Today's Federal tax on earned wages may violate our Constitution.

[johnwk]

For the record, let us all acknowledge that the Sixteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution, and it declares:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Now keep in mind the Sixteenth Amendment does not declare:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


Additionally, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, direct taxes laid by Congress are still required to be apportioned.

For example, if Congress, under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, asserts to be taxing incomes, but the tax, as it is applied, takes the form of a direct tax, and it is not being apportioned, the Supreme Court will strike the tax down as violating the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment", as stated in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
.
.
Seems relatively obvious when considering the above stated FACTS, the contention made by some that today's federal tax on a working person's earned wages may very well violate our federal constitution and has great merit for the following reasons:

Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes [stocks, bonds, etc.] as can be contrasted from “earned” wages.

Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Today’s federal tax on earned wages does not follow the set rules laid out in EISNER V. MACOMBER to calculate and distinguish what portion, if any, of a working person’s earn wages falls within the definition of “incomes” as the term is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[Votto]

No one is taught this in democrat-controlled indoctrination centers............um.............er..................public schools and universities, but the income tax was declared unconstitutional at the turn of the 20th century.

So, Progressives simply added it later on.

Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional

Share Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional The Supreme Court declared the income tax to be null and void in a momentous 5-4 decision written by the Chief Justice. Congress […]

www.withum.com

 

[johngaltshrugged]

We allowed the concept of a "living Constitution" widely pushed by the left to creep into the judicial realm.
This allowed them to legislate from the bench & justify it in their own delusions. It's not legal or right but there it is.

The 16th Amendment was a shell game where they said it would do one thing & then changed it to get everyone after it was approved.
Instead of only going after the capital gains/profits of the richest it morphed into an 80,000 page code of contradictions & cut outs for the wealthiest while spawning a behemoth IRS that generally goes after the little guys.

Changing the definition to charge Americans
The meaning of the word “income” was clearly understood at the time. For instance, the authoritative Black’s Dictionary of Law, in its 1891 edition (reiterated verbatim in 1910), defined “income tax” this way: “A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” (Emphasis mine throughout.)

West Publishing Co. produced a widely used Judicial and Statutory Definition of Words and Phrases in 1904. It defined “income tax” as a “tax which relates to the product or income from property or from business pursuits...[it] includes a tax on the gross receipts of a corporation or business.”

You will notice absolutely no mention, anywhere, of the wages or salaries of the average citizen in the definition of “income.” The 16th Amendment was proposed and passed as a way of collecting indirect taxes on unearned incomes and annual profits.

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate, “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

Roger Foster wrote “A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913” in 1914. In it he writes, “t is evidently the intention, as a general rule, to tax only the profit of the taxpayer, not his whole revenue.” So wages and salaries were exempt from taxation under the 16th Amendment; investment and dividend income and profits from business were not.

16th Amendment As Written: No Tax on Wages or Salaries

It's a classic "bait and switch." Americans voted for an "income" tax on the rich because they fell for the pitch.

www.afa.net

 

[johnwk]

As Sen. Heflin said during the congressional debate, “An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

I would like to make a small correction. Heflin actually noted a comment from Robert Ellis Thompson, in the Irish World that, "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 HOUSE, Representative HENRY:

“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 . . scroll to desired page and either House or Senate record.


Take care, JWK

 

[Oddball]

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax — Home

 

[Concerned American]

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,

Earned wages ARE "incomes from whatever source derived." I don't know how it could be any clearer.

 

[Oddball]

Robert Bernhoft, Banister’s attorney, said his client was acquitted because the government did not prove he intended to defraud. Observers said a crucial moment of the trial occurred when defense attorneys intensely questioned Banister’s former supervisor at IRS, Robert Gorini, and he was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.

Joseph Banister - The Bernhoft Law Firm

Jury Acquits Former IRS Special Agent of Felony Tax Charges Joseph Banister, a former IRS agent and prominent IRS whistleblower, was acquitted on all federal tax fraud and conspiracy charges. The widely-followed U.S. District Court case stemmed from tax returns that Banister, a certified public...

www.bernhoftlaw.com

 

[Oddball]

Earned wages ARE "incomes from whatever source derived." I don't know how it could be any clearer.

The amendment isn't the written enforceable law.

 

[Concerned American]

The amendment isn't the written enforceable law.

Granted. But it legitimizes any income tax that the governing body chooses to levy.

 

[Oddball]

Granted. But it makes any legitimizes any income tax that the governing body chooses to levy.

Not really.....Were that the case, the tax laws would be written clearly enough that a sixth-grader could understand them.

The tax laws are vague, confusing, and contradictory, because there's no underlying legitimacy of the 16th Amendment.

 

[Concerned American]

Not really.....Were that the case, the tax laws would be written clearly enough that a sixth-grader could understand them.

The tax laws are vague, confusing, and contradictory, because there's no underlying legitimacy of the 16th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

 

[Oddball]

Good luck with that.

Didn't say that it's a legal defense (even if it were the open corruption of the "justice" system today would reject it), just pointing out the fact of the matter.

 

[johnwk]

Not really.....Were that the case, the tax laws would be written clearly enough that a sixth-grader could understand them.

The tax laws are vague, confusing, and contradictory, because there's no underlying legitimacy of the 16th Amendment.

With regard to the meaning of "income" as it appears in the Sixteenth Amendment, we find that meaning in Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S. 189, 206 (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. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description."


So, we now learn that all money that comes in is not “income” within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, but only that portion which represents a “profit” or “gain”. Keep in mind also that “profits“ or “gains, are calculated by deducting all necessary expenses and outlay from gross receipts …the remaining portion being “profit” and or “gain“!

It seems to be self-evident that a wage earner does in fact invest capital in pursuit of earning a wage, e.g., the cost of transportation to and from work; the cost of food which fuels the wage earners body during working hours; the costs involved with housing, medical needs, and even clothing are all expenses incurred by the wage earner and are necessary expenses and outlays which makes one’s labor possible. And this does not even take into account the “investment” of eight hours of life itself which the wage earner makes available to their employer, and that is in addition to the actual physical and mental labor invested by the wage earner, which is also made available to their employer.

So, the question to be answered here is, why is the capitalist allowed, and rightly so, to deduct their capital investments from money coming in, to arrive at their taxable income as per Eisner, while the wage earner is not?



Let us now note that the income from an illegal business was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were then subjected to income tax in that case .

And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed and was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”

The point being, not only does todays capitalist get to deduct, and rightfully so, their necessary expenses and outlays to arrive at a “taxable income”, but even crooks engaged in illegal and criminal activities are allowed to make such deductions ___ and with the Courts’ blessing ___ when computing their taxable “profit” or “gain”. But today’s lowly wage earner who, although invests in a number of ways, and makes countless outlays to earn a wage, is told to follow a different set of rules which do not recognize the wage earners’ various investments and outlays when calculating a profit or gain from selling the property each has in their own labor.

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[johnwk]

No one is taught this in democrat-controlled indoctrination centers............um.............er..................public schools and universities, but the income tax was declared unconstitutional at the turn of the 20th century.

So, Progressives simply added it later on.

Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional

Share Supreme Court Declares Income Tax Unconstitutional The Supreme Court declared the income tax to be null and void in a momentous 5-4 decision written by the Chief Justice. Congress […]

www.withum.com

You are absolutely correct about that. But as it turns out, their addition to our Constitution (the Sixteenth Amendment) has a number of fatal flaws [see the OP] which need to be brought to the public's attention, and then raised in the courts.

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

 

[Hector12]

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)​

EnlargeDownload Link
Citation: The 16th Amendment, March 15, 1913; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.
View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog
View Transcript
Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

"ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

---------

Every now and then some right wing ideologue comes along with the breathless information that the Sixteenth Amendment does not mean what it clearly says.

 

[johnwk]

16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Federal Income Tax (1913)​

EnlargeDownload Link
Citation: The 16th Amendment, March 15, 1913; Ratified Amendments, 1795-1992; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.
View All Pages in the National Archives Catalog
View Transcript
Passed by Congress on July 2, 1909, and ratified February 3, 1913, the 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

"ARTICLE XVI. The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

---------

Every now and then some right wing ideologue comes along with the breathless information that the Sixteenth Amendment does not mean what it clearly says.

I'm at a loss to understand why you posted that, or made a reference to ". . . some right wing ideologue . . . ' But I did notice you did not question anything posted in the OP. Is that because you agree with what is written, or, unable to refute what is posted?

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[johnwk]

Earned wages ARE "incomes from whatever source derived." I don't know how it could be any clearer.

The meaning of incomes, as found in the Sixteenth Amendment, are "profits" and/or "gains", collectively referred to as "incomes". See 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.

 

[PeterPilot]

For the record, let us all acknowledge that the Sixteenth Amendment is part of our Constitution, and it declares:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Now keep in mind the Sixteenth Amendment does not declare:

”The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”


Nor does the Sixteenth Amendment declare:


"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on earned wages, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."


Additionally, our Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed, after the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, direct taxes laid by Congress are still required to be apportioned.

For example, if Congress, under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, asserts to be taxing incomes, but the tax, as it is applied, takes the form of a direct tax, and it is not being apportioned, the Supreme Court will strike the tax down as violating the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned, "notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment", as stated in EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920):

"Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it, as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend, contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid, notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment."
.
.
Seems relatively obvious when considering the above stated FACTS, the contention made by some that today's federal tax on a working person's earned wages may very well violate our federal constitution and has great merit for the following reasons:

Today's federal tax on earned wages is not in harmony with the original objective of adopting the Sixteenth Amendment which was to allow for a federal tax on “unearned” incomes [stocks, bonds, etc.] as can be contrasted from “earned” wages.

Today’s federal tax on a working person’s earned wages takes the form of a direct tax, is not being apportioned, and thus violates the constitutional protection requiring direct taxes to be apportioned.

Finally, and in respect of the Sixteenth Amendment and calculating today’s federal tax on earned wages “ . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.” EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Today’s federal tax on earned wages does not follow the set rules laid out in EISNER V. MACOMBER to calculate and distinguish what portion, if any, of a working person’s earn wages falls within the definition of “incomes” as the term is used in the Sixteenth Amendment.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

I completely agree with you, but that ship sailed nearly a century ago. Congress usurped power and abdicated responsibility, ditto for executive branch and judiciary. The rule of law in this country does not exist.

 

[johnwk]

I completely agree with you, but that ship sailed nearly a century ago. Congress usurped power and abdicated responsibility, ditto for executive branch and judiciary. The rule of law in this country does not exist.

The rule of law in this country does not exist if the people are unwilling to defend the rule of law.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?’ “A republic, if you can keep it,” responded Franklin.

 

[Concerned American]

The meaning of incomes, as found in the Sixteenth Amendment, are "profits" and/or "gains", collectively referred to as "incomes". See 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.

Agreed. Income is profit. Profit is what you gain from sales or labor. We can play semantics all day long. Income is quite specific and that is why income taxes have never been repealed on that basis.