By Tony Futia, North White Plains
The fact is, however, that the geographic limits of the federal governments exclusive legislative authority, that area over which the federal government has sole dominion, is indeed limited to the district of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves!
How many legs does a dog have if we call the tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail, a leg does not make it a leg. Calling one, a taxpayer does not make him subject to a tax. A law, a statute enacted by Congress alone can make one “subject / liable to a tax.” Where is the law making the typical working American “subject to” the income tax?
TWO MAJOR IRS LIES
First, that “The Internal Revenue Code imposes a federal income tax upon all United States, citizens and residents,not just those who reside in the District of Columbia, federal territories, and enclaves.”
That is a lie!!
The IRC imposes, a federal income tax on “taxable income” (section 1). do you know any citizen or resident whose name is “taxable income”? “Taxable income”is not a citizen, much less “all United States citizens and residents”. The only person upon whom the IRC imposes liability for the income tax is the withholding agent required to withhold taxes from payments made to nonresident aliens and for corporations, neither of which is a citizen or a resident of the United States (IRS section 1461.)
The second lie however, is even bigger if that is possible. Note that the IRS does not contend that the “Supreme Court held thus and so”. instead,it sites an inferior court ruling, (Collins), that states that the Supreme Court held in ( Brushaber) that the “16th amendment authorizes a direct unapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves.”
Why didn’t they simply cite (Brushaber) ? The IRS does not simply cite (Brushaber) because that was not (Brushaber’s) holding ! in fact, the Supreme Court has never held that the 16th amendment authorizes, a direct unapportioned tax, not in (Brushaber) nor in any other case. The IRS does not cite (Brushaber) because the holding in (Brushaber) was the exact opposite of what the IRS claims!
The (Brushaber) case did not hold what they wanted you to believe, so instead the IRS cites an erroneous description of (Brushaber) by an inferior court and offer that as the holding itself. This kind of legal misrepresentation is inexcusable in even the most lax of courts. It is a rank form of lying.
In Brushaber, the government argued that the 16th amendment, granted it the power to impose a direct, unapportioned tax on incomes of any kind, but the Supreme Court expressly rejected that argument, calling it erroneous. See Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.,240 U.S. 1,at 12 (1916)
The TRUE holding by the Supreme Court in Brushaber is that the 16th amendment :
1) Did not amend the constitution ;
2) Did not authorize a direct, unapportioned income tax;
3) Did not grant Congress any additional taxing authority — none; and
4) It’s sole effect is to prohibit the Supreme Court from considering the source of income in determining whether an income tax is a direct or indirect tax.
The Supreme Court went on in that case to point out that the income tax is an indirect tax “in its nature an excise”, and, therefore, not subject to the requirement of apportionment BUT that if it should be applied in such a way that it has the effect of a direct tax (either mandatory or on person or property, instead of a privileged activity), it would be subjected to the rule of apportionment. This holding was repeated in a case, ruled on the very same year by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic mining, 240. U.S. 103, 112-3(1916) And by the Supreme Court again in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S.165 , 172-3 (1918). See also Southern Pacific v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330 (1918)
The government, itself, admits that “ it is clear that the income tax is an “indirect tax.” (see “some constitutional questions regarding the federal income tax laws”,by Howard Zaritsky congressional research service, library of Congress, May 25, 1979, page 3.)
Why does the IRS, then, lie about the Brushaber holding? Why did the court in Collins misrepresent that holding? because they both know that a tax on the exercise of a fundamental right, as in the case of the exercise of our fundamental right to earn a living through our own labor, is not an indirect tax which can only be imposed on privileged activities. A tax on the exercise of a right, which is property, can only be classified as a direct tax and, as the Supreme Court clearly stated it Brushaber, any such application of an income tax would be subject to the rule of apportionment. additionally, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the exercise of a right is exempt from taxation, thus the IRS feels compelled to concoct some mythical constitutional exception to that rule in the 16th amendment.
CONCLUSION: The IRS is lying again, misrepresenting the statutory law in claiming that the IRC imposes an income tax on citizens and resident’s when it does not, and misrepresenting the Supreme Court‘s holding in the Brushaber case in order to claim that the income tax is a direct tax that is immune from the constitutional restrictions on such tax. So while the federal government does have jurisdiction beyond its geographic limitations, that power does not extend to the destruction / taxation of my fundamental rights, nor does the 16th amendment create a third class of taxes, a direct tax immune to the requirement of apportionment.
Sincerely,
We The people of New York Inc.
The tax honesty movement.
Anthony Futia Jr.
No. White Plains
