I've never been to your country, Jose, so would you be kind enough to tell me; do all of the citizens there hope for the destruction of anyone who questions whether their government may be over extending its authority?

I would point out, that this newest article you have referenced is also absent of law; by that I mean that it does not quote the authority(law) by which it derives its opinion. By that I mean it does not show that a decree was issued, mandating that YOU, meaning YOU-PERSONALLY will keep records and report your earnings and submit a percentage.

You, have posted another disinformation piece. But, I think it should be looked at and explained for what it is. If I am wrong in one of the points that I make, see if you can stick to the subject at hand and offer your take on it, rather than letting your imagination freak you out with the prospect of going to jail. Remember, it's still lawful to volunteer a perentage of your earnings.

In IRS 4, I was attempting to show what the Constitution has to say about direct (personal) taxation, and what the USSCs' interpretation was. Those quotes are law, and are not to be RE-INTERPRETED. As our friend Flint stated: "said more than once doesn't add meaning." If they are incorrect, you can easily find out by going to findlaw.com and looking them up. If they are wrong, then I am wrong.

I was attempting to start at the begining with the constitution because all laws must be in keepng with the constitution, or they are unlawful, and UNconstituional.

The constitution says in 3 different ways that direct (personal) taxation in forbidden. Then it says the 16th give congress the power to tax incomes from whatever source derived.

Apparently, some one.named Stanton questioned the meaning of that amendment, and the SUPREME COURT ruled that it "conferred no new powers of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the begnning from being taken out of the catagory of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged." By this, the SC affimed that the 16th did not repeal Article 1 SEc. 9 Cl 4, which prohibits direct (personal) taxation by the government.

^THIS IS KEY IN UNDERSTANDING.^

Now, jumping ahead about 90 years, this disinfo piece you posted references cases lost by people who filed which by definition made them taxpayers(which gives the appearance that they are liable) and then claim that they shouldn't have to.They were made examples of, but that does not change Article 1 Sec. 9, Cl. 4 or the SC ruling in Stanton v Baltic Mining Co. It just means the defendants challenge was incorrect, and the prosecutor convinced a jury to convict. (We should not be surprised that the jury didn't know any better, should we?)

That's my take on the first part of "failure to file". Read it again, and look for a law that was broken. There is none cited, and the reason is because it would reveal the truth that the constitution doesn't provide for it.

That's the reason I call it disinformation; it sways your opinion, but keeps you from knowing what the law actually says. When you read it, ask yourself: Where is the law?

BTW, the IRS defines a tax protestor as someone who files, and refuses to pay because of a grievance, (another clue as to the intent of the section "In General"

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001

Answers

"More of What Happens to Tax Protestors"

- An IRS NEWS RELEASE- Why am I not surprised? Did you see a law quoted? I didn't either.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.

Wait, I did see one law quoted. But how convenient to leave out the 3 that forbid direct taxation, which have never been repealed.

Do you think somebody made a mistake? NAWWWW, such a well documented, educational, informative, piece must be correct.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.

Tax Protestor Hall of Fame

In this list of quixotic tax protests you can read the actual judgements and the supporting case law. There is, Senor Kofe, a great deal of case law refuting your point. Your legal analysis has lost and lost and lost again. Just how many time must you see your points refuted in a court of law before you see the futility of your position?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

You are mistaken again. None of them cite my claim. You might read it again, but I doubt you will.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 28, 2001.

-Marbury v. Madison- "...The very essence of civil liberty certainly consist in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection......."

"...Between these alternatives there is no middle ground; the Constitution is either superior, paramount law, unchangeble by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.

If the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts...."

"...Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule for his government?"

"..If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery..."

"...This particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle supported to be essential to all written constitutions; that a law repugnant to the constitution is void....and that courts, as well as other departments are bound by that agreement."

"In the distribution of this power it is declared that: "The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in all cases."

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution be without effect...."

What this Supreme Court Justice is saying, Jose, is that the United States Constitution is the Supreme Law, and any acts, regulations, or otherwise, that do not conform to it are void, meaning unlawful,and unconstitutional.

If you are reading a code, and it does not live up to the original Constitution, do you ignore the Constitution?

You do if you want to protect your ass.

That's why I still predict that you will post a few more insults, cut and paste, and fade away.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 29, 2001.

You are wrong. The Constitution's prohibition on "direct taxation" does not apply. From the Tax Protestor FAQ:

"False. Although the meaning of "direct tax" is a little unclear, it was always understood that taxes imposed by Congress could apply to, and be collected from, individual citizens.

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was unanimous in its opinion that Congress could impose a tax on a citizen of Virginia for carriages held for personal use. Of the four justices who heard the case, three were members of the Constitutional Convention that drafted the Constitution, and presumably knew what it meant.

Since the Hylton decision, no judge in the United States has ever suggested that the federal government cannot impose a tax on individual citizens.

"It is generally agreed that Article I of the Constitution authorizes Congress to tax the income of individuals, and that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement that such taxes be apportioned among the states." In re: Michael Fleming, 86 AFTR2d ¶2000-5138; No. 97-6342-8G3 (U.S.Bank.Ct. M.D.Fl. 8/9/2000). "Congress may impose taxes on individuals in the states without apportionment among the several States, and 'without regard to any census or enumeration,' and 'on incomes, from whatever source derived.'" Secora v. United States, 1997 WL 460162, at 6 (U.S.D.C. Neb.).

As recently as 1991, the Supreme Court referred to arguments that the federal income tax was unconstitutional as "surely frivolous." Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

The mistake made by tax protesters is in assuming that the phrase "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" in the Constitution is a reference to any tax that is collected directly from the person on whom it is imposed, while "indirect" taxes such as "Duties, Imposts and Excises" are collected on goods during manufacture, or in transit, and the ultimate burden is passed along to someone else (usually the consumer). However, this is not the meaning of "direct" and "indirect" that has been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution divides all taxes into two groups. One is any "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" (usually referred to as "direct taxes") and the other is "Duties, Imposts and Excises" (usually referred to as "indirect taxes"). The difference between the two is that "direct taxes" must be apportioned among the states based on the census of the population, while "indirect taxes" need only be uniform throughout the U.S.

In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), all four Supreme Court justices who heard the case agreed that the meaning of "direct tax" was limited to a tax on the value of land (and slaves, who were considered to be part of the land).

This principle was expanded by the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), to apply to taxes on the value of personal property (property other than land) as well as taxes on the value of land, but the Supreme Court has been consistent in holding that any tax on a transfer or other transaction, whether a sale, gift, or inheritance, is an "indirect tax," even though the tax is measured by the value of the property transferred (or the amount of the income). See, for example, Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880); Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (); and Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

So, a "direct" tax is a tax on the ownership of property, while an "indirect" tax is a tax on a transaction or transfer of money or property.

And these interpretations are consistent with the meaning of "direct taxes" in the Federalist Papers, which show that "direct taxes" were taxes on wealth (i.e., the value of property), while "indirect taxes" were taxes on commerce.

For example, in Federalist #12, Alexander Hamilton wrote:

"It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation. . . .

"No person acquainted with what happens in other countries will be surprised at this circumstance. In so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicable, than in America, far the greatest part of the national revenue is derived from taxes of the indirect kind, from imposts, and from excises. Duties on imported articles form a large branch of this latter description."

And, in Federalist #21, Alexander Hamiton wrote: "Impositions of this kind [taxes on articles of consumption] usually fall under the denomination of indirect taxes, and must for a long time constitute the chief part of the revenue raised in this country. Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment."

And, in Federalist #54, Hamilton or Madison wrote:

" It is not contended that the number of people in each State ought not to be the standard for regulating the proportion of those who are to represent the people of each State. The establishment of the same rule for the appointment of taxes, will probably be as little contested; though the rule itself in this case, is by no means founded on the same principle. In the former case, the rule is understood to refer to the personal rights of the people, with which it has a natural and universal connection. In the latter, it has reference to the proportion of wealth, of which it is in no case a precise measure, and in ordinary cases a very unfit one. But notwithstanding the imperfection of the rule as applied to the relative wealth and contributions of the States, it is evidently the least objectionable among the practicable rules, and had too recently obtained the general sanction of America, not to have found a ready preference with the convention. All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said; but does it follow, from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation? Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought therefore to be comprehended in estimates of taxation which are founded on property, and to be excluded from representation which is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection, as I understand it, stated in its full force. ..."

Each of these quotations is consistent in their understanding that a "direct tax" is a tax on wealth (primarily land), while taxes on consumption, trade, or commerce are "indirect taxes." This is consistent with the opinions of the Supreme Court in Hylton, Springer, and even Pollock.

Unfortunately, the majority opinion in one of the Pollock decisions introduced some confusion about the meaning of "direct tax" and "indirect tax" through the following statement:

"The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895). There are several problems with the meaning of "indirect taxes" as "all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else" and "direct taxes" as taxes "the payment of which cannot be avoided":

*There is no support for those meanings in the words of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, or any writings of the authors of the Constitution. As noted above, both the Federalist Papers and the opinions of the justices in the Hylton decision who were members of the Constitutional Convention support the conclusion that a "direct tax" is a tax on the value of property.

*There is no support for those definitions in any previous (or later) decision of the Supreme Court.

*The court admits, in the very next sentence, that "the constitution may bear a different meaning." As explained previously, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a tax on incomes is not a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution. The Pollock court itself held that a tax on incomes from "professions, trades, employments, or vocations," is not a "direct tax" without ever discussing whether the tax was one "the payment of which cannot be avoided." (158 U.S. at 637.) The above definition of "direct tax" is therefore inconsistent with the decisions of the justices who wrote the the definition. The meaning of "direct tax" urged by many tax protesters (and a few mistaken legal commentators) as a "tax imposed directly on someone who cannot shift the burden to someone else" would trivialize the Constitution, because it reduces the constitutional definition of "direct tax" to a mere question of how the tax is collected. So, if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employees for the wages they receive, that would be a "direct tax" according to the tax protester definition, but if the U.S. were to impose a tax on employers for wages paid (or tax on banks for the payment of interest, or on corporations for the payment of dividends), that would be an "indirect tax" and constitutional, even though the net effect would be exactly the same (i.e., the employees or depositors or shareholders would bear the burden of the tax). The meaning of "direct tax" that has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court is much more sensible (as well as consistent with the intent of the framers of the Constitution), because it focuses on what is being taxed (the value of property, but not transfers of property) rather than how the tax is collected.

In any event, this is all academic, because the 16th Amendment plainly states that Congress can impose taxes on incomes without apportionment, so it is constitutional to require individuals to pay a tax directly on their incomes, regardless of what the Constitution previously said.

And the federal courts have consistently refuted the argument that an income tax is a "direct tax" because it is collected directly from taxpayers:

"[Becraft's] position can fairly be reduced to one elemental proposition: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non- apportioned income tax on resident United States citizens and thus such citizens are not subject to the federal income tax laws. ... We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment's authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens." In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir., 1989). "[W]e have rejected, on numerous occasions, the tax-protester argument that the federal income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be apportioned. See, e.g., Lively v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 1017, 1018 (8th Cir.1983) (per curiam)" United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: .. .. (3) the income tax is a direct tax which is invalid absent apportionment, and Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759, modified, 158 U.S. 601, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895), is authority for that and other arguments against the government's power to impose income taxes on individuals.. .." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

A final note:

That some courts refer to the income tax as a "non-apportioned direct tax," is unfortunate, because it suggests that the income tax is a "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" that does not need to be apportioned, a suggestion that was explicitly rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brushaber. As explained above, a "direct tax" must be apportioned, while an "indirect tax" must be uniform. The question was raised in Brushaber as to whether the 16th Amendment created a type of tax that need be neither apportioned nor uniform, and the court rejected that possibility, stating (in a rather convoluted sentence):

"[T]hat the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class." Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). The court then went on to hold that the income tax satisfied the requirement of geographical uniformity imposed by the Constitution, even though the rate of tax was not uniform on all incomes.

Did the court in Becraft, quoted above, mean to say that the income tax is a "non-apportioned direct tax" that need not be uniform? No, because the question of uniformity was not raised with the court. This is merely confusion in terminology, the court using the word "direct" to describe a tax that is collected directly."

Perhaps the most foolish statement in your post is that the Supreme Court's opinion are not to be "reinterpreted." It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution, and it has changed its interpretation on many occasions. The American founders made clear the Constitution was a living document, not a newer version of the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets.

Your basic argument, Senor Kofe, is that you are right and the entire legal community (including the U.S. Supreme Court) are wrong. I think the federal court system can read the law. If you go to court, Kofe, you will lose. When the IRS finally tracks you down, don't say you were not given fair warning.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 29, 2001.

And, there you go again, cut and pasting someone elses opinion. The problem we have in communicating, Jose, is that you refuse to address my initial post, and instead make end runs around points made, in order to load up the thread with faulty, (unclear, and contridictory by the authors own admission), lenghthy arguments.

It might interest you to know that Frank Brushaber was an agent for a group of non-resident aliens, who was informed that they must file a 1040, and pay an income tax for the priviledge of working in the United States. But of course, why would someone include information that would destroy at least part of their argument? I can't imagine, can you?

BTW, the SC INTERPRETS the constitution, NOT re-interprets.

By the way, the IRS defines tax protestor as someone who files and the refuses to pay because of a grievance. That is their definition, not mine.

However, it has been used as a slur to lump legal challenges in with truly illegal claims.

It's comparable to me calling you a wetback because your name is Jose, and assuming you have no more legal rights than an illegal alien.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 29, 2001.

I will continue to cite every opinion by every judge that has rejected your flawed legal analysis. When I quote these legal decisions, it will be "someone elses(sic) opinion." With all due respect, I will defer to the written opinions in case law rather than your untested personal analysis of the constitution.

Perhaps you can show me one case where your legal thesis has prevailed. I'll settle for just one judgement saying a "direct tax" on personal income unconstitutional. In fact, the opposite is true. The same tired tax protest theories have been packaged and sold to unwitting consumers and time after time, these theories have been rejected. Unfortunately, the unwise consumers who bought your rhetoric have suffered.

What you are saying, Senor Kofe, is that all the judges cannot read the law and you can. You will forgive me if I find this less than convincing. When I read the law (not just the narrow twisting of the law to suit your purposes), I see that the U.S. government has established a legal authority to tax income. The 16th Amendment seems to make this very clear. This is not a single legal scholar of any repute who will dispute this point of law, only a handful of disgruntled citizens.

Since you live in a republic, you could change the current tax system. You need only convince a majority of Americans (and their elected representatives) to end the income tax. To change the system is the only equitable solution. Otherwise, you and the others who refuse to pay taxes are just taking advantage of those citizens who choose to comply with the law. Is this your moral high ground, Senor Kofe, to join the malingerers, shirkers, gold brickers, welfare "queens" and others who take from the State without shame.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), April 29, 2001.

Kofe, I do have a serious question, if I may.

Do you pay tax? If not, how did you get around it? Did you Ever pay taxes?

This IS a serious question, if you are being honest here with the posts, etc., then I really would like to know...do you practice what your preach?

Now, being that your email addy is a fake as well as your incognito name, to answer the question should not bring IRS down on you.

I am curious.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), April 29, 2001.

I have never stated that the 16th,or the power to tax incomes is unconstitutional. In fact the opposite is true. And that includes the IRS code.

My contention has been all along, that the code is being misapplied.

If you go back and look at my post, you can see that.

BTW, just finished reading (most of) Pollock V. Farmers T Trust Co. and Hylton v. U.S. - Fascinating

If you want to know what may constitute your own personal liability, that one could go a long way in explaining. I think it's safe to say, Jose, that I have been in this country longer than you, and have paid more taxes and SS than you probably ever will, and that I also would qualify for a disability if I will stop working and go on the dole, which I refuse to do, because I would become a burden to friends, family, and the state, not to mention my pride in being self sufficient.

Since the tax code is 2 million words long, along with case histories, the constitution, and SC rulings, surely there must be something you don't know that would leave room for doubt.

Sumer , to try and answer your question, I called ithe IRS and asked them politely and straight forward, -Before I file again; will you send me the law that indicates that I am liable? The answer- "Yes"

I'm still waiting for it. (Yes, Jose, I know ; we're gonna get you, blah, blah)

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 29, 2001.

If you don't pay your taxes, do you think the gubmint is gonna give you all of the money you've paid into Social Security when you retire?

-- (i @ doubt. it), April 29, 2001.

And there you go again, assigning taxes to me that I may or may not not be liable for.

I happen to know personally, a woman who worked for the government who, early on, was offered th option of contributing to SS or a government pension program.

She chose the pension program, proving again that SS is voluntary.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 29, 2001.

There you go again, putting words into other people's mouths. No one said you were liable for Social Security, asshole.

I was merely asking, if someone is in their 40's and 50's and has been paying SS all their lives, aren't they likely to lose that if they decide to quit paying taxes?

I'd bet that you've got a good bit invested in SS too from when you were younger before you decided to be a rebel, but you're too much in denial to admit it.

-- (have fun @ in. jail!), April 29, 2001.

Okay, I apoligize. Actually, I don't know if they do or not.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 29, 2001.

KoFE, you lovable old tax nut you! How the hell you doing. And, I see you've even found some new playmates.

Enjoy it while you can. Pretty soon they'll discover you've been doing this for years, posted these same posts over and over and over again, and that you've heard all the arguments they can make. You just don't believe in the 16th Amendment or the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), April 29, 2001.

Hi KoFE

Not going to get into the substance of the debate. Basically taxes are for the true welfare recipients of our country - that would be all the hogs that feed off the system - ie government bureacracies and the big multinational corportations they represent, in truth. We don't need 95% of it, and I do expect we won't have it much longer.

-- Iona (Iona@Hologram.net), April 30, 2001.

From Porter, the one who should know, we get nothing as usual.

Porter, did you take the government pension, or SS?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), April 30, 2001.

KoFE -- being self employed, I'd take either or both. Where do I get'em?

And, just because "enquiring minds want to know," do you really believe the BS you spout, or do you just like to see who you can hook and reel in on the net?

I mean, other than being a raving tax nut, you seem to be an otherwise OK person.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), April 30, 2001.

Senor Ortega must be an IRS Agent. Be careful or he'll get ya!

-- IRS sucks (IRSsucks@aol.com), May 02, 2001.