[taxtruth]

Press Release.
The Historian for the The Attorney Generals office of the state of Florida has just announced the US income tax to be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on all of his research.

[ancient_geezer]

Got hiccups, TT?

[ancient_geezer]

The Historian for the The Attorney Generals office of the state of Florida has just announced the US income tax to be totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL based on all of his research.

Ohhhh, you mean this guy.

 

Noted Tax Historian´s Book Declares U.S. Income Tax as Direct Tax is in Violation of Long-established U.S. Supreme Court Mandates

"'The New Income Tax Scandal' is about the corruption that lies at the heart of the tax system," said Garrison. "As a result of my legal case against the IRS in 2000, the IRS now privately concedes that, in 1915, after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific that an income tax is an excise tax, and that it is to be enforced as such. An excise is not a direct tax on property, but an indirect tax.

Looks like he overlooked something in his researches. The taxes on income found to be unconstitutionally laid for being a direct tax are those associated with rent from real property and dividends and interest from equity and financial instruments per Pollock:

POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895):

• "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

• "If that[rents from land] be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress."

• "We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. "

• Our conclusions may therefore be summed up as follows:

  First. We adhere to the opinion already announced,-that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

  Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

  Third. The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate, and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void, because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

• Mr. Justice WHITE, dissenting.

  16. The injustice of the conclusion points to the error of adopting it. It takes invested wealth, and reads it into the constitution as a favored and protected class of property, which cannot be taxed without apportionment, while it leaves the occupation of the minister, the doctor, the professor, the lawyer, the inventor, the author, the merchant, the mechanic, and all other forms of industry upon which the prosperity of a people must depend, subject to taxation without that condition.

 

Too bad, I thought you had something there for a moment.

That is why Brushaber held:

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"

And Stanton stated:

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"

Unfortunately that leaves us all liable to taxes on wages and such with no relief in sight

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")."

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

• "[N]atural 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

TP'r : One who's tax evasion sales pitch and argument has the substance of used toilette paper.

Better hang your hat somewhere else TT, something that can actually do the job.

John Linder in the House & Saxby Chambliss Senate, offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:

H.R.25, S.1493
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information: http://www.fairtax.org & http://www.salestax.org