Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: William Terrell

Do you have a SC ruling directed at a regular person, working for a living instead of an entity which its very existance depends on a federal or state charter?

On excises in general, case is specific to federal annual tax on personal carriages,(a federal vehicle tax nowdays):

Hylton v. United States(1796), 3 U.S. 171

  • "A general power is given to Congress, to lay and collect taxes, of every kind or nature, without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity and apportionment: Three kinds of taxes, to wit, duties, imposts, and excises by the first rule, and capitation, or other direct taxes, by the second rule. "
  • "the present Constitution was particularly intended to affect individuals, and not states, except in particular cases specified: And this is the leading distinction between the articles of Confederation and the present Constitution."
  • "Uniformity is an instant operation on individuals, without the intervention of assessments, or any regard to states,"
  • First Individual Income tax case:

    Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586

  • "The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax."
  • "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty."
  • Modified by Pollock as regards taxes laid on income from personal or real property:

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

     

    Lucas v. Earl(1930), 281 U.S. 111:

    Yet another as regards an excise on gifts made by an individual to another and the nature of an indirect tax as opposed to direct (i.e. property related) taxes:

    BROMLEY v. MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124,136 (1929)

    Bottomline, whether you are an individual or a corportation (which is an association of individuals) you are subject to enactments of Congress (i.e. federal law) regarding excises both before and after the 16th amendment.

    The law regarding the authority of Congress to lay excises and duties on the individual goes back to the very beginning of under the Constituton and they don't even have to involve the conduct of a business.

    James Madison, Federalist #39:

    James Madison, Federalist #45:

    There were folk who had their properties sold out from under them over simple excises, such as the still tax levied on farmers which led to a rebellion over such, squashed by President Washington leading federal troops in to put the insurrection down. The action was upheld by the courts of the time.

    At that time alcohol was money for these folks, cash was unheard of thus property was at risk without the benefit of apportionment to put the state between the Feds and the individuals at risk.

    George Washington's Proclamation Whiskey Rebellion August 7, 1794:
    http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/gwproc03.htm

    George Washington's address on October 20 1794
    to General Lee at Bedford, PA

    Washington LED Federal troops into Western Pennsylvania enforcing the Federal tax on UNUSED AND OUT OF PRODUCTION private stills owned by individual citizens and farmers as appliances of the land(i.e. private non-commercial Real Property) in Pennsylvania.

    United States Statutes at Large, 1st Congress, 3rd Session Ch 15, 1791,
    page 202, 204 Sec 21-24;

    Sec. 21. And be it further enacted, That upon stills which after the last day of June Next, shall be employed in distilling spirits from materials of the growth or production of the United States, in any other place than a city, taown or village, there shall be paid for the use of the United States, the yearly duty of sixty cents for every gallon, English wine-measure, of the capacity or content of each and every such still, including the head thereof.

    Sec. 22. And be it further encted, That the evidence of the employment of the said stills shall be, their being erected in stone, brick or some other manner whereby they shall be in a condition to be worked.

    Sec. 23. And be it futher enacted, That the said duties o stills shall be collected under the management of the supervisor in each district, who shall appoint and assing proper officers for the surveys of the said stills and the admeasurement thereof, and the collectio of the duties thereupon; and the said duties shall be paid half yearly wihtin the firest fifteen days of January and July, upon demand of the proprietor or proprietors of each still, at his, her or their dwelling, by the proper officer charged with the survey thereof: And in case of refusal or neglect, to pay , the amount of the duties so refused or neglected to be paid may either be recovered with costs of suit in an actoin of debt in the name of the supervisor of the district, within which such refusal shall happen, for the use of the United States, or may be levied by distress and sale of goods of the person or persons refusing or neglecting to pay, rendering the overplus(if any there be after payment of the said amount and the charges of distress and sale) the the said person or persons.

    To believe that "corporations" are subject to tax law under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution and not the individual is a formula for disaster.

    27 posted on 01/18/2003 1:27:11 PM PST by ancient_geezer
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


    To: ancient_geezer
    Actually, and ironically, while some of this is irrelivant, the rest plugs a conceptual flaw I though I'd found in the NITE and TaxGate strategy as detailed by Rose here, here and here .

    29 posted on 01/20/2003 5:24:26 AM PST by William Terrell (Advertise in this space - Low rates)
    [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]

    Free Republic
    Browse · Search
    News/Activism
    Topics · Post Article


    FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
    FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson