Posted on 11/19/2002 6:29:09 AM PST by TIIElniff
No Answers, No Taxes
I guess some folks never get the word. Answers have been clear as a bell for the last 200 years, just TP'rs don't like the answer does not in anyway invalidate them.
Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention June 12, 1788:
- "the oppression arising from taxation, is not from the amount but, from the mode -- a thorough acquaintance with the condition of the people, is necessary to a just distribution of taxes. The whole wisdom of the science of Government, with respect to taxation, consists in selecting the mode of collection which will best accommodate to the convenience of the people."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #12:
- "A nation cannot long exist without revenues. Destitute of this essential support, it must resign its independence, and sink into the degraded condition of a province. This is an extremity to which no government will of choice accede. Revenue, therefore, must be had at all events. In this country, if the principal part be not drawn from commerce, it must fall with oppressive weight upon land."
- "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates. Commerce, contributing to both these objects, must of necessity render the payment of taxes easier, and facilitate the requisite supplies to the treasury."
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
- "Mr. Chairman, in considering this great subject, I trust we shall find that part which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes indispensable, and essential to the existence of any efficient or well-organized system of government"
- "If a government depends on other governments for its revenues -- if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members -- its existence must be precarious."
- "If the general government is to depend on the voluntary contribution of the states for its support, dismemberment of the United States may be the consequence."
James Madison, Federalist #39:
- "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities. On trying the Constitution by this criterion, it falls under the NATIONAL, not the FEDERAL character;"
James Madison, Federalist #45:
- "The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present [Continental] sic Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future [Constitutional] sic Congress will have to REQUIRE them of individual citizens;"
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
(Farrand's Records)
James Mchenry before the Maryland House of Delegates.
Maryland Novr. 29th 1787--
Appendix A, CXLVIa, page 149, S9.
- "Convention have also provided against any direct or Capitation Tax but according to an equal proportion among the respective States: This was thought a necessary precaution though it was the idea of every one that government would seldom have recourse to direct Taxation, and that the objects of Commerce would be more than Sufficient to answer the common exigencies of State and should further supplies be necessary, the power of Congress would not be exercised while the respective States would raise those supplies in any other manner more suitable to their own inclinations --"
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
"COMMERCE, trade, contracts.
The exchange of commodities for commodities; considered in a legal point of view, it consists in the various agreements which have for their object to facilitate the exchange of the products of the earth or industry of man, with an intent to realize a profit. Pard. Dr. Coin. n. 1. In a narrower sense, commerce signifies any reciprocal agreements between two persons, by which one delivers to the other a thing, which the latter accepts, and for which he pays a consideration; if the consideration be money, it is called a sale; if any other thing than money, it is called exchange or barter. Domat, Dr. Pub. liv. 1, tit. 7, s. 1, n. "A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
INCOME. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
COMPENSATION, contracts. A reward for services rendered.Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "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, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
Consideration received in exchange for labor or product is commerce, subject to an indirect tax.
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." Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax." "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves."
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
- "The people of the United States constitute one nation, under one government, and this government, within the scope of the powers with which it is invested, is supreme."
- "Without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States. Both the States and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument[the Constitution], established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the States."
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):
- "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
- "The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."
- "It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (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 [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such"
- "in the Pollock Case , in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 601, 635 ), its that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. "
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
- "the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment"
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, March 27, 1943, pg. 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 (the type 3 and 4 taxes) 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."
- [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.
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.
DEP'T OF JUSTICE CRIMINAL TAX MANUAL, TAX PROTESTERS.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/Press/kotm~s11.htm ain't search engines wonderful??
CONTACT: 919/856-4530
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Friday - February 4, 2000
RALEIGH - United States Attorney Janice McKenzie Cole announced that EDWARD L. KOTMAIR, 41, of Westminster, Maryland, was sentenced in federal court here on Thursday, February 3, 2000, for failure to file federal income tax returns. Chief U. S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle imposed a sentence of 27 months imprisonment and a supervised release term of one year.
Following a three-day jury trial in September, 1999, KOTMAIR was convicted of failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1990, 1991, and 1992. During those years, he operated his own carpentry business, Commercial Installers, located in Cary, N. C. His company earned income of approximately 1.7 million dollars during the three-year period. Some of KOTMAIR's income came from the United States Government while he did subcontracting work on the Library of Congress and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation building in Washington, D. C. KOTMAIR was arrested in September, 1998, and has remained in federal custody since that time.
During his trial, KOTMAIR attempted to convince the jury that he did not believe he was required to pay income taxes. The jury rejected his argument and found him guilty on all three counts of the indictment. KOTMAIR is a member of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, a tax protest organization located in Westminster, Maryland. The group, which was founded by KOTMAIR's father, John B. Kotmair, states that U. S. citizens living and working in the United States are not required to pay income taxes. The elder Kotmair was convicted of failure to file federal income tax returns in the early 1980's and served a prison term. Other members of Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, including close associates of KOTMAIR, also have been convicted of income tax charges and sentenced to prison.
According to U. S. Attorney Cole, federal courts and juries have consistently rejected the arguments of "tax protest" organizations, including the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship, and have upheld the income tax laws and their applicability to everyone.
Investigation of the case was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service.
Quatloo's Tax Protestor Gallery
Government has met its burden and answered the relavent questions as regards the income tax, officially and repeatedly.
It seems me Schulz & Company are more interested in a media event for his own agrandizement (promotion of his pocket book and political agenda) than listening or looking for real answers.
You can find them
I've seen the list, and analyzed their basis. They boil down to nothing at all, that is not answered above.
The bottom line, the income tax as it is applied to wages & salaries is not dependant upon the 16th Amendment.
The tax on occupations, trades, professions and employments, is and always has been within the power of Congress under Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution to lay and collect duties and excises uniform among the United States since the writing of the Constitution of 1887, as a replacement to the Articles of Confederation of 1776.
The entire premise of Schulz and his cohort of scammers is destroyed by the Constitution, the words of its chief proponents and the meaning of the language of the period:
Constitution for the United States of America:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
James Madison, Elliots Debates Vol 3 p128:
Believe me, they are serious questions, NOT answered solely in the IRS Code!
You don't read other's responses very well do you. Only Congress replies with Public Law, (i.e. IRS Code). I have answered in the Founder's words, the Constitution, the Courts of the period, and have provided the governments aswers to Schulz as well.
The questions Schulz & Company lay are carefully crafted to support a specific inference leaving out aspects contrary to their agenda. They however do not reflect anything that, in reality, supports their position that American citizens are not subject to the income tax law and thus, may have a defense against prosecution in the courts.
If you want to get rid of the income tax, then work for the repeal of statutes and constitutional amendment that expressly prohibits the levy of taxes with regard to income as oppossed to expenditure of the individual.
Ignoring the statutes as Schulz & company advocate, is just a quick way to add fines and possibly jail time to the tax bill already owed.
My premise and answers lay with the Constitution, the language of the era in which it was written, the authors and proponents of the Constitution, and the Courts of the period(mainly made up of Judges who participated in the written of the that Consitution).
The Anti-Federalists (and consequently Schulz') lost the debate with the ratification of the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation. That debate over the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes from the individyal citizen is long lost, though some seem never to get the message.
You saved me a lot of typing. You also covered the bases much better than I would have had time to do. Unfortunately, as you alluded to, the TP'ers choose to ignore answers that they don't like and in the end, will continue in their foolish pursuits.
At least, if they continue to be an embarrassment to the tax reform movement, we can take comfort that within a few more years, most of them will be behind bars, where they can no longer be an embarrassment and we can move forward with real tax reform, without their antics reflecting badly on us. There is another advantage to this. Since they can't reproduce while they're behind bars, it will serve to cull the gene pool. :^)
But, I, for one, would like to see the answers from the government that is paid to do that.
Who in Government are are looking for answers from? Schulz looks to get answers from bureaucrats who cannot authoratatively answer his questions nor are the paid to answer is questions any other way than they have, for they are only minions and spokesman of the real culprits, Congress and the American People who elect Congresses.
I don't see Schulz addressing his complaints of high and abusive taxation to either.
What answers are you looking for that have not already been answered and you should be able to answer for yourself?
Has there been an assult on our liberties as we compare to what we had even 50 years ago?
Yes.
Has State and National government attempted to extend it exercise of power to the boundries of what that the Constitution enumerates and tested the limits of its authority therein?
Yes
Have the American People allowed even encourage this testing of Constitutional limits?
Yes
Has State and National government gone beyond any reasonable interpretation of the commerce clause in extending authority over the individual at the insistence of the American People?
Yes.
Has State and National government gone beyond what I consider to be the boundries of the Bill of Rights in its quest for control, and the quest for security by the American People?
Yes.
What is your responsibility to answer Schulz' questions?
Total! You are a soveriegn citizen, or so Schulz & company claim. It is you the citizen that must be the basis of change, for you make the Congress, and demand the services the bureaucracies are tasked to administer.
Do any of those questions, say anything about abuse of the enumerated power of Congress to lay and collect taxes "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;"
No! For the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes from the individual as opposed to the state is the 1st enumerated power in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, and is one of the primary reasons the Constitution was written and ratified by the people of the founding of our nation.
Three of the Five Judges of the first Supreme Court were proponents of the Constitution and delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and had this to say about the enumerated power to tax given to Congress under the Constitution:
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,"
Furthermore the Court has made it very clear as to who ultimately hold the responsibility to change things that are not right.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)
For,
LICENSE TAX CASES, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)
- "It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception, and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."
PACIFIC INS. CO. v. SOULE, 74 U.S. 433 (1868),7 Wall. 433
- "Congress may prescribe the basis, fix the rates, and require payment as it may deem proper. Within the limits of the Constitution it is supreme in its action. No power of supervision or control is lodged in either of the other departments of the government."
Lane Co. v. Oregon (1868), 74 U.S. [7 Wall.] 71:
- [T]he people, through the constitution of the United States, 'established a more perfect union by substituting a national government, acting, with ample power, directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers, greatly restricted, only upon the states.' In no other way can the supremacy of that constitution be maintained. It creates a government in fact as well as in name, because its constitution is the supreme law of the land, 'anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding;' and its authority is enforced by its power to regulate and govern the conduct of individuals, even where its prohibitions are laid only upon the states themselves.
Thus:
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
"Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the [income] tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." "[W]henever the government has imposed a tax which it recognized as a direct tax, it has never been applied to any objects but real estate and slaves." "If the laws here in question involved any wrong or unnecessary harshness, it was for Congress, or the people who make congresses, to see that the evil was corrected.
The remedy does not lie with the judicial branch of the government."
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895)
Champion v. Ames(1903), 186 U.S. 321
I suggest that Schulz and folks are barking up the wrong tree, if they want answers to their tax questions.
I submit Schulz & Company are asking the wrong questions if they figure on addressing the fundamental problems regarding impositions on individual liberty in this republic.
So far, they have not been willing to answer a careful, legitimate inquiry from the people, which they must answer according to that document.
Actually, as Geezer pointed out above, they have gone to great length to answer far more than a reasonable number of variants of the same questions.
The problem is that when the TPers don't like the answer, they rephrase the question over and over. If they were to ask the government the color the sky, the conversation might go like this.
TPer: What color is the sky?
Govt: Blue.
TPer: No. Exactly what color is the sky?
Govt: Sky Blue.
TPer: No. Be more specific. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: Red = 210, Green = 210, Blue = 255
TPer: No. RGB isn't acceptable. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: Cyan = 15%, Magenta = 15%, Yellow = 0%, Black = 0%
TPer: No. CMYK isn't acceptable. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: Hue = 240, Saturation = 18%, Brightness = 100%
TPer: No. HSB isn't acceptable. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: Lightness = 85, a Axis = 7, b Axis = -22
TPer: No. Lab color isn't acceptable. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: Focoltone 4035
TPer: No. Focoltone isn't acceptable. What is the exact color of the sky?
Govt: You've been given the answer numerous times and in numerous manners.
Any further questions like this are frivolous. Deal with it!TPer: See! See! The government isn't answering our question! See! See! We told you so!
Sure, the government isn't answering the TPer's questions anymore. That's because they have already been more than patient and answered an absurdly large number of variants of those same questions. There is a point, when faced by such lunacy, that you have to accept that the people continuously rephrasing the same questions over and over again are either fools or they just don't want to hear the answer. Either way, the government has better things to do with our money than waste more time playing their ridiculous games.
The TPer's questions have been thourghly addressed by the courts and Congress and it's now time for the TPers to just DEAL WITH IT!
I find there is too much myth and wishfull thinking out there with a pretense of being fact.
It's been done numerous times. Schulz et al merely dislike the answers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.