Anti-Tax Group Makes 'Final Warning' to Federal Government

They could make great strides in accomplishing what China's been trying to do for decades by simply revoking the Form 1040 tax deduction for second and subsequent children.

Show me that Congress has done so and that the intent is to prohibit a family from having second or more children. You offer merely a strawman, with no substance.

So why is it outside of the taxing jurisdiction of Congress to impose a tax on the income of a Chinese citizen working for a Chinese company in China, with no second income from commercial activity within the United States, and who is not also a US citizen?

It says "the power to lay and collect taxes on all income, from whatever source derived," doesn't it?

You cite Helvering, which states, "Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert "the full measure of its taxing power," but in order to understand the meaning of that sentence, you have to understand exactly what the "full measure" of Congress' taxing power actually is.

We both agree that the "full measure of Congress' taxing power" does not extend to a Chinese citizen living and working for a Chinese company in China with no commercial intercourse with the US. So it is clear that the "full measure" of its taxing power is not boundless. What defines the boundaries of that taxing power?

I submit that it is Article I, Section 8, and that Article and Section is why every Federal law that wants to stretch those limits and abuse the sovereignty of the states invokes the concept of interstate commerce. Take a look at the kidnapping statute, for example - it's only a Federal crime if you are found or rebuttably presumed to have crossed state or international lines with your kidnap victim.

If they could tax anything and everything without regard to their enumerated powers, the notion of "enumerated powers" would become meaningless, and that's exactly what was expressed in my cite of Bailey.

They can tax incomes from foreign commerce, and they do.

The effective "regulation" in this case, as set forth by the tax code, is "have as many children as possible." The more children, the bigger your deduction, the fewer children, the more of your income falls subject to the income tax.

The tax code is a tangled web of such carrots and sticks. So here the so-called tax is a penalty to coerce people of a state to act as Congress wishes them to act in respect of a matter completely the business of the state government under the federal Constitution.

If they could tax anything and everything without regard to their enumerated powers, the notion of "enumerated powers" would become meaningless, and that's exactly what was expressed in my cite of Bailey

Your theory is quaint but has no substance, nor hope of building a defence in the Courtroom.

The power of Congress to tax, is an enumerated power, independant of all other of its enumerated powers, and is a Concurrent power with the States:

Hamilton, Federalist #34:

To form a more precise judgment of the true merits of this question, it will be well to advert to the proportion between the objects that will require a federal provision in respect to revenue, and those which will require a State provision. We shall discover that the former are altogether unlimited, and that the latter are circumscribed within very moderate bounds. In pursuing this inquiry, we must bear in mind that we are not to confine our view to the present period, but to look forward to remote futurity. Constitutions of civil government are not to be framed upon a calculation of existing exigencies, but upon a combination of these with the probable exigencies of ages, according to the natural and tried course of human affairs. Nothing, therefore, can be more fallacious than to infer the extent of any power, proper to be lodged in the national government, from an estimate of its immediate necessities. There ought to be a CAPACITY to provide for future contingencies as they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their nature, it is impossible safely to limit that capacity.

``A CONCURRENT JURISDICTION in the article of taxation was the only admissible substitute for an entire subordination, in respect to this branch of power, of State authority to that of the Union.'' Any separation of the objects of revenue that could have been fallen upon, would have amounted to a sacrifice of the great INTERESTS of the Union to the POWER of the individual States. The convention thought the concurrent jurisdiction preferable to that subordination; and it is evident that it has at least the merit of reconciling an indefinite constitutional power of taxation in the Federal government with an adequate and independent power in the States to provide for their own necessities.

Congress may not tax anything and everything, for Congress is expressly forbidden to tax exports from any state to foreign nations. That is the only limitation. It's power to tax are bounded by the restrictions that direct taxes (taxes laid on mere ownership of property) must be apportioned among the states by each state's population, and that indirect taxes, those levied on activities and events as opposed to merely ownership, must be uniform among the states(i.e all states subject to the same law to preclude defacto tariffs advantaging one state over another.)

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

"A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "

"the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."

"Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"

"[T]he DIRECT TAXES contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, A CAPITATION OR POLL TAX, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND."

Signed, sealed and delivered! Redress of GRIEVANCES?? Go Bob!!

The ADL can collectively bite it...

The tax code is a tangled web of such carrots and sticks. So here the so-called tax is a penalty to coerce people of a state to act as Congress wishes them to act in respect of a matter completely the business of the state government under the federal Constitution.

And, the National government is forbidden to tax the functions of the State government for that reason.

Your complaint however does not meet the test of McCray, so no help in the Courtroom:

MCCRAY v. U S, 195 U.S. 27 (1904)

"'But if what Congress does is within the limits of its power, and is simply unwise or injurious, the remedy is that suggested by Chief Justice Marshall in Gibbons v. Ogden [9 Wheat. 1, 6 L. ed. 23], when [195 U.S. 27, 56] he said: 'The wisdom and the discretion of Congress, their identity with the people, and the influence which their constituents possess at elections, are, in this, as in many other instances, as that, for example, of declaring war, the sole restraints on which they have relied, to secure them from its abuse. They are the restraints on which the people must often rely solely, in all representative governments."

"Let us concede that if a case was presented where the abuse of the taxing power was so extreme as to be beyond the principles which we have previously stated, and where it was plain to the judicial mind that the power had been called into play, not for revenue, but solely for the purpose of destroying rights which could not be rightfully destroyed consistently with the principles of freedom and justice upon which the Constitution rests, that it would be the duty of the courts to say that such an arbitrary act was not merely an abuse of a delegated power, but was the exercise of an authority not conferred. "

If you don't like the income tax, then work to repeal it, as I do. But don't try to sell me your pile of bovine excretement that the income tax can be ignored by the citizen of the United States.

To get the ball rolling and focus Congress Critter's attention:

H.R.2714
Sponsor: Rep Largent, Steve(introduced 8/2/2001)
Title: To terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
A bill to prohibit he imposition of any tax by the Internal Revenue Code: (1) for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 2005.

Follow on simultaneously with a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a revenue neutral replacement, I highly recommend it and support it:

H.R.2525
SPONSOR: Rep Linder, John (introduced 07/17/2001)
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.
Refer: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org

And among the things the law says it means are:

"The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:" ...
"(3) Personal services"

Again we see the conflation of "items" of income with "sources" of income. The list you cite is a list of "items" of income, not a list of "sources" of income.

A parallel situation would be if 26 USC 5741 had a paragraph which read:

The following items of metal shall be treated as metal from firearms ...

And then suppose it listed metal tubes of certain dimensions, etc. This cite doesn't provide any illumination on what the law means when it says "firearms," and does not indicate that when the term "firearms" is used, it refers to short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and grenades, under the provisions of 5745.

Likewise, this cite has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "source" with respect to the income tax. Sections 861 and following, and their associated regulations, determine the sources of income for the purposes of the income tax, under a tangle of regulations and operative sections.

The citations with respect to the taxing power of Congress are interesting, and I'm going to have to do some more reading in order to respond adequately to them, but we should maintain a clear distinction between a discussion about what Congress could have taxed and what they actually did tax.

Arizona Daily Wildcat -- (a college newspaper seems to provide the most information)

Rachel Alexander

In 1996, House Representative "B-1" Bob Dornan, the outspoken and noteworthy Clinton opponent, was narrowly defeated by Loretta Sanchez in California's 46th District. After the election, it was discovered that supporters of Sanchez had allegedly illegally registered non-citizens to vote for Sanchez.

A congressional investigation was launched, uncovering startling information. One of Sanchez's staffers admitted in sworn testimony that the Sanchez campaign encouraged illegal voter registration. The radical Hispanic organization Hermandad Mexicana Nacional was investigated by the county and state for election fraud. Hermandad had registered 721 non-citizens, 442 of whom voted in the election. The head of Hermandad was convinced he would "be indicted on hundreds of felonies." More corruption was discovered when Sanchez's husband was caught and arrested for stealing Dornan signs.

What is revealing is that not only did Sanchez's supporters illegally register non-citizens, but they also pressured them into thinking that Sanchez, an extreme liberal, represented their interests simply because she was Hispanic. However, Dornan has great popularity in the 46th District, which is 50 percent Hispanic. Like many Hispanics, Dornan has a strong Catholic background. He is also very outspoken against racism. He was an activist in domestic civil rights during the 1960s, marching with Martin Luther King, Jr. and registering black voters in the South. Dornan's own webmaster, a key campaign staffer, is Hispanic.

Despite all of the evidence to the contrary, once the investigation began, accusations of racism were launched against Dornan by the Sanchez camp. Liberals said that the investigation itself was racist. The Republicans heading the investigation, fearful of being labeled racist, allowed the Democrats to use criteria which would only find a minimal amount of illegal voters. Dornan lost the election by only 979 votes. The investigation ended this month, coincidentally coming up with 970 illegal votes, 9 votes shy of reversing the election.

http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/91/108/04_2_m.html

-----------------------------------------

Task force Chairman Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by non-citizens, not enough to throw Sanchez's victory into doubt. He and other Republicans said the results nonetheless show that Dornan's challenge was not frivolous and that the GOP was not unfairly targeting Hispanic voters.

"The fact that we ended up with 748 illegal votes makes it clear his allegations had merit," Ehlers said.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/13/cq/sanchez.html

It sounds like the criteria for finding illegals votes was watered down until republicans didnt have to deal with the issue.

I brought up amnesties so that it would be more clear to you that illegal immigration had an effect on that election regardless of whether their were illegal voters or not.

We pay the price for the govt to defend our borders. Those agencies are there they just dont do their jobs.

Funny that getting illegal immigration under control is just too expensive but we can spare no expense in enforcing insane tax codes on law abiding citizens.

Again we see the conflation of "items" of income with "sources" of income.

Again we see you fail to make a legal basis for any such distinction. And again we see you fail to deal with this sentence, "The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States"

If your distinction between "items" and "sources" and had any weight at all, that sentence removes it. It makes all the following items "sources".

Let me ask, what do you think that list of "items" is for? Amusement?

We pay the price for the govt to defend our borders.

No, we don't.

Those agencies are there they just dont do their jobs.

Because of manpower restrictions. Guarding just the Mexican border will require a LOT more bodies than we currently have, all of whom will need to be paid. Add to that the fact that we'll need to guard the coastline, and it starts getting amazingly expensive. This sort of task ends up being very manpower-intensive.

The end price tag will be more money than you're willing to part with. So shut up already.

Show me your appellate or Supreme Court level win telling us that Congress does not intend to tax the United States citizen with regard income from sources within the United States, when clearly the Courts the regulations and statutes and the power of Congress to do so holds otherwise:

Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955).

"Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature."

United States v. Melton, No. 94-5535 (4th Cir. 1996)
ARGUED: Lowell Harrison Becraft, Jr.[one of Schulz & Co. legal beagles], Huntsville, Alabama, for Appellants.

The jury heard not only the United States's evidence against the Meltons, but also the brothers' defense that they believed they were not "persons liable" for federal income tax. The jury rejected the excuse, however, and convicted them on nearly all counts.

[Subtitle A] "Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal tax on the taxable income of every individual.
26 U.S.C. s 1."

[Subtitle A] "Section 63 defines "taxable income" as gross income minus allowable deductions."
26 U.S.C. s 63.

[Subtitle A] Section 61 states that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services.
26 U.S.C. s 61.

[Subtitle F] Sections 6001 and 6011 provide that a person must keep records and file a tax return for any tax for which he is liable.
26 U.S.C. ss 6001
26 U.S.C. ss 6011.

Finally, section 6012 provides that every individual having gross income that equals or exceeds the exemption amount in a taxable year shall file an income tax return.
26 U.S.C. s 6012.

The duty to pay federal income taxes therefore is "manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations." United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir.1990). The rarely recognized proposition that, "where the law is vague or highly debatable, a defendant--actually or imputedly--lacks the requisite intent to violate it," Mallas, 762 F.2d at 363 (quoting United States v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, 1162 (4th Cir.1974)), simply does not apply here.
Each Melton brother had gross income in excess of the amount requiring the filing of a return in each of the years at issue. Therefore, each was a "person liable."

26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]

Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.

(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.
(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

The end price tag will be more money than you're willing to part with. So shut up already.

That the problem has grown exponentially as we've thrown out amnesties proves you wrong. Our problem with illegal immigration is a crime spree created by the govt for refusing to enforce the law and then rewarding and forgiving those who break it.

Weeee, now go pay your taxes. I wonder how taxpaying Dornan supporters feel about the loss of their representative. Their vote was made worthless by criminals who dont belong here, by a govt that looks the other way.

That the problem has grown exponentially as we've thrown out amnesties proves you wrong.

All I said was that if you want the law enforced, and illegal immigration stopped, you're going to need lots of bodies up there on the border, and that means unbelievably large payrolls. I said nothing about whether we should or should not enforce the border; I merely question whether folks like you are willing to pay the price tag necessary.

According to the Constitution, this person has the sole authority to appoint militia officers. (Cue "Final Jeopardy" theme music)

I have a different Constitution. According to my Constitution, the Congress shall have the power: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

As of January 1, 2001, the United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13, reads:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Who's in charge of the militia in a given state?

What does that have to do with the appointment of officers? Better, what is your point?

Good question. Why is the ADL concerned? Hmmmm...

What does that have to do with the appointment of officers?

OK...one more time: who has the authority to appoint anyone to any specific rank within a given state's militia?

Again we see you fail to make a legal basis for any such distinction. And again we see you fail to deal with this sentence, "The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States"
If your distinction between "items" and "sources" and had any weight at all, that sentence removes it. It makes all the following items "sources".

Let me ask, what do you think that list of "items" is for? Amusement?

Why do you think they use different words? Amusement? The list sets forth "items" of income, that are to be considered as income from "sources" within the United States. It says nothing about what a "source" actually is.

The distinction is further made in §861(b), which reads:

Taxable income from sources within United States
From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted [...]. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States. In the case of an individual who does not itemize deductions, an amount equal to the standard deduction shall be considered a deduction which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income.

This list is to set forth what items of income can be considered to come from sources within the United States. That's why it has verbiage like this:

... compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if - ... (nonresident alien, less than 90 days and $3,000 in a year, working for a foreign corporation) ...

So you have a situation where compensation for personal services for a nonresident alien within the United States is not considered to be income from a source within the United States.

But this still doesn't illumunate what a "source" is. It just says that the items it sets forth can be considered to come from a "source" within the United States.

For this, we need to turn to the regulations, which set forth the process for implementing and enforcing the law as it is written. The first bits of the regulations for §861 read:

"Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income. Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax."

"THE sources," meaning there are no others.

Next, 26 CFR 1-861-8(a)(4) says "…the term ‘statutory grouping’ means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at ‘taxable income’ from which specific source or activity under an operative section. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.)"

If the income tax applied no matter what the source of the income, there wouldn't be a need to first determine the specific "sources" or "activities," no need to "determine the sources of income for the purposes of the income tax," and no need for § 861 at all.

What are the "specific sources" that must be determined in order to calculate taxable income under the rules of §861? They are referred to by paragraph (a)(4) and appear in 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1):

The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include the sections described below.

And none of those sections apply to income earned by US citizens working exclusively in the US.

There is a mention of a "residual grouping," but following the links in the chain of law, 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(4) indicates that the residual grouping might consist entirely of excluded income. And examining 26 CFR 1.861-8T, the regulations that cover how to compute taxable income from sources within the US, we find at (d)(2)(iii) a list of what is not exempt from taxation, all of which are in regard to foreign, international, or possessions income.

There is an ancient maxim of legal interpretation that states, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius," that is, "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other" -- when a list of specific items is not followed by general words it is to be taken as exhaustive. This is therefore the entire list of non-exempt, non-excluded income, or in other words, any income that does not fall into this list is exempt income.