Sunday, July 17, 2016

The 16th Amendment The real truth




The 16th Amendment
The real truth

By de Andréa,
Opinion Editorialist for    
‘THE BOTTOM LINE’  
Published June 2016

To pay or not to pay federal taxes on personal wages is the question.  But the real question, do you legally owe federal taxes on personal wages?
The biggest lie in the US Constitution, is the interpretation of the 16th amendment of (1913). It says:  "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."
But the question that I will answer in this discussion is what is’ income as defined by the IRS itself? And who is taxed under Article one selection 2 of the Constitution?
First, the definition of the Sixteenth Amendment.

The amendment within the Constitution that gives Congress the power to collect taxes on income without apportioning it among the many states, was actually passed in 1909 and then ratified in 1913.
Before the ratification of the amendment, Congress had passed The Income Tax Act of 1894 that tried to establish a 2% income tax on anyone earning over $4,000 in income. The Tax Act was challenged and taken to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was deemed unconstitutional, which is why the useful Idiots of the Fabian Communists of that time in government passed the 16th amendment.

 

A little history on federal taxes:

Prior to the failed Income Tax Act of 1894, an income tax was implemented as part of the Revenue Act of 1861 to finance the Civil War. The income tax was eventually terminated after the war, as the Republic no longer needed the money.
The 16th Amendment was sold to the American public by the liberal socialist Democrats used by the Fabians as a way to make the rich pay their so-called "fair share." That law, which was cleverly billed as a "soak the rich" scheme, instead with the help of the 17th Amendment which took representation away from the states and the Federal Reserve act also passed in 1913 grew the federal government from a Constitutional Republic to a true democracy controlled by a monster bank cartel that now threatens to drown us all.
The current tax code is now four million words long, more than four times longer than the collected works of Shakespeare, and more than seven times longer than the Bible. It requires 25 volumes to contain it, it takes up nine feet of shelf space and few if anyone has ever read it in its entire context.
According to Forbes, it takes Americans over six billion hours to comply with its filing requirements. That's the equivalent of 8,758 lifetimes – in people years, not dog years.
This monstrosity is based entirely on a 16th Amendment interpretation, which authorizes Congress "to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived."
If the 16th Amendment had to be ratified by the American people, then how in the world one might ask, did the promoters of this misbegotten gargantuan criminal monstrosity, convince the American people to do this to themselves?
Easy, they do what they always do. They lied!
They told us "income" meant one thing when they convinced us to vote for it, then they changed its definition when it went into effect and nailed us all to the wall with it.
The American people were led to believe that the "income" that would be taxed under this amendment was what we today call "unearned income," that is, “profit”… from investments, dividends, interest, capital gains, and net income corporate earnings. In other words, a corporate tax.
Note: The federal government invented corporations just so they could be taxed.
The term "income" did not apply to wages and salaries. That was considered "earned income, or trade”, earned income received from labor, and not "unearned income," the money so-called fat cats made from investments and their corporations.
The American people were told that the income tax provision would apply only to the top one percent of wage earners, and would ‘sock it to em’ with a one percent tax on income or profit. The rest of America – you know, the ones who had to vote for this monstrosity – were told we would be left alone. None of this would apply to us.
Prior to the passage of the 16th Amendment, virtually the sole source of income to the federal government came from tariffs collected on imported goods. That itself was a profound limitation on the size and reach of the federal government. Something by the way that the framers purposely built into the Constitution. In 1910, for instance, the budget for the entire federal government was $1.042 billion. You read that right. The entire federal budget in 1910 was a shade more than one billion dollars. A hundred years later we are in debt nearly 20 trillion dollars.  Something the Framers meant to avoid by constitutionally keeping the government small.  Giving all the power not delegated to it by the constitution left to the people or to the states respectively.
Ordinary Americans complained that tariffs burdened them but gave a built-in profit margin to American manufacturers. Let's assume for the sake of argument that production costs for manufactured items were the same in the U.S. as, let's say, Europe. If importers had to pay, for example, a five-percent tariff on everything it wanted to sell in the United States, then U.S. manufacturers could raise their prices four percent – pure, unadulterated profit for them – and still undercut international competition.
Since the increased cost for these goods fell upon ordinary, hard-working Americans while at the same time padding the already heavy wallets of the Vanderbilt’s and the Mellon’s and the Carnegies and the Rockefellers of the Federal Reserve cartel - working Americans began to feel that they were being taken advantage of, that they were in effect bearing all the cost of funding the federal government, and that the tariff system was essentially a perpetual, taxpayer-subsidized bailout for American tycoons.
So my friend the 16th Amendment was proposed as the solution. It was sold to the American public as a way to make the rich pay their "fair share." No longer would the federal budget be balanced on the backs of the working people, no sir. The free ride for the corporate fat cats was over. We were going to sock it to 'em, by golly.  It was billed as a "soak the rich" scheme.
The meaning of the word "income" was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black's Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined "income tax" this way: "A tax on the yearly ‘profits’ arising from property, professions, trades, and offices." (Emphasis mine throughout.)
West Publishing Co. produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined "income tax" as a "tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits... It includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business."
You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen as the definition of "income." The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits of corporations.
Note: many of the so-called fat cats of Corporate America received only unearned income they did not draw any earned income so they paid no taxes.  
As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate, "An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share."
Roger Foster wrote "A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax under the Act of 1913" in 1914. In it he writes, "It is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue." So wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16th Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.  Because it was classified as unearned income.
According to Investopedia, "unearned income" is "Any income that comes from investments and other sources unrelated to employment services."
As Phil Hart asks in his book, Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?
"It is the annuity check you get in the mail from your investments, it's your passive income. It is not the money you worked for. It is the net income, the profit left over from your 'income property' after you have paid all your expenses and taxes on the property. It is the interest income that accrues to your savings account even while you sleep." (p. 236)
But it wasn't long before the federal government, gluttonously and greedy for your money, arbitrarily and illegally changed the definition of "income" from the one we had voted for – unearned investment and dividend income and corporate profits – to include earned income from wages and salaries. And so the march to a 3.8 million-word Leviathan began. It wasn't long before ordinary working stiffs like you and I got completely hosed. A law intended to soak the rich instead now threatens to drown us all in a sea of taxes. Worst of all it led to a big and powerful government with unlimited income with the assumed power to tax everything that moved.
Most folks, including me, pay their taxes for the simple reason that they don't want to go to jail. But the proverbial bottom line is this: if we are to be guided, as we should be, by the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and the intent of the American people when they voted for the 16th Amendment, then there is absolutely no constitutional authority for your wages or salaries to be taxed by the IRS.
The income tax is NOT on your trade.  There is no income when you trade an apple for an orange, or your time and expertise for paper dollars. It is on as it says, “income” and the only entity that can produce income is a business.

So it is a taxed privileged (licensed) corporate activity that produces income. The tax is on the 'source' that produced the income. The amount of income produced is (property) by the privileged activity or (source) it is used to measure how much tax to impose on the privileged corporate activity itself.

Direct taxes only fall on inalienable rights such as persons (capitation tax), and possessions (property). (On things you own) At present, there are no federal taxes that are apportioned among the states, as is required of direct taxes. All federal taxes are currently indirect taxes.

Indirect taxes only fall on privileged, taxed activities or events, and the exercise of a government granted franchise or privilege (corporations and licensed occupations) and on agreeing to government contracts. (On things you do)

The direct/indirect tax restrictions only apply to the 50 United States. Not to Washington D.C. and other U.S. government possessions.
The income tax was an indirect excise tax upon privileges. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't engage in the privilege or get the license!
It is important to remember, that, the subject of the income tax, is the privileged activity or occupation you are engaging in, upon which a tax is imposed, which is the lawful subject of an indirect excise income tax. The amount of the income received, in connection with the taxed privilege, is used to figure the amount of the tax on the activity itself.
'Labor' on the other hand, is the exercise of an inalienable personal right it is trade, your labor for your agreed upon portion of the corporations income. Income received from your personal property, labor, can only be taxed with a direct tax, with apportionment among the states. Unless you have waived that right in exchange for a privilege. Why do you think the government pushes so hard for every occupation to incorporate, by giving alleged tax breaks? Because then your income becomes legally taxable.
You must demand your inalienable rights! Unless you like paying illegal income taxes.
Whether the income tax is officially called an excise tax, or not, is irrelevant. The important distinction is whether it is a tax on an inalienable right or on a privilege. Is it a tax on property, real or personal (direct tax); or a tax on a privileged activity (indirect tax)?
"Income" is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.

The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.

"Gross income" would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.
"Taxable income" would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income.
Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word "income" it is talking about corporate income.  This my friend is the definition presented to the states in 1913 and was ratified by some of the individual states.

So unless you as an individual are in fact a corporation, under the IRS Tax code you owe no income tax at all…ever!
If you talk to any tax attorneys or other so called 'tax professionals' they will tell you that the 16th Amendment allowed the income tax to be collected as a direct tax without apportionment among the 50 states. This is totally false, and here in lays the major problem with today's tax collection efforts.

The IRS believes that the income tax can now be collected as a direct tax without apportionment, and collects it in that fashion. It is totally unconstitutional to collect a direct tax, in the 50 states, without apportionment, as it is clearly stated in Article 1 section 2 paragraph 3 of the US Constitution. We are and have been for years the victims of mass brainwashing by the Federal Government.

What is apportionment?
Black's Law Dictionary says,
"Apportion. To divide and distribute proportionally."
"Apportionment. The process by which legislative seats are distributed among units entitled to representation. The U.S. Constitution provides for a census every ten years, on the basis of which Congress apportions representatives according to population; but each state must have at least one representative."

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
: of the U.S. Constitution says "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers..."

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4: "No capitation, or other direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states, not among the people.
The 16th Amendment did not change this! As we learned, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profit, and always has been, therefore it does not need to be apportioned.
Before the 16th Amendment, an individual's income was NOT taxable, either with apportionment or without. Eliminating apportionment, among the states, would still require the tax to be imposed on the states, not on the people. To better understand this concept, let's look at an actual example of taxation by apportionment.

The documented example:
Pay close attention. This is how a direct tax was legally and constitutionally collected. It is directly on you or something you own (inalienable property rights).
On July 14, 1798, the Fifth Congress, Session II, Chapter 77, laid the first direct tax on the United States of America in the amount of 2 million dollars. It was to be laid upon the United States of America and apportioned to the states respectively, as per the Constitution.
What they did was to take the 2 million dollars and divide it equally among the number of people in the United States of America at that time, based on the census. They figured out how many people were in each individual state. Then each state was assigned their portion of the tax based on the population of that state. The tax was collected, through the Secretary of the Treasury, by collectors of the internal revenues.
Note: In this case 'internal revenues' applies only to the states, since this is a direct tax on the states of the Union.

The states collected the tax by assessing the property of the state Citizens, according to the value of the property. Much the same way that property tax is assessed and collected today. This direct tax was just a national property tax laid upon the states according to their population. The states each paid their share proportionally according to their population.
But, doesn't everyone believe that the 16th amendment changed the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax? How can all the authorities be wrong?

If the authorities were never wrong my friend, the world would still be flat, with the sun circling around it, and we would still be burning witches.
Most people think that the income tax is on ALL income you receive from whatever source. That is not correct! The confusion arises from the wrong interpretation of the 16th Amendment (1913). Let's look at it again. It says: "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."
This looks like it is making an exemption and is putting income taxes in the category of direct taxes, to be collected without apportionment. But it isn't. Remember, they tried this once before in 1894, and it was found unconstitutional! Notice that this amendment doesn't say whether the tax is to be collected as a direct or indirect tax. It just says that it is collected on 'incomes without apportionment.'

Can indirect excise taxes be collected without apportionment? Yes. It has always been that way. As we learned previously, the income tax is an excise tax on corporate profits. The only difference is that before the 16th Amendment, corporations did NOT have to pay tax on their property income. The 16th Amendment was passed so that corporate property income could NOW be taxed with an excise tax, if the property income was connected to a corporate activity.

Change the order of the amendment around a little and it reads; The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes without apportionment, from whatever source derived, among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. On incomes, without tax apportionment. What incomes can be taxed without apportionment? Income from corporate privilege can be taxed without apportionment because the tax is an excise tax. Or to make it simpler yet, have the amendment read -power to lay and collect excise taxes on corporate incomes.  That is really what it is saying.  The 16th amendment is worded to deceive people into thinking that the Constitution was changed. But the Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 16th amendment changed nothing!

A tax on the income from an inalienable right, can only be taxed with a direct tax, and therefore this income would be taxed WITH apportionment.
The 16th Amendment only applies to a tax on corporate incomes not requiring apportionment! If a tax on your income requires apportionment, then it is not subject to the 16th Amendment tax.

Is this just semantics? Or is that what it really says?
To understand this clearly, we need to go back to the Constitution. In Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 it says: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers."
And:  Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1:  "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States: But all duties, imports and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Since the income tax is NOT presently collected as a direct tax with apportionment, then it must still be an indirect tax! As we learned earlier, all direct taxes must be apportioned, and all indirect taxes (duties, imposts and excises) must be uniform. These requirements in the Constitution have never been amended, despite the 16th Amendment. These are the constitutional requirements!

The Framers wrote it that way to safe guard against the Federal Government becoming a big powerful entity that couldn’t be controlled by the people.  Like it has today!
Again, let's rely on the Supreme Court to straighten it out for us.
In 1920, when the Supreme Court still use to uphold the constitution, it said in: Eisner vs Macomber 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920).  "The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted."

But, before this, in 1916, there were two landmark Supreme Court cases that also helped to clear up the confusion. The first was: Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 U.S. 1 at 10-11 (1916).  It states “The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. 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 the subject 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 ..."
Whoa! Read that again. The 'conclusion' that the income tax can be levied as a direct tax, without apportionment, is an erroneous assumption! But, what happens if it is levied as an indirect tax?

Let's continue with this Brushaber case at pg 11-12:  "But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions 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. 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 geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation 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 the confusion."
According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment, was supposed to clarify the limitation on the taxing power. It apparently didn't, so the Supreme Court will clarify it.  
Mr. Brushaber was arguing that the income tax was a 'direct' tax, and therefore unconstitutional because it was not apportioned.  The court was correcting his erroneous contentions.  

We continue with the court clarification in this Brushaber case: 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 wholly without foundation..."

Brushaber at page 18 Continuing: " The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income, was in its nature, an excise tax, entitled to be enforced as such..." pg 16-17

There it is!
The 16th Amendment left the income tax as an indirect excise tax on corporate profits and is to be enforced as such. It is a tax on corporate incomes not requiring the tax to be apportioned! On privileges only! This is not my opinion, but a Supreme Court opinion when they still upheld the constitution. An important point to remember, is that the Supreme Court rulings must be followed by all lesser courts in this country. That is why I rely almost exclusively on Supreme Court decisions. They cannot be overruled by lower courts!

Not to be confused with making or changing law it is only opinion which supersedes any lower court.

You need more proof, let's looks at another Supreme Court decision.
Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co.  240 US 103, at 112 (1916) "By the previous ruling, it was settled that the Sixteenth 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..."

Read my lips, “no new taxes”
So the 16th Amendment did not confer any new taxes or power to Congress, but simply reestablished and clarified the fact that income taxes belong in the category of indirect taxes.

The income tax was not a new tax, but was a power possessed by Congress from the beginning. It just had to be levied as an indirect excise tax.
It is the "without apportionment" wording of the 16th Amendment that keeps the income tax in the class of indirect taxes. It is also these words that create the confusion. The income tax is only entitled to be enforced as an excise; (a tax on privileged taxable activities.)  I.E. Corporate tax.

The Congress has actually agreed with this: (read it) House Congressional Record 3-27-1943 page 2580 "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 which they produce.  The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

Nothing changed up to 1943. Since the tax is not on income, but on a privileged corporate activity, just the fact that you receive income in trade for your work, does NOT necessarily make it taxable. It must be from a taxed activity or taxed privilege. And a tax must first be 'imposed' on that 'privileged activity'. This is what makes it an indirect tax. Then the amount of the tax is determined by the amount of income received in connection with that activity.

A tax on income received from the exercise of an inalienable right, can only be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment among the many states.
And again:  From a report by The Congressional Research Service. Report No. 84-168A, 784 / 725 titled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws", dated May 25, 1979 and updated Sept. 26, 1984:  "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)

Nothing changed up to 1984. Did the law change since then?
Some people believe that the statement in the 16th Amendment about taxing income from whatever source derived, applies to any and all income. This can be disproved by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) itself. Just look at section 2502, concerning gift tax. It says “the giver of the gift pays the tax.” So if someone gave you a million dollars, you would definitely have income, but it would not be taxable to you. If the tax was directly on the income, then it would be a direct tax and subject to apportionment.

The IRS has since determined that to give a gift is a government granted privilege. I disagree. It’s a right based on the 9th amendment.  I think that since you are acquiring your property as an inalienable right, then you also have the inalienable right to dispose of it as you like, without a privilege tax. Also one does not need a license to give a gift as one would to incorporate to be taxed as a legal indirect tax.  Again one runs into a legal tug of war when Constitutional law is violated.

The IRS and the courts purposely violate the law ignoring the constitution and these Supreme Court decisions and collect the tax as a direct tax without apportionment, why because you let them. That makes it OK, doesn't it? Because the IRS, and you, do not know the difference between a direct tax and an indirect tax, or know the legal definition of income, there has been much confusion on this difference. Also, if the IRS admits that they have been collecting income tax directly all these years, without apportionment, it would prove their fraud and their violation of the constitution. Remember, the income tax itself is not unconstitutional. But to collect it as a direct tax, from American citizens, without apportionment among the many states…is. 

The major misunderstanding on behalf of the IRS, is when this principle is applied to corporations.  When a corporation is engaging in a business activity, it is a privilege granted by the government, either state or federal.  And privileges are taxable with an indirect tax. But not ALL privileges. A tax must first be 'imposed' before the privileged activity becomes taxable. Just the fact of receiving income does not automatically make it taxable. It must be received in connection with the exercise of a privilege upon which a tax has been imposed.

Show me the law:
Ask the IRS to show you the statute that describes the excise activity you are engaged in that has a tax imposed on it!  They can’t, it doesn’t exist.
Corporations had a tax imposed on them with the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909. Do you think the IRS really didn't know the income tax was an excise tax? Supreme Court rulings have stated that the tax is not on the corporation itself, but on the privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity. Again, the tax is not on the corporate income (property), but on the corporate activity (the licensed privilege). That is why it is called an excise tax.
If a corporation sells property and receives income, in connection with a business, it is exercising a privilege granted by the government, and that privilege is taxable.  If an American individual sold that same property, he would be exercising an inalienable right, not a privilege.

What if a corporation was created only to manage property and collect rents from that property? It did nothing else. Then does the direct tax requirements on property rents apply? Or does the corporate 'activity' make the income from rents taxable with an indirect tax?

Again, let's let the Supreme Court tell us. In the Supreme Court case of McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven R.R. Co.,  228 U.S. 295 (1912), the court ruled that: “If a corporation is engaged in a business AND has investments or rental property on the side, then the income from these investments IS taxable as corporate income. But, if the corporation has income ONLY from its own investments and is not engaged in business of any other type, then the income from the property investments is taxable only with a direct tax, with apportionment”. 

The difference here is that the corporation is not engaged in business, but is only managing its own property.  The tax is on the corporate business activity, (a privilege) not on the corporation itself!  This case was decided 2 months AFTER the ratification of the 16th Amendment, and 3 years after the Corporation Tax Act of 1909.
Receiving rents from property, is sometimes taxable, depending on who you are, and in what capacity you receive it!  

It is an inalienable 'right' for an American Citizen and a 'privilege' for a corporation, to receive the same income. In what status and capacity you receive the income determines what kind of tax it is subject to, if any. A God given Inalienable right?  Or a government licensed privilege?

The 16th Amendment did not change, or expand, the taxing powers of the U.S. Government.
Peck & Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 165, 172 (1918)  "The Sixteenth Amendment . . . does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which might otherwise exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co 240 US 1."

Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909  (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399, 416)  “and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts.”
The Supreme Court ruled above that the definition of income, for the purposes of the 16th Amendment, was no different than the definition used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that the 16th amendment did not extend the taxing power to new subjects (or individuals).  Therefore, "income" was legally defined as a corporate profit.  A corporation is not taxed on its income, it is taxed on its profits. Therefore, however "income" is defined for corporations, it means the same thing for individuals. If a corporation has no "profit", then it pays no income tax, regardless of how much income it had.

Let me ask you this. If you contract to work for a corporation, and you exchanged 40 hours of your labor (private property) for $600 (corporate property), did you have a profit? The IRS says yes.

Now, if the corporation exchanges $600 (property) for 40 hours of your labor (property), did the corporation have a profit? The IRS says no.

Why is it that the government claims you had a $600 profit, while the corporation had a $600 deductible expense? Didn't you both just trade one property for another in an even exchange? If I trade you a $50 phone for a $50 electric saw, how much profit did I have? $50? The IRS says yes. What do you say?

The following Supreme Court case ruled that the income tax is imposed on the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit.
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed.”

The 16th amendment only clarified one issue. That issue was; is corporate income, received from property, taxable with an excise tax, or can it only be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment?
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U.S. 179 (1918) This case concerns the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909. The court stated: “An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property (into cash), but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure of the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy the tax was imposed 'not upon the franchises of the corporation irrespective of their use in business, nor upon the property of the corporation, but upon the doing of corporate or insurance business and with respect to the carrying on thereof'; an exposition that has been consistently adhered to.”

Are you engaged in any corporate or insurance businesses?
In 1909 President Taft, in the Congressional Record - SENATE JUNE 16, 1909, PAGES 3344-3345, also understood that the income tax was declared to be an excise tax. He said: "The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U. S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population."

The Supreme Court and President Taft both established that the 1909 corporate income tax is a corporate excise tax on gains and profits. Therefore the 16th amendment is entirely legal and correct, when properly applied to corporate excise taxes, since the taxing powers were not expanded to new subjects (individuals) by the 16th amendment. Therefore, it is not income that is taxable, but indirect corporate profit. This WOULD include real and personal property income, IF’ it was connected with a corporate activity.
NOTE: ALL income is 'presumed' by the government to be from a corporate excise activity, unless and until it is rebutted.  

Make sure you rebut the government's presumption that your income was received in connection with any corporate activity.  
This rebuttal of presumption is based on: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. 240 U.S. 1, 16-17. (1916)”. the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled to be enforced as such unless 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 tax would not apply to it." also See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601, 637. (1895)
As this case states, ALL income (profit) is 'presumed' to be from an excise taxed corporate activity and is entitled to be taxed as such, “unless and until” shown otherwise, and when shown otherwise, then income from a non-excise activity, must be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment among the many states.

The 16th amendment did NOT change the nature of the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax without apportionment, nor did it allow direct taxation without apportionment.
This claim is based on: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad 240 U.S. 1 (1916) Commenting on the 16th Amendment: “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to convey power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -- an authority already possessed and never questioned, . The Amendment 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 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.  At pgs 10, 11; "The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the (false) 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 the subject 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,”

Continuing with the Brushaber case at pg 11-12:  "But it clearly results that the propositions and the contentions 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. 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 geographic uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one State or States, than was levied in another State or States. This result, instead of simplifying the situation, and making clear the limitation 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."pg 16-17; " the conclusion reached in the Pollock case 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 tax would not apply to it. 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 wholly without foundation..." Brushaber at page 18.

If you rely on the above Supreme Court rulings, then you can only believe that the term 'income' was legally limited to mean corporate profit, unless and until shown otherwise (rebutted).  

'Income' is NOT all receipts within the definition of 'gross income'. And the entire proceeds of the conversion of capital assets into cash are not 'gross income'. Income had the same meaning in both tax acts, the Corporation Excise Tax Act and the 16th Amendment. What was that definition again?  Excise income was defined as a corporate GAIN derived from capital or labor. NOT as "all receipts". Remember, income tax is presumed to be a corporate excise tax, unless rebutted. Therefore all income (profit), as defined in the internal revenue code, is presumed to be from a corporate excise activity, unless you’…rebut it.
Evans v. Gore 253 U.S. 245 (1920) this case concerned a tax on the salary of judges.  In Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R, where the purpose and effect of the (16th) amendment were first drawn in question, the Chief Justice said “It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to levy income taxes in a generic sense -an authority already possessed and never questioned, the amendment did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on incomes.  (Legally defined to mean corporate profit)
Again, the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment did not extend the taxing power to new non-corporate subjects, it merely made a distinction, for corporate income, that the income (profit) was taxable, from whatever [corporate] source, without apportionment, which included corporate property and corporate rents.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170 (1926) This was a case concerning a corporation.  “It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment (16th) to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes.  But taxes on incomes from some sources (corporate property) had been held to be 'direct taxes' within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment.  The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all income 'from whatever source derived.' 'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight.”

The above Supreme Court case clearly states that the whole purpose of the 16th Amendment was to make income (profit), from corporate property, taxable with the corporate income tax. Before the 16th Amendment, a corporation's property income could only be taxed with a direct tax with apportionment. After the 16th amendment, a corporation's property income could now be taxed with an indirect excise tax, as long as that property income was connected to corporate activities. Simply put, when figuring corporate profit, it does not make any difference what the source of that profit was. An individual's property income (from rents or labor), when not connected to corporate activities still cannot be taxed directly without apportionment. To apply the same principle to a private individual would be to violate his inalienable right of property and to tax that right as an excise privilege. I do not believe that the purpose of the 16th Amendment was to abolish my inalienable rights of property, secured by the Colorado Constitution, Art II Sect. 3. Private property could still be taxed federally, but only through a direct tax on the states with apportionment.
Do you farm, or own rental property and receive income from them? Then you can rely on the following Supreme Court case.

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920), "Be that as it may, it is concluded in all these cases, from that of Hylton to that of Springer, that taxes on land are direct taxes, and in none of them is it determined that taxes on rents, or income derived from land are not taxes on land." also see Hylton vs. U.S. 3 U.S. 171 (1796), Springer vs. U.S. 102 U.S. 586 (1880), Pollock vs. Farmers Loan and Trust 158 U.S. 429, pg 578,579 (1895).
The Supreme Court above, in 1920, said ALL these cases agree, taxes on rents, or on income from land, (farming) are legally considered taxes on land, and this tax must be apportioned. Again, that is why the government recommends that you incorporate, because it cannot legally tax your income otherwise.

Now the IRS will probably claim that your reliance on these Supreme Court decisions is a frivolous argument and has been rejected by the courts. Is your reliance on these Supreme Court decisions and Congressional reports a frivolous position? And WHAT courts have rejected them?

From American Jurisprudence (Am. Jur.) Chapter 71 Section 94, we read"The (inalienable) right to acquire, possess, or own property cannot, according to one doctrine, be made the subject of an excise tax. The theory appears to be that a tax upon the right to acquire, possess, hold or own property is tantamount to a tax upon the property itself, and hence, must be regarded as a property tax and not an excise tax."

71 Am. Jur. 194 says"A tax on an essential attribute of a thing is a tax on the thing itself, and no tax can be imposed on the right of ownership, which is not also a tax on property. An individual, unlike a corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, nor for the enjoyment of the right to own property."

You are simply enjoying your inalienable rights of property and the fruit thereof. These rights cannot be directly taxed, federally, without apportionment.
You can also rely on Treasury Decision # 2303 (1916) which states: "The provisions of the sixteenth amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited  (Congress' original power to tax incomes) from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation (excises), to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment."

Congress was prohibited from taxing income directly by the Constitution. The income tax is an indirect excise tax on corporations.

So in order to eliminate future confusion. the 16th Amendment should have read: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect (excise) taxes on (corporate) incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."  Hindsight!
Why didn't the government just word the amendment that way in the first place, to eliminate the confusion? The answer is simple. If you remember, Congress tried to implement a direct tax on income with the Revenue Act of 1894, which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional.  The government still wanted the tax, and did not want it found unconstitutional again, so they VERY CAREFULLY worded it this time to make it legal, but still make it look like the income tax was changed to a direct tax. Did it work? Yes it did! And since you did not know the law, and the fact that your income was presumed to be corporate income, and you did not rebut that presumption, you then became liable for a corporate income tax. Nice trick huh! Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse! Unless you happen to be a government!

People have been ignorant for so long that now the false belief of personal income tax is so firmly entrenched, that everyone is afraid to look and see that THE EMPEROR WEARS NO CLOTHES!

American Citizens have given up their rights for privileges, so they can be accepted by popular opinion, especially the IRS's. It has been recently discovered that the 16th Amendment was not even ratified by the states with a majority vote. The government wanted this amendment so bad that they lied and claimed that enough states had voted for it, when they had not! But since the 16th amendment actually did not grant any new powers of taxation, it shouldn’t have made any difference. That is, if “We The People,” would have protested against the unconstitutional tax after 1913, as done in 1894.
This whole essay can be narrowed down to this one argument:
Income received from the inalienable rights of property (rents from real estate) or (income from labor or personal investments) can only by taxed with a direct tax with apportionment, according to the Constitution and the Supreme Court. There are no direct taxes imposed by the federal government today. The income tax is an excise tax on corporate profit, from whatever source.

SUMMARY
The 16th Amendment did NOT change the income tax a direct tax to be collected without apportionment. It merely reemphasized the fact that it was an indirect excise tax, which COULD be collected without apportionment. It was a tax on corporate incomes not requiring apportionment.
Corporations are taxed with an indirect tax on ALL income they receive, from whatever source, if they are engaged in any business activities. The corporation business activity (privilege) is the taxable activity. Not the corporate income, (property) or the corporation itself (also property).
Corporations that have ONLY private investment income, (property) and are not engaged in any business activity, (privilege) can have their investment income taxed only with a direct tax. The same as an individual.
Americans are only taxed legally on corporate activities that they voluntarily engage in. Not all privileged activities are automatically taxable. There must first be a tax 'imposed' on that particular activity or privilege.
Inalienable property rights, or the income received from the exercise of these rights, are not taxable with an indirect tax. Only with a direct tax, with apportionment among the states.
Property, or the income from property, is not taxable with an indirect tax. Income from labor, when received in an individual capacity, is personal property, and can only be taxed directly through apportionment.
You are presumed to have corporate income, unless rebutted.
WARNING!!

The American people have been brainwashed with lies for so long, that they now are convinced that lies are truth. Doublespeak. The government has grown so large and abusive, that the Constitution is no longer valid and you have no rights to uphold. If you use the information in this chapter the IRS and the courts will call it a frivolous argument, without merit, and punish you accordingly.
Fine print:  Although it has actually been done successfully, any attempt to enforce Constitutional limitations on the government should be done only as a last resort and then, at your own risk!
Thanks for listening - de Andréa

Please pass on this article to everyone on your email list.  It may be the only chance for your friends to hear the truth.

Copyright © 2014 by Bottom Line Publishing, All Rights Reserved -  Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Disclaimer - The writer of this blog is not responsible for the language or advertisements used in links to referenced articles as source materials.


1 comment:

Michael Chadwell said...

Can you cite actual quotes for the "soak the rich" scheme? I am trying to find hard sources that this bill was sold only because it would be applied to evil rich people. I can only find subjection to support this claim, though I am 100% sure that it is true. I need hard quotes.