Taxing you on income never received, Moore v. United States

[johnwk]

See: An Unconstitutional Income Tax Without Income

"Can the government impose an income tax when you never had income? That may seem like a trick question, but it’s exactly what happened to Charles and Kathleen Moore."

......snipped for brevity....

Now the Moores have petitioned the Supreme Court to take their case, and the Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition."


This case may inspire our Supreme Court to, once and for all, address what is, and what is not, a direct tax, which still to this very day requires apportionment.

It may also inspire our Supreme Court to re-confirm the meaning of "incomes" as found in the Sixteenth Amendment, which was elaborated upon in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)


"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy."

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

 

[White 6]

See: An Unconstitutional Income Tax Without Income

"Can the government impose an income tax when you never had income? That may seem like a trick question, but it’s exactly what happened to Charles and Kathleen Moore."

......snipped for brevity....

Now the Moores have petitioned the Supreme Court to take their case, and the Cato Institute has filed an amicus brief supporting that petition."


This case may inspire our Supreme Court to, once and for all, address what is, and what is not, a direct tax, which still to this very day requires apportionment.

It may also inspire our Supreme Court to re-confirm the meaning of "incomes" as found in the Sixteenth Amendment, which was elaborated upon in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)


"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054). Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy."

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

So you are saying this is another Trump administration f#ckup, signed into law?
"The reason is a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act called the Mandatory Repatriation Tax."

 

[johnwk]

So you are saying this is another Trump administration f#ckup, signed into law?
"The reason is a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act called the Mandatory Repatriation Tax."

That was your pontification.

 

[1srelluc]

So you are saying this is another Trump administration f#ckup, signed into law?
"The reason is a provision of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act called the Mandatory Repatriation Tax."

I don't care who did what, any action by SCOTUS that keeps our money in our pockets instead of being pissed away by the .gov has my support.

 

[pknopp]

That was your pontification.

I tried to read a couple other articles on this lawsuit but really, none of them seemed to tell the complete story to me. As far as tax laws goes a bit over my head.

It was passed and signed by Trump under a GOP controlled Congress though.

 

[Rambunctious]

This reminds me of a few years back before I sold my company... I paid my business license fee for LA and LA county... I paid it as soon as I got the bill... about two months later I get a late notice for not paying the full price of the License fee...
But I did... I had a copy of the bill and the check.... The county said they passed a new fee effective immediately and I owed them $350.... I was surprised but resigned to pay it... what are you going to do....
Then I see a late fee for not paying on time for $250....
I called and explained what happened and I wasn't billed for the new fee and this is the first I have heard of it....
Oh yes sir she said... this fee was passed after you paid your fee... So I asked then you will remove the late fee?... she said she can't but will refer it to her manager... So I paid in full including the late fee...
That was in 2016 and they still haven't paid me back....

 

[White 6]

That was your pontification.

Not pontificating. It is just your post made me wonder (since you abbreviated the top with no explanation) how we got a law or regulation like that, and your linked article said it was part of the republican tax cuts and jobs creation legislation designed and passed by them to achieve the dual goals of domestic tax cuts for the wealthy, but also the presidents stated goals of bringing not only jobs but also the encouraging the bringing of money parked off-shore back for re-investment here, as a boon to the economy and job creation here. Now it appears to be a matter of review by the Supreme Court whether that administration's legislation was even constitutional from the outset, making us wonder whether Republican lawyer legislators even read their own work before passing it.
So I wasn't pontificating with my two line response, one of which a total direct quote from the article you link posted but did not summarize for some reason.
You see, this is pontificating, not that, and I am not even being argumentative.
It's like one of my T-shirts I got in honor of my wife. It says:
I'm Not Arguing. I'm Just Explaining Why I'm Right

 

[Burgermeister]

Good. Put a stop to Biden's fantasies about taxing unrealized gains.

 

[Dekster]

Interesting implication. If upheld, the IRS could start taxing shareholders on imputed income whenever there is a corporate stock buyback.

 

[Dekster]

This reminds me of a few years back before I sold my company... I paid my business license fee for LA and LA county... I paid it as soon as I got the bill... about two months later I get a late notice for not paying the full price of the License fee...
But I did... I had a copy of the bill and the check.... The county said they passed a new fee effective immediately and I owed them $350.... I was surprised but resigned to pay it... what are you going to do....
Then I see a late fee for not paying on time for $250....
I called and explained what happened and I wasn't billed for the new fee and this is the first I have heard of it....
Oh yes sir she said... this fee was passed after you paid your fee... So I asked then you will remove the late fee?... she said she can't but will refer it to her manager... So I paid in full including the late fee...
That was in 2016 and they still haven't paid me back....

i had bill me the wrong amount on my business equipment tax. I paid it. Two years later that started threatening to sue me, yank my business license, etc if I did not pay a hefty late penalty and interest within 10 days once they found their mistake because apparently it was my fault they keyed the information in wrong. I told them they could pound sand as far as the interest and penalties. I mailed them the check for the tax but told them if they wanted to litigate it, to bring it because I would make sure every freaking body in town knew about them trying to punish me for their mistake. The eventually dropped the penalty and interest and just accepted that the tax was paid.

 

[johnwk]

Not pontificating. It is just you post made me wonder (since you abbreviated the top with no explanation) how we got a law or regulation like that,

How we got a law or regulation like that goes way back to how the good people of the United States were conned by the Democrat Party to adopt the Sixteenth Amendment as a means to get millionaires to pay a small portion of their unearned incomes (stocks, bonds, etc.) to help support the functions of government while allowing the lowering of the tariff which then increased the cost of the necessities of life for working class citizens.

And who is it today who groans under the misapplication of the Sixteenth Amendment? Poor working people who were told the Sixteenth Amendment was in their best interests and now have the property they earn by the sweat of their labor stolen from them by an unconstitutional direct tax which is not apportioned as our Constitution commands.

 

[White 6]

How we got a law or regulation like that goes way back to how the good people of the United States were conned by the Democrat Party to adopt the Sixteenth Amendment as a means to get millionaires to pay a small portion of their unearned incomes (stocks, bonds, etc.) to help support the functions of government while allowing the lowering of the tariff which then increased the cost of the necessities of life for working class citizens.

And who is it today who groans under the misapplication of the Sixteenth Amendment? Poor working people who were told the Sixteenth Amendment was in their best interests and now have the property they earn by the sweat of their labor stolen from them by an unconstitutional direct tax which is not apportioned as our Constitution commands.

I hate to break it to you, but the 16th Amendment went through Congress in July of 1909, both houses controlled by Republican majorities, overall the vote was 318 to 14 with 1 abstaining, then was rapidly ratified by the states.

The Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

On this date, the states of Delaware, Wyoming, and New Mexico approved the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratifying it into law. The amendment empowered Congress to impose an income tax on individuals and corporations. During the House debates of S.J. Res. 40, Members had debated...

history.house.gov

61st United States Congress - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[johnwk]

I hate to break it to you, but the 16th Amendment went through Congress in July of 1909 . . .

Let me assure you your presumption about breaking something to me about the Sixteenth Amendment is just that a presumption. I am perhaps one of the few who today, has actually taken the time to read the Congressional Record of 1909 when the Sixteenth Amendment was framed and debated, and it was the Democrats who sold the rope-a-dope Sixteenth Amendment to America's hard working wage earners.

let us recall the words of REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, a Democrat and an advocate of the income tax in 1909:

Mr. Speaker, this battle for an income tax will go on. This is the people's Government and -the right will prevail. During all these years the mighty rich-an army of millionaires-have been exempted from taxation, but the people are now aroused. There are two lines of battle drawn for this great contest. Under which flag will you stand-the flag of Democracy or the flag of plutocracy?
We shall win, for ---

Still, Truth proclaims this motto
In letters of living light: No question is ever settled
Until it is settled right.

[Applause on the Democratic side.]

And I would scorn, Mr. Speaker, a government whose taxing power provides that Lazarus must divide his crumbs with the taxgatherer, but that Dives shall not give of his riches.

[Great applause on the Democratic side.]

See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD---HOUSE July 12, 1909, PAGE 4399, LEFT COLUMN

And, it was Representative Heflin, another Democrat, during the Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment who actually pointed to a statement made by Robert Ellis Thompson, in the Irish World which articulated the purpose of an income tax:

“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. Page 4420 (1909) right column halfway down the column.

Also see Page 4412, right column, July 12th, 1909, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Representative HENRY of Texas, another Democrat:

“It is undeniable that an income tax will reach millions of wealth—bonds and stocks— [which is unearned income] -that would never be touched by a corporation or inheritance tax. It is advocating no new and strange doctrine to favor an income tax. On many occasions during great emergencies this method of taxation has been resorted to, and proved abundantly satisfactory. And now, with a depleted Treasury, with swollen fortunes all around us evading taxation and receiving the protection of Government, and civilized communities everywhere recognizing the economic fairness of such a tax, and with the admitted contention that it contains the humane and sublime blessing of equality to all men, the time is ripe and appropriate for this Government to go forward and keep apace with the progress and civilization of mankind.”

Here is a link to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD July 12th, 1909 which will substantiate what I stated above . . . scroll to desired page and either the House, or Senate record.



Also, keep in mind that the Democrat platform at the time demanded two constitutional amendments, one for an income tax and the other for the election of Senators by the people and not state legislatures.

 

[White 6]

Let me assure you your presumption about breaking something to me about the Sixteenth Amendment is just that a presumption. I am perhaps one of the few who today, has actually taken the time to read the Congressional Record of 1909 when the Sixteenth Amendment was framed and debated, and it was the Democrats who sold the rope-a-dope Sixteenth Amendment to America's hard working wage earners.

let us recall the words of REPRESENTATIVE JAMES, a Democrat and an advocate of the income tax in 1909:

Mr. Speaker, this battle for an income tax will go on. This is the people's Government and -the right will prevail. During all these years the mighty rich-an army of millionaires-have been exempted from taxation, but the people are now aroused. There are two lines of battle drawn for this great contest. Under which flag will you stand-the flag of Democracy or the flag of plutocracy?
We shall win, for ---

Still, Truth proclaims this motto
In letters of living light: No question is ever settled
Until it is settled right.

[Applause on the Democratic side.]

And I would scorn, Mr. Speaker, a government whose taxing power provides that Lazarus must divide his crumbs with the taxgatherer, but that Dives shall not give of his riches.

[Great applause on the Democratic side.]

See CONGRESSIONAL RECORD---HOUSE July 12, 1909, PAGE 4399, LEFT COLUMN

And, it was Representative Heflin, another Democrat, during the Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment who actually pointed to a statement made by Robert Ellis Thompson, in the Irish World which articulated the purpose of an income tax:

“An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.” 44 Cong. Rec. Page 4420 (1909) right column halfway down the column.

Also see Page 4412, right column, July 12th, 1909, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Representative HENRY of Texas, another Democrat:

“It is undeniable that an income tax will reach millions of wealth—bonds and stocks— [which is unearned income] -that would never be touched by a corporation or inheritance tax. It is advocating no new and strange doctrine to favor an income tax. On many occasions during great emergencies this method of taxation has been resorted to, and proved abundantly satisfactory. And now, with a depleted Treasury, with swollen fortunes all around us evading taxation and receiving the protection of Government, and civilized communities everywhere recognizing the economic fairness of such a tax, and with the admitted contention that it contains the humane and sublime blessing of equality to all men, the time is ripe and appropriate for this Government to go forward and keep apace with the progress and civilization of mankind.”

Here is a link to the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD July 12th, 1909 which will substantiate what I stated above . . . scroll to desired page and either the House, or Senate record.



Also, keep in mind that the Democrat platform at the time demanded two constitutional amendments, one for an income tax and the other for the election of Senators by the people and not state legislatures.

Just responding to you blaming it on the Democrats, when Republicans were in charge of both houses of congress, and the Presidency, so it is unlikely they tricked all of them and the many states.

 

[johnwk]

Just responding to you blaming it on the Democrats, when Republicans were in charge of both houses of congress, and the Presidency, so it is unlikely they tricked all of them and the many states.

We are not talking about blame. We are talking about historical facts.

What I wrote was 100% accurate. But hey, since you apparently have not read the Congressional Debates when the Sixteenth Amendment was being debated, I can understand why you are unaware of how the Democrats sold the rope-a-dope income tax to hard working wage earners.

 

[johnwk]

Good. Put a stop to Biden's fantasies about taxing unrealized gains.

Judge Gould's opinion in Moore v. United States has a major defect.​

.
There is a glaring flaw in Circuit Judge Gould’s (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) WRITTEN OPINION

Judge Gould writes:

I. The MRT does not violate the Apportionment Clause

The Constitution’s Apportionment Clause provides that “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 9, cl. 4. “This requirement means that any ‘direct Tax’ must be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population.” NFIB, 567 U.S. at 570. The Apportionment Clause traditionally applied to only capitations1 and land taxes. See id.at 571 (“[D]irect taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” (quoting Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 602 (1881))).


Judge Gould citing Springer v. United States as a source of authority with regard to the meaning of a “direct tax” as the phrase appears in our federal Constitution, and as understood by those who framed our Constitution and participated in its ratification process, is fundamentally and fatally flawed! That fatal flaw is found in Justice Swayne’s own words who delivered the written opinion in Springer v. United States. Justice Swayne states:

"The very elaborate researches of the plaintiff in error have furnished us with nothing from the debates of the State conventions, by whom the Constitution was adopted, which gives us any aid. Hence we may safely assume that no such material exists in that direction . . . "

Well, that safe assumption was factually wrong! In fact, there is sufficient evidence in the State ratification debates of our Founders which articulate the identifying characteristics which distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect.

As an advocate in adopting the Constitution, James Wilson (who was a prominent delegate to the Constitutional Convention) pointed out during Pennsylvania’s ratification debates that:

“In this Constitution, a power is given to Congress to collect imposts [an indirect type of tax], which is not given by the present Articles of Confederation. A very considerable part of the revenue of the United States will arise from that source; it is the easiest, most just, and most productive method of raising revenue; and it is a safe one, because it is voluntary. No man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and each buys in proportion only to his consumption." Elliots VOL II, page 467, Wilson

And this very characteristic identifying an indirect tax as a voluntary payment when buying articles of consumption, is again articulated, and more in depth during the Connecticut State Ratification debates by Oliver Ellsworth, who provides the following characteristics distinguishing a direct tax from one which is indirect.

January 7, 1788. [On this Power of Congress to lay Taxes.]

”Direct taxation can go but little way towards raising a revenue. To raise money in this way, people must be provident; they must constantly be laying up money to answer the demands of the collector. But you cannot make people thus provident. If you would do any thing to the purpose, you must come in when they are spending, and take a part with them. This does not take away the tools of a man’s business, or the necessary utensils of his family: it only comes in when he is taking his pleasure, and feels generous; when he is laying out a shilling for superfluities, it takes twopence of it for public use, and the remainder will do him as much good as the whole.”

Ellsworth goes on to note:

“The experiments, which have been made in our own country, show the productive nature of indirect taxes. The imports into the United States amount to a very large sum. They never will be less, but will continue to increase for centuries to come. As the population of our country increases, the imports will necessarily increase. They will increase, because our citizens will choose to be farmers; living independently on their freeholds, rather than to be manufacturers, and work for a groat a day.”

”On the other hand, direct taxes are not voluntary, nor, in general, are they avoidable. And with respect to direct taxes, the anti-federalist minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania warned that direct taxation “…is a tax that, however oppressive in its nature, and unequal in its operation, is certain as to its produce and simple in its collection; it cannot be evaded like the objects of imposts or excise …” ___ See Connecticut ratification debates Elliot’s VOL II, page 191, Ellsworth

So, a few characteristics which define an indirect tax are, it is voluntarily paid during the taxpayer’s consumption, and safe because no man is obliged to consume more than he pleases, and such a tax are costs added by government to things which individuals are free to acquired or reject, while direct taxes are those which are assessed to the individual by government, are oppressive, and not avoidable.

The bottom line is, to cite Springer v. United States as an authority to identify a direct tax, within the meaning of our Constitution, is to totally ignore our Founders’ articulated identifying characteristics which actually define and distinguish a direct tax from one which is indirect, and thus, deprives the people the intended protection requiring any direct tax to be apportioned.


JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

 

[johnwk]

Landmark Legal Foundation files brief supporting Mr. and Mrs. Moore​

.
I see the Landmark Legal Foundation has also filed an AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF in support of Mr. and Mrs. Moore

.

BTW, here is a great video in which the Moores explain their fight, a fight for truth, justice and the American Way!

 

[johnwk]

Has anyone here read the dissent in the 9th Circuit's case, Moore vs United States?

Part of it reads:


"The Sixteenth Amendment thus struck a delicate balance for federal taxing power—freeing Congress from the unwieldy requirement of apportionment, but only for taxes on “incomes.” Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment relieved Congress of its duty to apportion other forms of direct taxation, such as a tax on property interests. Now, more than a century after its ratification, our court upsets the balance reached by the people. We become the first court in the country to state that an “income tax” doesn’t require that a “taxpayer has realized income” under the Sixteenth Amendment. Moore v. United States, 36 F.4th 930, 935 (9th Cir. 2022). Instead, we conclude that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes an unapportioned tax on unrealized gains because the “realization of income is not a constitutional requirement.” Id. at 936. We thus endorse the constitutionality of a federal tax on the share of undistributed earnings of a foreign corporation owned by a U.S. taxpayer—despite (in this case) the U.S. taxpayer being a minority shareholder of the foreign corporation. In other words, we allow a direct tax on the ownership interest of a taxpayer—even when the taxpayer has yet to receive any economic gain from the interest and has no ability to direct distribution of gain from the interest."

 

[johnwk]

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Moore vs. United States tax case​

.
See: Supreme Court will decide whether Congress can tax wealth

Quote:

"The Supreme Court announced Monday it will weigh in on the constitutionality of wealth taxes by deciding whether Congress may require taxpayers to pay their share of earnings from a foreign company, even if they received no dividends or income. The case of Charles and Kathleen Moore, and their $14,729 tax bill, has garnered much attention on the right because of what it could mean if progressive Democrats take control of Congress."

Well, it seems we will finally get some clarity on the meaning of a "direct tax" and whether or not a direct tax, as in the Moore's case, must be apportioned.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

 

[Harpy Eagle]

U.S. Supreme Court will hear Moore vs. United States tax case​

.
See: Supreme Court will decide whether Congress can tax wealth

Quote:

"The Supreme Court announced Monday it will weigh in on the constitutionality of wealth taxes by deciding whether Congress may require taxpayers to pay their share of earnings from a foreign company, even if they received no dividends or income. The case of Charles and Kathleen Moore, and their $14,729 tax bill, has garnered much attention on the right because of what it could mean if progressive Democrats take control of Congress."

Well, it seems we will finally get some clarity on the meaning of a "direct tax" and whether or not a direct tax, as in the Moore's case, must be apportioned.

JWK

If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection [apportionment] could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property. POLLOCK v. FARMERS’ LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) JUSTICE FULLER

I am glad they are ruling on it, hopefully they make the correct ruling, how can you be taxed on income not yet received, makes no sense at all.