THEY JUST BROKE THE ABUSIVE U.S. TAX SYSTEM WITH THE NEW INCOME TAX LAW (H.R. 1 – Dec. 2017)
LINK TO BILL – then click on
Constitutional Authority Statement
The new federal personal income tax law, H.R. 1, – that was just
enacted into law by Congress in December 2017, and already made
effective as of January 1st, 2018, has the
immediate legal effect of:
1. completely
disemboweling and
destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement
practices and
operations, by
removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the
direct taxation of
income under the 16th Amendment, as
practiced for the last 60 years;
2. strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of
all of its illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in
the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s
(both district and tax courts’)
erroneous enforcement of a
direct and
unapportioned tax upon the
income of
We the American
People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment; and
3. completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of
the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last
60 years of American history, as nothing but a
complete and
total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true
judicial conspiracy of
sedition that it is,
– to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed upon
the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the unconstitutionally
direct taxation of the
labors and
work (“
wages” and “
salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund,
not the legitimate operation of the government, but the
constitutionally
unauthorized
progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the
re-distribution of wealth that have been by used by the politicians to
create the
welfare based, class warfare system of taxation that
has resulted in the divisive destruction of America, its people’s
Freedom, Liberty, private property, and
equal rights;
– by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is constitutionally authorized, to enable the federal
judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the
judicial enforcement of
only the perverted
judicial Fabian
opinions they issue, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that is authorized and exists.
What ? You may say – that’s crazy. What the hell are you talking about ?
It’s the same tax it’s always been ! There’s nothing new in the law that could do that ! Yea, – that’s right, it’s the same
income tax law that it has always been, and now they have
admitted it on the Congressional Record, and their world is about to change, – well, actually,
implode.
Congress has no idea of what they have done, or of the true extent or
size of the catastrophe within the tax enforcement system, that they
have wrought with the new income tax law, and few Americans, if any have
realized it yet,
– but any honest lawyer will tell you (after reading this) that
everything you are about to read (and have read up to this point in this
article) is irrefutably true.
FACT: For the last 60 years the IRS has been issuing income
tax collection correspondence to Americans asserting that American
citizens owe the payment of an income tax on their work, because of the
adoption of the 16th Amendment. This claim to legal authority is all
over their website; it is in their “
frivolous Arguments” propaganda publications, where they repeatedly assert the
income taxing authority under the 16th Amendment, and label as
frivolous any
reference made to the limitations on the taxing powers imposed under
Article I of the Constitution; and, it is in the pleadings made on the
record of the court by the United States as a plaintiff, in every tax
case prosecuted in the federal courts in the last 30 years.
FACT: The Department of Justice attorneys argue in every
single income tax case prosecuted in the federal courts, that the income
tax is owed by the individual defendant as a function of the 16th
Amendment alone, without use or need of any “applicability” of the
authorized
indirect Article I, Section 8,
impost, duty and
excise taxing powers.
FACT: For the last 60 years the federal courts have been
wrongfully allowing and upholding the
constitutionally prohibited, and therefore
unconstitutional,
direct taxation of the alleged
gross income of the American People, created as a function of all of their
labors and
work, as a
direct tax without
apportionment, under alleged authority conferred under the 16th Amendment to tax “…
income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment, and without regard to any census or enumeration. ”
FACT: The 16th Amendment has no
enabling enforcement clause in it, that would constitutionally authorizes the U.S. Congress to write any law to enforce any power alleged
newly created or
authorized under authority of the Amendment alone.
FACT: There are Amendments to the Constitution, both before and
after the 16th Amendment, that do have and clearly contain an
enabling enforcement clause within them, irrefutably proving the
absence within the Amendment, of such alleged grant of any new
enforceable power,
is intentional.
FACT: In assessing the legal effect of the 16th Amendment, the Supreme Court plainly said in 1916 that “
the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation“. “. . . The provisions of 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 . . .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916)
FACT: The Article I, Section 8, clause 1, authorities to tax
only indirectly, by
uniform
impost, duty and
excise, do not reach the labors of the American people with legal effect. This
is why the federal government has argued for sixty years that the 16th
Amendment was the sole basis for the enforcement of the income tax
imposed by Section 1 of Title 26 United States Code (Title 26 is also
called the I.R.C.). In speaking of the power to tax by ‘duties,’
‘imposts,’ and ‘excises,’ the Supreme Court has consistently said:
” ‘
We think that they were used comprehensively, to cover customs and
excise duties imposed on importation, consumption, manufacture, and sale of certain commodities, privileges, particular business transactions,
vocations, occupations, and the like.’ Duties and imposts are terms
commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or
exportation of commodities.
Excises are ‘taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.‘ Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 680. The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute,
may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.
e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate
organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the
business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas Case, 192 U. S.
supra,
the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges,
and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If
business is not done in the manner described in the statute,
no tax is payable.
If we are correct in holding that this is an excise tax, there is nothing in the
Constitution requiring such taxes to be apportioned according to population.
Pacific Ins. Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, 19 L. ed. 95;
Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 , 26 L. ed. 253;
Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. McClain, 192 U.S. 397 , 48 L. ed. 496, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376.“
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 151-152 (1911)”
Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363 , 48 L. ed. 481, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 305 “Excises are
“taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country
, upon licenses to pursue
certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described
no tax is payable…it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods. ” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.”
Flint, supra, at 151;
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)1
Which is mirrored in Black’s Law Dictionary: “Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of
commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon
corporate privileges.”
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”.
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition
“The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is
as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the
method of apportionment may at times be different. “The Congress shall
have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.” Art.
1, § 8.
If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration.
If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States.
Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405;
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1 , 240 U. S. 12.”
Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 581
“The [income] tax
being an excise, its imposition must conform to the canon of
uniformity. There has been no departure from this requirement. According to the
settled doctrine the uniformity exacted is geographical, not intrinsic.
Knowlton v. Moore, supra, p. 178 U. S. 83;
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., supra, p. 220 U. S. 158;
Billings v. United States, 232 U. S. 261, 232 U. S. 282;
Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 245 U. S. 613;
LaBelle Iron Works v. United States, 256 U. S. 377, 256 U. S. 392;
Poe v. Seaborn, 282 U. S. 101, 282 U. S. 117;
Wright v. Vinton Branch Mountain Trust Bank, 300 U. S. 440.”
Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), at 583 “Whether the tax is to be classified as an “
excise” is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an “
impost” (
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 158 U. S. 622, 158 U. S. 625;
Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soble, 7 Wall. 433, 74 U. S. 445), or a “
duty” (
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 75 U. S. 546, 75 U. S. 547;
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 157 U.
S. 570;
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41, 178 U. S. 46).
A capitation or other
“direct” tax it certainly is not.”
Steward Mach. Co. v. Collector, 301 U.S. 548
(1937), at 581-2
1 Again,
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and
Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by
virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of
excise taxing power.
So, the granted taxing powers are conclusively defined within the U.S. Constitution: “Mr. Chief Justice Chase in
The License Tax Cases, 5
Wall. 462, 72 U. S. 471, when he said: “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.” And although there have
been from time to time intimations that there might be some tax which
was not a direct tax nor included under the words “duties, imposts and
excises,” such a tax, for more than one hundred years of national
existence, has as yet
remained undiscovered, notwithstanding the stress of particular circumstances [that] has invited thorough investigation into
sources of revenue.” And with respect to the power to tax
income the Supreme Court has said:
“The act now under consideration does not impose direct taxation upon
property solely because of its ownership, but the tax is within the
class which Congress is authorized to lay and collect under
article 1, [section] 8, clause 1
of the Constitution, and described generally as taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises, upon which the limitation is that they shall be uniform
throughout the United States. Within the category of indirect taxation,
as we shall have further occasion to show, is embraced a tax upon
business done in a corporate capacity, which is the subject-matter of
the [income] tax imposed in the act under consideration. The Pollock
Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed
upon property simply because of its ownership. In the present case the
tax is not payable unless there be a carrying on or doing of business in
the designated capacity, and this is made the occasion for the tax,
measured by the standard prescribed. The difference between the acts is
not merely nominal, but rests upon substantial differences between the
mere ownership of property and the actual doing of business in a certain
way.”
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. , 220 US 107, 150 (1911) Which is
repeatedly supported: “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 had decided in the
Pollock Case
that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon
property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to
populations, 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,
measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 , 55 L. ed. 389, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912 B, 1312;
McCoach v. Minehill & S. H. R. Co. 228 U.S. 295 , 57 L. ed. 842, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419;
United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, 231 U.S. 144 , 58 L. ed. –, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24.”
Stratton’s, supra at 414 So imposts and duties are taxes on imported and exported goods,
i.e. :
commodities and
articles of commerce that are imported into, and or exported from, the United States of America. Imposts are also taxes on
foreign “
persons”
and their activities in the United States (foreign individuals &
companies, & organized operations like a foreign trust, charity,
etc.). Imposts and duties are also taxes, where imposed, on
persons in
the U.S. territories and possessions, and on America citizens who are
living and working in a foreign country under a tax treaty with the
United States that allows the federal taxation of the American
persons in that foreign country, under the active tax treaty.
So taxation, by impost and duty, by definition, fundamentally does not reach the labors of the American people conducted in the fifty states, where the
labor does not involve any import or export, or other
foreign activity. And
Excise taxes are now accepted as being
constitutionally defined by both law and precedent (over 600 times) as: “
taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges … “.
But Title 15 U.S.C. Section 17, plainly and clearly states that: “
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce… “. Under the U.S. Constitution this law
removes “
the (domestic)
labor of a human being (American
citizens)”
from subjectivity to any and all
taxation by excise under
Article I, Section 8.
This is of course why the United States’ IRS, DOJ, and the entire
federal judiciary (at this point) PREVIOUSLY have had to claim in court
for 50 years that – it is the 16th Amendment that authorizes the income
tax,
and not Article I, Section 8. Thus, under Article I of the Constitution, there is an admitted
total lack of subjectivity of the citizens to any and all
impost, duty or
excise taxation on
Labor,
i.e.: the
indirect taxation of the citizen’s
labor, or a tax upon the exercise of his or her
Right to Work resulting in the payment of “
salary” or “
wages“,
does not apply to citizens,
because it is not statutorily authorized, now made enforceable, as it
is fundamentally outside of the legal reach, and scope of legal effect,
of
all of the granted Constitutional authorities to tax
indirectly under authority of Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution
.
The reason why this is so important to understand, is because this
basic information, concerning the proper, limited, application and
enforcement of the constitutional, and constitutionally granted, powers
to tax,
is essential in properly and fully understanding the legal issue of the
limited subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts
that exists with respect to the taxation of the individual citizens. A
proper and complete understanding of this legal issue, immediately leads
to the realization that there is no constitutionally granted
subject-matter jurisdiction that can be taken over a civil action to adjudicate and or enforce the claims that are alleged by the United States in any
Complaint filed
in a legal action that is filed in the federal courts to pursue the
enforcement of the payment of a personal income tax against an
individual American citizen as defendant. In the United States of
America, under the Constitution of the United States of America, our
federal courts are courts of
only limited, specifically enumerated,
constitutionally granted, powers, that
only exist as
written in the law. The courts cannot enforce ideas, or a philosophy,
or custom or habit, or ritual, or beliefs, or even common sense.
The courts can only enforce the written law of the statutes of the Titles of United States Code. Nothing else. And of course, under the Constitution of the United States of America, a statute (law), can only be written by Congress where,
first: – the Constitution grants a specific
power to be exercised by the Congress (as is done in Article I, Section 8); and
second: the Constitution
specifically grants the authority to the Congress to write law
(as is done in Article I, Section 8, clause 18), with specific applicability to the enforcement of the
power(s) granted, that was, or were,
exercised in
operational practice (enforcement) by the government (IRS)
.
So,
the three required elements of our constitutional law in America,
necessary to establish the subject-matter jurisdiction of the court that can be taken over any legal action
, sufficient to allow that court to entertain and adjudicate the action in the court, are:
(1) a specific power must be granted by the Constitution or Amendment for Congress (the United States) to exercise;
(2) a specific grant of authority for Congress to write law must be
made by the Constitution or Amendment, with respect to the
administration and enforcement of the specific power granted in (#1)
above 2; and,
(3) a specific statute must be legislatively enacted by an authorized
Congress, with specific application to the enforcement of the specific
power alleged granted and exercised in (#1) above, and
made enforceable with authorized law under (#2) above.
These fundamental elements of constitutional law, controlling the ability of a federal court to lawfully take a granted
subject-matter jurisdiction over a legal claim made by complainant (like the United States) in the federal district court, combined with the irrefutable
lack of any
enabling enforcement clause that exists in the 16th Amendment as adopted,
make
the United States’ claims in the courts that the 16th Amendment is the
foundational authority for the enforcement of the income tax against the
individual citizens, on the mere basis of being a “person” with alleged
“gross income”, appear dubious at best, and a complete and total lie at
worst, as this lack of granted constitutional authority to write law under the 16th Amendment also explains the
alleged tax-protestors’ claims of the last 50 years, that – if the tax is under the 16th Amendment, then the tax
must be voluntary, as
no law is constitutionally authorized to be written by Congress, and therefore
no law can exist, or
does exist, under the 16th Amendment that effects the
income of the citizens directly, without the underlying foundational use of the
impost, duty and
excise taxing authorities of Article I first being made applicable.
i.e. : a specific
enabling enforcement clause of the Constitution,
or one of its Amendments, must be shown to have been made applicable to the
specific taxing power alleged
constitutionally granted, and
operationally practiced under (#1) above;
So the lower federal district and circuit courts have over time, seditiously reversed the Supreme Court’s original and true holding in 1916 – that the
income tax is authorized and is constitutional under the granted and enforceable
indirect Article I taxing authorities, as a
measure of the amount of the
indirect tax that is imposed on the
income derived from the
impost, duty or
excise taxable activities or
persons,
– who are made subject by the tax law to the payment of the
uniform impost, duty or
excise;
– which does
not constitute an unconstitutionally
unapportioned direct tax. The Supreme Court plainly held in 1916, in the
Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co., 240 US 1 (1916) and
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916) cases, that the
income tax is an
indirect tax under Article I
, and is
not a
direct tax under the 16th Amendment
.
Again: “. . . The provisions of 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 .”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916) “It
is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer
power to levy income taxes in a generic sense – an authority already
possessed [under Article I, Section 8] and never questioned – or to
limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but
that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes
when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source
whence the income was derived.”
Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 “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 subject
to the regulation 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, . . .”
Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 “…it clearly results that the [direct tax] proposition 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. … This
result … would create radical and destructive changes in our
constitutional system and multiply confusion.”
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no
real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent
decisions, it does
not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects,
but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might 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 U.S. 1, 17-19;
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,
240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” These holdings in 1916 of course merely
reasserted the Court’s long-standing recognition of the constitutional
fact that the federal
taxation of labor (without apportionment to the states for payment of the
direct tax), is
not a constitutionally granted taxing power, as
labor has historically been perceived by the courts as a constitutionally protected
Right, and outside of the granted internal
Excise taxation
powers. “As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles
of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be
impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all
action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be
maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed
than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to
the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so
plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that
all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of
Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or
given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to
secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great
document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness,
by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation,
. . . “It has been well said that, “
The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable [right
] . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” [in Justice Field’s Concurrence in
Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co.,
111 U.S. 746, 756 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884)] Justice Field was not alone in
his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley,
who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of
Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an
inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit
of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with
the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a
large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” “Included in the
right of personal liberty and the right of private property partaking
of a nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition
of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment,
by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms
of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered
with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long
established constitutional sense.” Justice Pitney in
Coppage v. Kansas,
236 U.S. 1, 14, 59 L.Ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 S.Ct.Rep. 240
(1915) “But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those
maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the
victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of
civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the
famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of
the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the
very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means
of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at
the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where
freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.”
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) But the lower federal district and circuit courts have reversed this clear
indirect “income
tax” holding that was made by the Supreme Court in 1916, by invoking as
controlling, not these true, controlling Supreme Court cases cited
above (
Brushaber & Stanton), but instead they invoke one of their own contradictory inferior
opinions from the
below list of inferior circuit court decisions
that openly simply declare, erroneously (and obviously so), that the
federal personal income tax is authorized by the 16th Amendment as a
direct unapportioned tax that is laid on all of the
income of all
persons.
- United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), (which simply asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without actually citing or quoting any text from that case opinion);
- Parker v. Comm’r, 724 F.2d 469 (5th Cir. 1984). (which also asserts the tax is direct and unapportioned, reversing Brushaber without citing or quoting any actual text from the case opinion);
- Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984), 11 The Broken Tax System www.Tax-Freedom.com (which simply cites to Parker v. Comm’r. to make its assertions);
- United States v. Sloan, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984), (which simply cites to Lovell and Collins to make its assertions);
- In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547, 548 (9th Cir. 1989), (which simply cites to Lovell and Parker to make its assertions). And so, as a result of the federal courts improperly using for the last 40 years these inferior, isolated, self-circular court decisions (upholding the direct unapportioned taxation of income under the 16th Amendment), actually reversing the Supreme Court’s true holding (upholding only indirect uniform taxation of income under Article I, Section 8), the federal personal income tax has been enforced for 60 years in the lower federal Tax Court and district and circuit courts, erroneously, as a direct unapportioned tax, in blatant violation of the prohibition on such direct taxation that is still constitutionally prohibited by Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Which brings us back to the focus of this exposé, and the beginning of this paper,
– the new tax law H.R. 1 (Dec. 2017), made effective as law as of January 1, 2018. You see in 2011 the United States Congress
passed another new law directly affecting the new tax law, requiring that all legislative Bills brought forward to the House floor for debate, contain within them a
plain and clear statement identifying and declaring the alleged constitutional clause with
the grant of authority that serves as the constitutional foundation to
the congressional claim of a granted authority to write law with respect
to the administration of the powers claimed therein, and proposed
exercised under the new legislation.
So, what did they put in the
Constitutional Authority Statement for H.R. 1, the new income tax law now in effect
? Did they actually write “the 16th Amendment” was the authority,
as argued for 50 years, or something else
? NO! It’s either there or it isn’t.
First, it should be noted that the re-enactment of Title 26 U.S.C.
(I.R.C.) Section 1, as done in H.R. 1, of course constitutes a
re-enactment of
exactly the same income taxing powers, and
scheme of taxation (or lack thereof), as previously
existed under the previous version of the income tax law,
i.e. :
the 1986 IRC code provisions of Title 26 U.S.C. (IRC) Section 1.
Congress has simply adjusted the number of tax-brackets from seven to
four, with different earnings thresholds and tax-rates associated with
each of the four new tax-brackets, and with a new set of allowed or
disallowed deductions and exemptions for everyone.
But, it is basically and essentially, an undeniable reimplementation of
exactly the same
scheme of
graduated, bracketed, gross-income taxation (under IRC § 61) of
taxable income (IRC § 63), as that (
scheme of
taxation) which has existed since 1913.
Supposedly, under this new law, nothing substantial or
constitutionally foundational is believed to have been changed concerning or controlling the fundamental taxing
power exercised, to tax
income, and everything about the
scheme is basically left unchanged,
schematically identically
the same as before (since the recodification of the tax law in 1986,
which was also recodified (a new written version was created) in 1939
and 1954).
The “
Constitutional Authority Statement” for the new law (26 USC (IRC) Section 1) plainly states: (next page)
Lets look at that, closer:
As never before…It now plainly states that the Constitutional Authority for the enactment of the new income tax law enacted under H.R. 1, is
not the 16th Amendment at all, but relies solely on
“ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States.” for its authority. If the 16th amendment was intended as the authority, it would have been listed. It is NOT!
Uh-oh! You mean it isn’t the 16th Amendment after all?
… and that claim of constitutional authority under the 16th Amendment
as legal foundation to sustain the imposition and enforcement of the
personal
income tax,
can never be made by the IRS, or in court by the United States attorneys, again, –
ever !!
In neither civil, nor criminal, tax prosecutions?
Finally, the true and correct constitutional authority for the
federal personal income tax is plainly and clearly specified in the law,
on the Congressional House record, as being established under
ONLY Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which contains
only the grant of the required constitutional authority to tax,
indirectly, by
impost, duty and
excise, which
powers,
by law (Title 15 USC Sec. 17) do
not lawfully reach the
labors or
income of the American People with
force of law though the proper and lawful invocation and enforcement upon individual
persons of
only the granted
indirect taxing powers.
The new income tax law, H.R. 1, by
completely removing the
16th Amendment as an arguable constitutional basis and legal foundation,
or as the applicable constitutional authority that is
allegeable as
the constitutional authority for the imposition, withholding,
collection, and enforcement of the personal income tax in the federal
courts
as a
direct tax,
– completely
strips the IRS, the DOJ, and the federal
judiciary of all of their lawful ability to legally enforce on American
citizens after January 1st, 2018, the federal personal income tax in the federal courts as it has been practiced since 1945.
Its’ over. The IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary are all
eviscerated. The
monstrous income tax FRAUD perpetrated by the federal courts on the American People is fully exposed now, naked to the world, and the behavior and
opinions of the federal judiciary are exposed as nothing but the treasonous sedition they have always been.
i.e. :
communistic and
not constitutional. Repugnant, disgusting, corrupted, polluted, perverted,
ultra vires judicial behavior and
opinions,
all committed for sixty years outside of the granted constitutional
authority that exists for the court to lawfully act under, is all
exposed. Naked to the world.
The Emperor wears no clothes. This new constitutional clarification now proves it has all been
conspiratorial
judicial theft.
Nothing more, and nothing less. The judicial crimes of the last sixty
years, fraudulently perpetrated on the American People by the federal
judiciary in the
name of tax has all been pure
unlawful and
wrongful conversion of the constitutionally protected
private property of
We the People, under
color of law, under
color of office, and in the
name of tax only;
– for there is no law because none is authorized, and there is no enforceable
direct tax or taxing power conferred under the 16th Amendment as
previously used and deceptively claimed, because no such power is
constitutionally made enforceable against the individual ‘person’, as
opposed to one of the “several states”.
Article 1, Section 2, clause 3 – “Representatives and direct
Taxes shall be apportioned amongst the several states which may be
included within this Union”
All American citizens, in all 50 states, are all now EXEMPT – as they always were, but is now clarified by constitutional as now clarified by congress),
from any required payment or withholding of the federal personal income
tax from their paycheck, earned at their place of employment in one of
the fifty states, and everyone should therefore now claim EXEMPT on
their W-4, as provided in law thereupon, under the
supremacy-clause
exemption from withholding, that is made at Title 26 USC (IRC) Section 3402(n), for
informed employees to claim.
Go ahead, “Google” it, – “H.R. 1 Constitutional Authority Statement”.
See for yourself. Without the use of the misapplication of the 16th
Amendment to erroneously allege a
direct tax on
income that is owed by all “
persons”, there can be no lawful enforcement of the personal
income tax on the
income of the American People, by any Department, Agency,
Service, or any other group of men that exist within the federal government,
– like the IRS, the DOJ, the federal judiciary, or even the “United
States of America” (as a plaintiff in the courts), without there first
being the
clear applicability of some
impost, duty, or
excise tax
to measure, that lawfully and properly taxes the underlying
taxable (business, commodity, or
trade based) activity from which the income is derived.
Therefore, if there is no
impost, duty, or
excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that applies to the underlying
taxable activity, resulting in “
taxable income”, then there is no
amount of “
gross income” to
measure as tax. And, since there is no
impost, duty, or
excise tax that exists in the written law of the United States Code (the written laws) that reaches either the “
wages” or “
salary” of the American People, earned by
Right, as those
terms (“
wages” and “
salary“) are not included in IRC Section 61 defining the
sources of
gross income constituting
taxable income of an American citizen;
– but the terms are specifically included in IRC Section 1441(b), wherever “
wages” or “
salary” are earned by the
non-resident alien person that is identified in law under IRC Section 1441(a). And, since it is
only the foreign person (Follow this LINK and CLICK on Person see the definition – and also look up definition of individual in the code – it’s likely not you), who is
made subject
under the provisions of IRC Sections 7701(a)(16), to the collection of
the federal personal income tax imposed in the code sections of Subtitle
A (Chapters 1-6) of Title 26, which is where the original 1913
income tax laws are found in today’s law.
Subtitle A is the body of law that was enacted by Congress in 1913 as
the federal personal income tax law, enacted under the original
income tax legislation of the
Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, then it has now become impossible (under the new H.R. 1
income tax law, ONLY under Article I, Section 8, authorities) for any party or
person to lawfully withhold or collect any federal
income tax from the payments made to an informed American citizen in one of the fifty states!
Oh, by the way, a
Tariff, as enacted within the
Underwood-Simmons Tariff Act of Oct. 3, 1913, is one form of an
impost, which taxing
power, when exercised in the 50 states, is
limited in constitutional operation to the taxation of only
foreign persons and imported
foreign goods, commodities, and other
taxable “
articles of commerce“. An
impost, in the form of an enacted tariff, has
no internal application to the domestic activity of American citizens conducted by
Right within the fifty states
, without any involvement with foreign goods or foreign
persons.
So, as I said in the beginning: The new federal personal income tax
law, H.R. 1, that was just enacted into law by Congress in December
2017, and already made effective as of January 1st, 2018,
has the immediate legal effect of:
1. Completely
disemboweling and
destroying the I.R.S.’ current personal income tax collection and enforcement
practices and
operations, by
removing them entirely and completely from all legitimate constitutional authority to act to enforce the
direct taxation of
income under the 16th Amendment, as
practiced for the last 60 years; Exposing 60 years of
IRS THEFT & UNLAWFUL CONVERSION BY FRAUD.
2. Strips the federal Department of Justice naked in the courtroom of all of its usual
illegitimate constitutional arguments that have been made in the courtroom for the last 60 years, to sustain the federal court’s (both district and tax courts’)
erroneous enforcement of a
direct and
unapportioned tax upon the
income of
We the American
People under alleged authority of the 16th Amendment (Exposing 60 years of
DOJ FRAUD AND/OR STUPIDITY); and
3. Completely exposes the federal judiciary’s unlawful enforcement of
the federal personal income tax under the 16th Amendment over the last
60 years of American history, as nothing but a
complete and
total judicially committed fraud that plainly and clearly can now be seen as the true
judicial conspiracy of
sedition that
it is, to undermine and remove the constitutional limitations placed
upon the federal taxing powers, in order to enforce the
unconstitutionally
direct taxation of the
labors and
work (“
wages” and “
salaries“) of the American People, in order to fund,
not the legitimate operation of the government, but the constitutionally
unauthorized progressive, liberal, Fabian, socialist programs effecting the re-distribution of wealth that are used to create the
welfare-class and
class warfare systems that are resulting in the destruction of America, Freedom, Liberty, private property, and
equal rights, by expanding the judicial authority beyond that which is authorized, to enable the federal
judiciary to constitutionally usurp the legislative authority of the Congress, through the
judicial enforcement of
only the perverted
judicial Fabian
opinions, in place of the actual written constitutional tax law that exists.
This clearly exposes 60 years of
JUDICIAL FRAUD, ERROR, and ARROGANCE.
Now you also know that not only is this
not crazy, it is
ALL irrefutably TRUE. Oh yea, by the way, it is the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto that calls for the
graduated and
communistic taxation of a population that is kept divided by the different
classes of
the population defined in the non-uniform tax law by the creation of
the different tax-brackets established therein; with different rates of
tax for each bracket as under the communistic system of unconstitutional
taxation that we suffer under today (for the last 72 years- since
1945), rather than the system of
uniformity in taxation that is constitutionally required of both the authorized
direct, and
indirect taxation of
We the People in America and our activities. That 2nd Plank of the Communist Manifesto, explicitly states:
“
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
So, now you know where the income tax enforcement operations of the
IRS, the DOJ, and federal judiciary really came from, for the last 60
years, because it isn’t Article I of the Constitution of the United
States of America, or the 16th Amendment.
Now our government servants, and especially the federal judiciary, stand condemned by their own ignorance and arrogance, and sedition. By
its own congressional admission, now made in the written formal
Congressional Record of the United States of America, they are
nothing but as
guilty as sin itself. And now, there is only one path left by which they may escape to find their way back to
justice and
righteousness,
repent.
COMMENT AND CALL TO ACTION – It’s time to move in on every case
pending or case already judged in the past and open the prisons doors
for those enslaved under this fraud, by bringing a Mandatory Judicial
Notice of this argument into that case or appeal, to prove there was
never constitutional jurisdiction for the IRS to bring cases in Tax
Court or US District Court citing the 16th amendment, now or in the
past. Then after winning these cases or in conjunction with your action
to stop those cases, sue for constitutional violations using this new
found information and congressional rules as the evidence.
Basic content provided by: Thomas Freed (tell him you were sent by TJ at Youarelaw.org)
Tom@IRSzoom.com of –
http://tax-freedom.com
http://irszoom.com
https://www.youarelaw.org/did-congress-trump-provide-the-ultimate-tax-remedy-hidden-in-the-new-bill/