Chapter 5 of the TRUTH!
The most misunderstood amendment is the 16th (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."
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 this is 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 we learned in earlier chapters. We are the victims of mass brainwashing by the 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."
U. S. of A. CONSTITUTION
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3: "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.
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 50 states, since this is a direct tax on the 50 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.
This is how a direct tax is legally and Constitutionally collected. It is directly on you or something you own (inalienable property rights).
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, the world would still be flat, with the sun circling around it, and we would still be dunking 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 it 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, imposts 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!
Again, let's rely on the Supreme Court to straighten it out for us.
In 1920, the Supreme Court said:
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 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 confusion."
The 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court says, was suppose to clarify the limitation on the taxing power. It apparently didn't, so the Supreme Court is. Mr. Brushaber was arguing that the income tax was a 'direct' tax, and therefore unconstitutional because 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, entitled to be enforced as such..." pg 16-17
There it is! The 16th Amendment left the income tax as an indirect excise tax and is to be enforced as such. It is a tax on corporate incomes not requiring the tax to be apportioned! On privileges! This is not my opinion, but a Supreme Court ruling. 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!
For further confirmation, 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..."
So the 16th Amendment did not confer any new 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.)
Congress agrees with this: 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 corporate activity, just the fact that you receive income, 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.
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 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 government has determined that to give a gift is a government
granted privilege. I disagree. I think that since you are acquiring
your property as an inalienable right, then you should also have
the inalienable right to dispose of it as you like, without a
The IRS and the courts purposely ignore these Supreme Court decisions and collect the tax as a direct tax without apportionment, because they need the money. 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, if 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, is. So, is the IRS collecting tax illegally? No. It is collecting it legally because you have been tricked into giving up your inalienable rights for a privilege. More on this later.
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. Ask the IRS to show you the statute that describes the excise activity you are engaged in that has a tax imposed on it!
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 (privilege). That is why it is called an excise tax.
Now, 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. Therefore, the sale of the property would only be taxable with a direct tax to the individual, but it would be taxable with a indirect tax to the corporation as a taxable privilege. The 16th Amendment was written for those engaged in privileges.
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 is that the corporation in 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. Inalienable right? Or privilege?
The 16th Amendment did not change, or expand, the taxing powers.
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."
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (cites omitted) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income', and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. 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 (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?
Property income, received by a corporation, before the 16th amendment, was only taxable with a direct tax with apportionment, because of the constitutional restriction of direct taxes on property. The 16th amendment clarified that, after the 16th amendment, corporate property "income" could now be taxed with an excise, because it was received in connection with corporate excise activities and was therefore received under privilege and not under the inalienable right of property. This same principle does NOT apply to individuals with property income. Individuals are not exercising any corporate privileges, but are instead exercising inalienable rights of property.
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 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.
The 16th amendment did NOT change the nature of the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax without apportionment, nor to 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 rebutted.
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, says 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. 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.
So 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."
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 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 did not grant any new powers of taxation, it really does not make any difference.
This whole book 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.
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 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. Are you an American? Or a U.S. citizen? Find out in the next chapter!
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.
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 no longer is 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. Attempt to enforce Constitutional limitations on the government at your own risk! To do this you must be an American Citizen, not a U.S. citizen. Let's see what the difference is next.
Table of Contents / Go to Chapter 6