudice, and not just the charge related to failure to file a 1040.

You dissmiss the procurement of a legal OMB number as a simple formality that may be easily side stepped in a bureaucratic manner, and go into no detail on the legal requirements that must be met to have a legitimate OMB number issued. That is exactly the same argument the IRS is so fond of making "we don't have to show you the law, we don't have to abide by the law, we will make our own laws as we go along, and we will tell the judge when your defense threatens our case against you, to allow no further evidence to be submitted in your defense along those lines."

Obviously such sidestepping left the IRS with it's ass in the breeze this time as they DID dismiss the felony charges of tax evasion, with prejudice, meaning they will have no means of collecting the taxes that they originally claimed due in this instance, short of once again ignoring the law and subjecting the defendant to double jeopardy. Even if the defendant were successfully taken to civil court he would not face the criminal penalty nor most likely interest.

"Don't need to... Because I know." Denial ain't a river.

I understand that facts challenging one's belief system are never accepted lightly, but you are obviously wrong in your statement "They have lost and gone to jail... Or alternatively, they have paid their taxes with penalty and interest." And you tell others to stop spreading urban myths.

The disagreement here is not whether they can take you to jail, take your house, or provide legal cover to do so, they obviously can and do. The disagreement is to the legitimacy of said legal cover.

I don't have a problem supporting my country with an income tax if it were going to those ends, it is not. Our taxes pay only the interest on the debt accumulated to a non government entity who produces paper from thin air and calls it money, charging interest on said money.

If we collected every dollar in existence and handed them back to the federal reserve, what would we give them to pay the interest on the loan?

Answer this one question or continue rowing with one oar. Why won't the IRS sit down in a public forum and address the questions from a sincere group of people and provide the evidence of the legal right to tax income and put this to bed once and for all?

Until they do, no discussion here between the "Urban Mythers" nor the "IRS is not Legal" crowd will change anything.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

34. Tell you what...

Don't pay your taxes this year.

You're confident, right? So go ahead. Tell the IRS to go pound sand up its bureaucratic backside and suffer the consequences. Enough of this hypothetical debate -- you have it within your grasp to prove me wrong.

At your sentencing hearing, I'll be the guy in the back of the courtroom laughing his ass off.

Best of luck to you.

[razors edge]

35. When the right comes to round up the left

and herds them into cattle cars (be right there beside you) I don't want to hear any whining from you since in your book might makes right.

I'll just take that as an admission your legal argument is unsound. (or as the case may be, nonexistent)

[razors edge]

36. Oh and by the way

I pay my taxes just like the mafia demands, so I hate to disappoint you in the fact you won't see me in court. But for now, I'll just laugh my ass off at your ignorance.

[razors edge]

37. Too much bother for your beautiful mind?

I already proved you wrong. I take it you concede that.

[tkmorris]

42. The prosecutors say.........

They dropped the charges for reasons completely unrelated to Stilley's PRA argument.

[razors edge]

45. link?

or did you call them yourself on speed dial? And I am supposed to believe them, why? Did they also find the WMD?

get real please.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. Frankly, yes...

You pay your taxes regularly because you don't have the cojones to put your so-called beliefs into practice. Robert Lawrence had balls -- you're a poser and a crank. And more than a little pathetic.

[razors edge]

50. Damn son,

if you got a degree from some esteemed community collage, or mail order outfit, I would call them and get my money back if I were you.

If the best they taught you was to project your failings on others when you are shown to be talking out of your ass, I truly feel sorry for you.

The next time you extricate your nose from the ass of the international bankers long enough to look at the real world, just remember you got your ass punked by a pathetic poser and crank, and a high school drop out to boot. Don't say much for your intelligence now does it.

Kiss the corporate banker's ass that funds the corruption enslaving you, then crawl back under your rock, it's dangerous out here in the fact based community and you might get hurt, again.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

52. But you're going to pay your taxes this year, right?

If you think the income tax is unconstitutional then you shouldn't be paying it -- unless your a poser and a fraud.

[Ninja Jordan]

39. You equate enforcement of a federal income tax with its constitutionality

A federal court's enforcment of the IRS' tax scheme doesn't mean it has a consitutional basis to do so.

[Zynx]

44. Newsflash: Courts determine constitutionality.

This is pro se litigant garbage.

[razors edge]

46. Courts also derive their money from taxes...

conflict of interest?

[Lexingtonian]

10. forget that Bullsh-t

Actually reading the Constitution is the one thing those activists don't want you to do.

[Warpy]

13. The income tax is backed up by an amendment to the constitution

However, the drug war is completely unconstitutional, as are the forefeiture laws that have come out of it. They had to base the whole stupid concept on tax law, tax evasion, because curtailing civil liberty in this manner without a constitutional amendment would have been struck down the minute they did it.

[hpot]

15. A Court Order is now required

Dramatic Development:

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules IRS
Cannot Apply Force Against A Tax Payer
Without A Court Order

Tax Payers Free To Ignore An IRS Summons


Queensbury, NY – On January 25, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that taxpayers cannot be compelled by the IRS to turn over personal and private property to the IRS, absent a federal court order.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update2005-01-29.htm

[mcscajun]

18. That website is run by a RW crank and tax scam artist.

There are some very interesting (UGH) names on that site.

Plus, he's selling a product or two there encouraging other people to do as he claims to have done.

Anyone following his lead (or worse, buying his product THEN following his lead) is in for a series of painful surprises.

[sampsonblk]

17. Ask Wesley Snipes-nt

nt

[hpot]

20. lol

good one :spray:

[Hippo_Tron]

22. I saw that movie, he leaves out several supreme court cases

Do a wikipedia search on the income tax and you'll see that since the supreme court case he references in the movie there are several cases that he leaves out. There's also portions of the internal revenue code (part of the United States Code) which state that you do have to pay an income tax.

The narrator (Aaron Russo) lost me when he said that the only thing that the income tax finances is interest paid to the bankers that control the federal reserve. That's complete bullshit. He also wants to return us to the gold standard, another ridiculous idea.

He had some points about diebold, the Iraq War, and the national ID card but his thesis just didn't add up.

[hpot]

24. A few things bothered me too

Some parts are too simplistic and lack depth. Case citations & references would have been a big improvement.

I found his presentation about apportionment and 16th Amend. less than forthcoming. He provided a quote published in the New York Times without full context. When read fully, anyone can easily see that it does not support his position.


FROM VIDEO:

New York Times
Dated January 25, 1916

"In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal government to levy a new tax."

FROM http://www.vivienkellems.com/Philip_Hart_Part_4.html

n 1916, the New York Times wrote of the Brushaber Case:

"The basic error of those who attacked the constitutionality of the tax, Chief Justice White holds... was in regarding the Sixteenth Amendment as empowering the United States to levy a direct tax without apportionment among the States according to population. In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax...

We are of the opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth 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." Income Tax Upheld In Broad Decision, N.Y. Times, p. 5, January 25, 1916.

In the early income tax cases of Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, Dodge and Thorne this Court ruled correctly. This Court had to rule as it did because the legislative record, the historical record and the will of the American People were necessarily relied upon as the foundation for this Court's position on the question.

AND MORE FROM A DIFFERENT CASE

Every quote just cited from the Stanton Transcript of Record was rejected by this Court. In every way, shape and form the claim was made that the Sixteenth Amendment provided an exception to the apportionment rule. If true, this would have been the "new rule" spoken of in the Stanton Opinion. All this was rejected by this Court. In this Court's Opinion on the Stanton Case, this Court said:

"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 Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previously 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 in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income derived." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., supra.

[ldf]

23. i got a great idea!!!

why don't we all just not pay shit.

who gives a flying fuck about government keeping an eye out for those less fortunate?

apparently, the american people don't.

bottom line? what is in it for me, and just exactly how little do i have to pay, to get it.

ah, the smell of greed. makes a citizen proud, don't it?

[hpot]

25. It is not about greed

The Federal Reserve is a private company with private members. On what authority do they have to control our financial system when this task should be a function of our government? This is similar to hiring Halliburton for jobs that our troops are capable of handling.

These are just a few assertions the video presents. If there is any validity to these concerns, why should we remain mute?

[primative1]

29. Let Me Pump A GOP Viewpoint ...

I have actualy found a single republican whos viewpoint is worth examining.
Check out Texas congressman Ron Paul's viewpoint about the US Dollar and why its no longer being backed by gold but instead having it backed by a gun is so dangerous.
It realy does open up a great big can of worms.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Because the federal reserve has done a fairly good job of...

regulating banks since the New Deal (and yes I'm aware that the Federal Reserve was started when Woodrow Wilson was in office).

[Quantess]

26. With so many abuses of our constitution going on, who can keep track?

:popcorn:

[sendero]

28. Like it matters..

...at ALL whether or not the IT is constitutional. There is no power on earth that can or will touch the main mechanism through which our government is financed, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a deludiniod.

[MrCoffee]

32. oh please...read the 16th Amendment, and then shut up.

[ddeclue]

40. Nope...check the 16th amendment...

its written in black and white...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[fuzzyball]

41. If you don't pay your taxes, IRS will be backed by the full force of military

and police to collect what is due + INTEREST.
My sincere advice----> PAY UP. Don't make a mess out of
your life. It's not worth it unless you have nothing better to do.

[Zynx]

43. This is old as hell. It's also wrong. Test it, you go to jail.

[Joe Bacon]

49. Google "Irwin Schiff"

Find gems like this:

http://www.quatloos.com/Irwin_Schiff.htm

(CNSNews.com) - Former Libertarian presidential candidate Irwin Schiff, who maintains the federal income tax is optional, is being sued by a New Hampshire man who says he lost his business after following Schiff's tax advice.

Swan says he then bought the books Schiff had authored on how to legally avoid paying income taxes, and even began teaching others about Schiff's theories at seminars.

In 1996, Swan's suit alleges, he used Schiff's theories to try to convince the Internal Revenue Service that he owed the government nothing and planned to pay nothing

Later, Swan was forced to close his business and IRS employees levied his bank accounts. When Swan used Schiff's theories to file two lawsuits against IRS employees, the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire dismissed both.

Schiff snorted so many farts from Ayn Rands Ass that he floats around in his Libertarian Lasseiz Fairyland where Galt's Gulch really exists, at least in his demented cerebrum.

[Rosco T.]

53. the basis of the dispute is the definition of 'income' and 'wages'..

look up the definitions and draw your own conclusions

[The Magistrate]

54. Locking

Argument in the O.P. is based on unreliable sources, of a far right nature, and urges commission of illegal actions.