Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.
No one disputes that they exist. Their constitutionality is disputed.
No one disputes that they exist.tpaine, meet Gargantua.
Their constitutionality is disputed.
If so, Simkanin can argue that on appeal; it's not a jury question. But the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of withholding.
Their constitutionality is disputed. Only by the Schiffs, Schulzs and various tax protest groups.
And tpaine and those who don't like the way the Supreme Court ruled on such stuff.
Geezer is simply spamming the thread with the agit-prop basis for the so-called regulatatory 'law' on this issue.
What regulatory law is that? The Public Law (that which has been enacted into law by Congress) as regards the income tax and witholding thereof has been held to be quite constitutional and to be enforcable upon the individual citizen:
No one disputes that they exist.
I would hope not for they are to be found in the public record in US Statutes and organized in the published volumes US Code Title 23.
Though the evidence of this thread shows there are many who would pretend to doubt the existence of such laws:
spacewarp: "because they couldn't find a criminal code he was in violation of, so they just charged him with failure to comply."
gargantua: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist? "
sopwith: "Does this alleged but unsubstantiated law even exist?"
Okay, you say (pretend to know...?) that it does exist. Chapter and verse of the Code, please."
Their constitutionality is disputed.
Only by those in denial, certainly not by the Supreme Court.
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"
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert(1913), 231 U.S. 399:
- "'[I]ncome' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.(1916), 240 U.S. 103:
- "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"
COOK v. TAIT, 265 U.S. 47 (1924)
- "[T]he principle was declared that the government, by its very nature, benefits the citizen and his property wherever found, and therefore has the power to make the benefit complete. Or, to express it another way, the basis of the power to tax was not and cannot be made dependent upon the situs of the property in all cases, it being in or out of the United States, nor was not and cannot be made dependent upon the domicile of the citizen, that being in or out of the United States, but upon his relation as citizen to the United States and the relation of the latter to him as citizen."
BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)
- "Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken as direct, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of our government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class.
It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. . . . The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted and, as well, upon the reluctance of this Court to enlarge by construction, limitations upon the sovereign power of taxation by Article 1, sec. 8, so vital to the maintenance of the National Government.
280 U.S. at 136; see The Federalist No. 12 (Hamilton) (distinguishing between "direct taxes" and "taxes on consumption")."
Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:
- "The Revenue Act of 1918 approved February 24, 1919, c. 18, 210, 211, 212(a), 213(a), 40 Stat. 1057, 1062, 1064, 1065, imposes a tax upon the net income of every individual including 'income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ... of whatever kind and in whatever form paid,' 213(a). The provisions of the Revenue Act of 1921, c. 136, 42 Stat. 227, 233, 237, 238, in sections bearing the same numbers are similar to those of the above."
- "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them "
U.S. v. CONSTANTINE, 296 U.S. 287 (1935)
- " The United States has the power to levy excises upon occupations, and to classify them for this purpose; and need look only to the fact of the exercise of the occupation or calling taxed, regardless of whether such exercise is permitted or prohibited by the laws of the United States or by those of a state. The burden of the tax may be imposed alike on the just and the unjust."
Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:
- The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.
- "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."
- Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191