Posted on 06/18/2002 7:35:22 AM PDT by 1Old Pro
"An appeal to force and to the Creator is all that is left to us."
Of course this will lead to trouble.
"The civil strife is inevitable," he wrote. "Let it come! Let it come!"
Does he expect to wind up in prison as a result of his new position?
reply to Gazette Newspapers: gazette@dailygazette.com
You're almost there! Now find the operative definition for the word "SOURCE" as used in the 16th Amendment and then Tax Code -- and the POST IT! You will find it under a section titled, "Miscellaneous Matters."
Then you will see that a "Source" of taxable income does not apply to citizens of the states with domestic income.
Your conclusions are erroneous -- and do not follow from the enumerated limitations in the Constitution and their intent.
Nice unfounded assertion, now prove it with cites from the Constitutional Convention and authors of the constitution and their debates, the Constitution and from the Supreme Court.
All I have done is provide the links to the cases the debates and the constitution, along with the text to look for to read the whole in context.
Much more than any TPr has ever done to support their positions which are partial and misquotes with no links to original at all.
As usual, the TP approach is to make a bald assertion and hope no one bothers to look at the source and make up their own mind.
this is why there are few among us who are true heroes like Shulz!
Our progressive income tax is neither excise nor apportioned among the states; and it is not uniform --
It is an indirect tax, which includes excises, and duties:
Pre Civil War definitions:
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
DUTIES. In its most enlarged sense, this word is nearly equivalent to taxes, embracing all impositions or charges levied on persons or things;A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
EXCISES. This word is used to signify an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, and frequently upon the retail sale.
Springer v. United States(1880), 102 U.S. 586
As regards Uniformity:
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
"The proceedings of the Continental Congress also make it clear that the words 'uniform throughout the United States,' which were afterwards inserted in the Constitution of the United States, had, prior to its adoption, been frequently used, and always with reference purely to a geographical uniformity and as synonymous with the expression 'to operate generally throughout the United States.' The foregoing situation so thoroughly permeated all the proceedings of the Continental Congress that we might well rest content with their mere statement. "
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
"As we have seen, the only limitation upon the authority conferred is uniformity in laying the tax, and uniformity does not require the equal application of the tax to all persons or corporations who may come within its operation, but is limited to geographical uniformity throughout the United States. This subject was fully discussed and set at rest in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 44 L. ed. 969, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 747, and we can add nothing to the discussion contained in that case."
As regards your 5th amendment objection, Merely giving truthful general information concerning income which is not specific to a committed crime does not infringe upon the 5th amendment. If a question is asked that relates to a crime you have committed, you are free to challenge the specific question or answer it in general terms.
You must be able to demonstrate a "real danger of incrimination" to avoid answer a specific question on the 1040 form.
Eicher v. United States, 774 F.2d 27 (1st Cir. 1985)
Argued that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to withhold all financial information from his income tax return.It is well-settled that a taxpayer may not assert a blanket claim of Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid providing any financial information on an income tax return. Betz v. United States, 753 F.2d 834 (10th Cir.1985); Heitman v. United States, 753 F.2d 33 (6th Cir.1984); Brennan v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 187 (6th Cir.1984); Martinez v. I.R.S., 744 F.2d 71 (10th Cir.1984); Baskin v. United States, 738 F.2d 975 (8th Cir.1984). While the privilege can be invoked in response to particular questions--in proper circumstances where the taxpayer can demonstrate a real danger of incrimination--it cannot be used, in effect, to excuse filing of a return.
United States v. Heise, 709 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1983)
Argued that his failure to file proper returns constituted a valid exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.The gravamen of this appeal is Heise's argument that he is protected by the fifth amendment from disclosing the information requested and may not be subjected to prosecution for the exercise of that right. The Supreme Court has held that the fifth amendment privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, if validly exercised, is a defense to a s 7203 prosecution. Garner v. United States, 424 U.S. 648, 662, 96 S.Ct. 1178, 1186, 47 L.Ed.2d 370 (1976).
The court also has held that the privilege does not justify an outright refusal to file an income tax return. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 263, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927).
In the present case, Heise asserted the privilege in response to each specific question; however, he did so on such a wholesale basis as to deny the Internal Revenue Service any information with respect to his income for the years 1976 and 1977. This Circuit has held that a tax return which contains no information from which tax liability can be calculated does not constitute a tax return within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. See [cites ommitted].
Other circuits also have held that the failure to provide any information in a tax return is tantamount to failure to file any return at all. See, [cites ommitted]. Therefore, Heise's failure to provide the proper financial data on his tax returns amounted to a total failure to file a return. This cannot be justified under the fifth amendment.
United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978 (8th Cir. 1983)
Argued that he was a "nontaxpayer" because he did not enter a contract for government services, that the district court had no jurisdiction, and that the tax code violated his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment rights.Drefke argues that 26 U.S.C. ss 7203 and 7205 giving rise to his conviction constitute punishment for failure to give self-incriminating information. Both the Supreme Court and the Eighth Circuit have held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination does not authorize individuals to refuse to disclose information concerning their income. United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 47 S.Ct. 607, 71 L.Ed. 1037 (1927); United States v. Russell, 585 F.2d 368 (8th Cir.1978).
GARNER v. UNITED STATES, 424 U.S. 648 (1976)
"In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259 (1927), the Court held that the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination is not a defense to prosecution for failing to file a return at all. But the Court indicated that the privilege could be claimed against specific disclosures sought on a return, saying:
- "If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all."
"In summary, we conclude that since Garner made disclosures instead of claiming the privilege on his tax returns, his disclosures were not compelled incriminations. 21 He therefore was foreclosed from invoking the privilege when such information was later introduced as evidence against him in a criminal prosecution.
The judgment is
- Affirmed."
UNITED STATES v. SULLIVAN, 274 U.S. 259 (1927)
"As the defendant's income was taxed, the statute of course required a return. See United States v. Sischo, 262 U.S. 165 , 43 S. Ct. 511. In the decision that this was contrary to the Constitution we are of opinion that the protection of the Fifth Amendment was pressed too far. If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all. We are not called on to decide what, if anything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no compaint. It would be an extreme if not an extravagant application [274 U.S. 259, 264] of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime. But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon. He could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law. Mason v. United States, 244 U.S. 362 , 37 S. Ct. 621; United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration ( January 3, 1927) , 47 S. Ct. 302. In this case the defendant did not even make a declaration, he simply abstained from making a return. See further the decision of the Privy Council, Minister of Finance v. Smith (1927) A. C. 193.
You're almost there! Now find the operative definition for the word "SOURCE" as used in the 16th Amendment and then Tax Code -- and the POST IT! You will find it under a section titled, "Miscellaneous Matters."
Source is any activity or object on which a tax may be levied.
KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
- 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'
Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)
- An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911), 220 U.S. 107
- "The Pollock Case construed the tax there levied as direct, because it was imposed upon property simply because of its ownership."
- "It is therefore well settled by the decisions of this court that when the sovereign authority has exercised the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as an exercise of a franchise or privilege, it is no objection that the measure of taxation is found in the income produced in part from property which of itself considered is nontaxable.
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
Hence Congress has held:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 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 (the type 3 and 4 taxes) 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."
In Summary, if you are a United States citizen, and receive compensation for labor or services in the United States you are subject to income taxes.
It is clear and specific with regard to the 2 general types of taxes that Congress is authorized to impose, as well as with the 18 limited, enumerated powers of Congress.
Then you should also be aware that the Power to lay and collect taxes, specifically the indirect taxes, as the tax with regard to income derived from labor is, is among those 18 enumerated powers to which Congress' power is limited only in that is provide for paying the debt and general welfare of the United States(i.e. must be uniform and be for the benefit of all states.) and that an indirect tax must be geographically uniform, (i.e. the law most operate the same "throughout" all states.)
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article VI: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
- Article I Section 8: "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; "
- Article I Section 8: "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
You have no leg to stand on.
You have not posted the Tax Code's operative definition of "SOURCE" ! Are you unable to find it?
I'm sure you can provide the quote & a link for analysis in CONTEXT.
It is your claim, support it.
The Courts are what determines the application of the IR code in the final analysis.
The following is extacted from the state appellate decision where the the appellate board, California Board of Equalization, analyzes the arguments based on the 26 USC 861 and related treasury regulations as they apply to the federal tax system those portions of the IRC Title 26 the California income tax law includes by reference.
I highly recommend reading the opinion in full for it provides a very clear insight as to how both state and federal appellate judges construe the Federal Income Tax code and treat several common tax protest arguments that are frequently offered by defendants.
It is guaranteed that if one cannot clearly and completely refute this analysis in judicial review, the 861 "sources" argument will completely fail.
As regards 861 "sources" argument Meyers v CBOE
(pdf document) 2001 SBE 001, pages 8-11:
"Income “Sources.” Appellant’s primary contention relies on his misapplication of IRC section 861 and its implementing regulations (most specifically, Treasury Regulation section (Regulation) 1.861-8(f)(1)). Appellant contends that “gross income” (apparently for both federal and state tax purposes) is limited to income from an obscure list of “operative sections” listed in Regulation 1.861-8(f)(1). This contention is groundless and frivolous. To better understand this contention we will briefly review a few IRC sections and regulations. California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) section 17071 defines “gross income” by reference to IRC section 61 “except as otherwise provided.” Section 61 defines “gross income” as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle [Subtitle A—Income Taxes], gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”(Emphasis added.)
For federal purposes, IRC section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual who is a citizen or resident alien of the United States. One of its implementing regulations provides, in part, as follows:
“In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. . . . As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.”
(Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b); emphasis added.) Thus, for a citizen or a resident alien it will normally not matter whether a source of income is from within the United States or without—since both are subject to the federal income tax unless specifically provided elsewhere in the code (such as the “foreign earned income” discussed above).
Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations have special provisions for federal income tax purposes. For example, IRC section 871 imposes “a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a nonresident alien individual . . . [on income other than capital gains].” (Emphasis added.) One of the implementing regulations for IRC section 871 provides, in part, as follows:
“For purposes of the income tax, alien individuals are divided generally into two classes, namely, resident aliens and nonresident aliens. Resident alien individuals are, in general, taxable the same as citizens of the United States; that is, a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States.”
(Treas. Reg. § 1.871-1(a); emphasis added.) Once again, it is clear that citizens and resident aliens are taxable on income from all sources, both within and without the United States.
For some purposes (such as taxing the income of nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations), it is necessary to know whether a source of income is from within or without the United States. (See Int.Rev. Code, § 871, supra.) IRC sections 861 through 865, together with their implementing regulations, provide the bases for making this determination— for federal income tax purposes. IRC section 861 provides the criteria for determining which portions of various income items are from “sources” within the United States, and IRC section 862 does the same for “sources” of income without the United States. (IRC sections 863–865 provide additional rules—including for the apportionment and allocation of income to sources within or without the United States.)
The regulations under IRC section 861 assist in determining whether income is from a source within or without the United States—including situations where income comes partly from within and partly from without the United States—and where it is necessary to allocate and apportion deductions. It is here that appellant makes his primary error. Appellant completely misapplies Regulation 1.861-8, subsections (a)(1) and (f)(1). He concludes that these relatively obscure portions of the regulations suddenly change the whole definition of taxable income for citizens and resident aliens to include only income from the list of “operative sections” in subsection (f)(1) of this regulation. This defies logic and the clear purpose of IRC section 861. Subsection (a)(1) of the regulation states that it applies to the determination of taxable income “from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections.” The list of “operative sections” in subdivision (f)(1) does not include IRC sections 61 and 63. Therefore, rather than limiting either “gross income” under section 61 or “taxable income” under section 63, this regulation has only the very limited application defined therein. Indeed, Regulation 1.861-8(g) provides a number of examples of how section 861 should be applied. (See Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(g), examples 17-22 and 25-33.) These examples show how to determine whether an item of income (sometimes in very complex factual situations) is from a source within or without the United States. Sometimes the examples use terms such as “domestic” or “U.S.” source, or “foreign” source, instead of “within” or “without.” But they all clearly apply only to the determination of whether an item of income is from “within” or “without” the United States.
Finding as regards IRS agreeing with appellant's theories:
(pdf document) 2001 SBE 001, page 12:
8. Actions of the Internal Revenue Service. Appellant contends that the IRS agrees with his theories. In support of this contention, appellant provides copies of correspondence between the IRS and appellant, as well as between the IRS and Bosset Partners Marketing, Inc. Included are copies of checks purporting to be refunds of employment taxes initially paid to the IRS by the employer and then refunded after the employer sent the IRS a statement that the withholdings had been in error. We have been provided copies of these documents many times in the past, from many different appellants. Indeed, they seem to have been widely distributed. Although we do not know all of the circumstances of the cited transactions, they clearly do not establish that the IRS agrees with appellant’s contentions. Furthermore, this Board has a duty to apply the law as it is written without regard to whether the IRS, or any other entity, has been misinformed or is in error. (See Appeal of Der Weinerschnitzel International, Inc., Cal. St. Bd. of Equal., Apr. 10, 1979.) Penalties and Fees
Now, if you want to fight it out in the COURTROOM, please do so, and provide us with a clear win at appellate level, which supports you ill founded conclusions.
FRIVOLOUS FILING POSITION BASED ON SECTION 861
As I say take your argument to the COURTROOM, and see where it gets you. So far there has been no case won on the basis of the sources argument, and many losses.
The Courts view the sources argument as I have provided, as irrelevant to the citizen, as an American citizen is required to the tax in regard to his income from every and all sources except those specifically exempted(e.g. social security up to a certain amount, interest from municipal bonds, etc.)
26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]
Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1(imposing a tax on the income of every individual),
Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals.
(a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual.(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.
Can you find it in the Tax Code?
Why is that you can find everything to copy and paste, except for the operative definition of what constitutes "SOURCE" income in the Tax Code?
The burden of proof lays with the one making the extrodinary claim.
You haven't provided a link to an in context independant definition of source for our analysis yet, I notice.
You posted a list of "ITEMS" of income, not "SOURCES" of income.
I posted a finding of the Courts, I don't care how you construe it. The Court controls the bottomline.
The sources are irrelavant to taxing income of the citizen, you disagree with that statement, take it to the Courtroom and prove otherwise.
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources(activities) within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as
income from sources(activities) within the United States:
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States; ***
- Compensation = item of income
- for = activity (a contractual exchange in commerce)
- service = source.
A tax levied as an excise or duty on an activity of commerce.
A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.
Take to the Courtroom, or provide a link to the decision at appellate level that provided a win under your "Sources" arguments.
Oh, you mean the courtroom where the mere mention of the word "Constitution" is now prohibited by the King's agent in the black robe? Or the Tax Court where the agent for the private cartel of Federal Reserve/IRS sits in "objective" and "fair" judgment? Are these the courts to which you refer?
These are the very entities who are stealing our private property and our Rights. I do not argue what we now have in this country. It has become a country without private property Rights, or without any Rights. Rather we have a set of privileges to be given or taken by our masters, formerly known as "public servants." So you go ahead and cite the uncountable numbers of unConstitutional court cases -- with the tortured logic of the King's agents twisting the language of the Constitution in order to suck the property from the productive citizenry to continue to expand its power. Cite away! I can see what's going on in this country. Too bad the likes of you can't!
You lose, until you can cite the passage in the code that defines "SOURCE" and shows that a source of income applies to a U.S. citizen with a domestic income, and not merely foreign-related income or income from federal territory possessions. You have posted almost the entire Tax Code and succession of case law, thus far. But you can't seem to find that one little passage -- the definition of "source" !
Can you find it in the Tax Code?
I'm not the one supporting a extrodinary claim, you are. Provide a link to the IRC section, or a Court decision on which you claim a "Source" definition relies.
The burden of proof lay with you not I.
I have provided the views of the government, suppported by clear Constitutional support and the Court's construction of the tax on income.
You want to play in the Code, isolating sections from the whole, neither I nor the Courts play that game, and that is why the argument to are trying to give credence to fails miserably when it is attempted.
U S v. FISHER, 6 U.S. 358 (1805)
- "It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole."
FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."
The intention of Congess has been made clear:
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 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 (the type 3 and 4 taxes) 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."
"certain activities" are sources of items of income. Unless you can show otherwise in the context of taxation of a citizens activities in regard to commerce conducted by that citizen within the United States, your "Sources" argument fails for being too narrow in regard to the whole of the Income Tax statutes.
You lose, until you can cite the passage in the code that defines "SOURCE" and shows that a source of income applies to a U.S. citizen with a domestic income,
ROTFLM(_|_)O, I have shown you cannot win a case based on the "Sources" argument where it counts, IN THE COURTROOM.
I have lost nothing as, I have not contested the argument in the Courtroom where it the bottomline is demonstrated.
Provided us with a link to your courtroom judgement providing your win. I have already shown the courtroom loss, and reason for loss in those courtrooms.
You have yet to show us a single solitary win, or even your "Sources" definition and what it applies to. The Courts are waiting.
"It is a statute. *** a regular method for interpreting the meaning of language in a statute: first, find the ordinary meaning of the language in its textual context; and second, using established canons of construction, ask whether there is any clear indication that some permissible meaning other than the ordinary one applies. If not - and especially if a good reason for the ordinary meaning appears plain - we apply that ordinary meaning.
Source,
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?source
Main Entry: 1source
Pronunciation: 'sOrs, 'sors
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sours, from Middle French sors, sourse, from Old French, from past participle of sourdre to rise, spring forth, from Latin surgere -- more at SURGE
Date: 14th century
1 a : a generative force : CAUSE b (1) : a point of origin or procurement : BEGINNING
***
synonym see ORIGIN
- source·less /-l&s/ adjective
You have a definition, as it applies to Title 26 Section 1 imposing a tax on incomes of individual citizens regardless of source, provide the citation & link. The burden of proof lays with you.
It seems the courts have already done that. That mountain turned out to be a molehill.
Show us where in the Constitution the power to tax is restricted to mere interstate or international commerce. It is an independant power of itself having no qualification other then that expressed of requiring apportionment if direct or a capitation, or be uniform for the case on "indirect" taxes such as the tax on incomes is.Since we're slinging court citations back and forth, and you're suggesting, apparently, that government reaches anywhere and everywhere except where it is specifically restricted, turning the underlying principle of the Constitution on its head, try this one on for size:
... all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a socalled tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word 'tax' would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the states.
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. [259 U.S. 20]
There's also the case of Hill v. Wallace [259 U.S. 44], in which is noted that taxes "intended to destroy its subject," or in other words, "tax out of existence,"
...cannot be sustained as an exercise of the taxing power of Congress conferred by section 8, article 1.
This may well have application in California if Perata's 5c per bullet tax passes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.