IRS 7 Treasury Decision 2313

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

I recall that a little while ago, in one of Porters more illuminating statements, he claimed that Federal laws in this country DO NOT have to conform to the U.S.Constitution. I suppose he thinks current fads are good enough to get by.(He says he's a lawyer, too)

Then there's Flint, who claims (still?) that one Constitutional Amendment could cancel another. I guess he figures it depends on what mood you are in. Or, whatever it takes to get the job done. Yeah, that's it.

But for now, Porter (the lawyer) can't find Treasury Decision 2313. So, I'm gonna help him. I'd bet the rent that he could find it if he thought it would prove me wrong, but what else can I expect?

This is for anyone who may be curious, not just these two automatons. I just expect more nonsense from these two.

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/TD2313.htm

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001

Answers

KoFE,

I know I'm going to hate myself, but........

Okay I went and read the document at the above address. Though i am not a lawyer, it appeared to be a ruling regarding interest and dividends earned by non-resident aliens and stating that such income is taxable as decided by some court case. So what? How does this imply that I (a resident citizen) DON'T have to pay income tax.

As I have not read all of the previous IRS Nos. posts perhaps I am missing something that would make this more relevent. At face value I don't see how this has any bearing on anything

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 06, 2001.


JBT, I appreciate the curteous response.

I apoligize for the fact that I can't provide a quick link, but this is the address for the "specific exemption under paragraph C.

This is what should appear:

Sec. 6654. "Failure by individual to pay estimated income tax."

Scroll about halfway down to "Exemptions" and read paragraph C

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/6654.html

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001.


Yes, for the record, I'm still of the incomprehensible opinion that amendments actually, like, amend things. I even think that's what they're for! Isn't that amazing.

And what does it mean to amend? The dictionary says it means to improve, correct, or revise. The Supreme Court agrees. If a document is corrected, the correction replaces whatever was corrected, in law and in fact. How novel!

Indeed, I'd never before encountered the idea that amendments don't actually correct what they correct, and that what got changed isn't actually changed. The courts don't accept this idea either. They all think amendments actually DO something, and that what they override becomes obsolete. Now, isn't that silly?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 06, 2001.


In that case Flint, there would be no need to repeal one, would there?

I don't recall any but the eighteenth being repealed, do you? (you should have waited for Porter to post first; he's a lawyer)

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001.


We amend the constitution whenever we change our mind. If we were perfect to begin with, and never needed to change our mind, then there never would be any amendments.

As for repealing, yes we have repealed things. I documented this on the other thread. The 12th Amendment repeals the Constitution's provision that the 2nd place finisher in the Presidential election become Vice President. This is a specific, explicit repeal of a prior constitutional provision. We completely changed our minds.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 06, 2001.



"This is a specific, explicit repeal of a prior constitutional provision."

You can't have it both ways, Flint.

Either it's valid, or it's been repealed. What's it going to be?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001.


KoFE:

Before the 12th amendment, Article II, Section 1, clause 3 of the Constitution was valid. After passage and approval of the 12th amendment, this earlier clause became invalid. It had been repealed, and replaced by a new procedure. The 2d place finisher isn't even "partially" Vice President anymore. The old procedure is gone.

That's how amendments work. I'm not trying to have anything "both ways", whatever you mean by that. Amendments become the new law of the land. Any conflict that might exist between prior law and the new amendment is *by definition* decided in favor of the new amendment. That's what amendments are for.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 06, 2001.


According to Black Law Dictionary:

Amendment. 1. A formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, or other instrument.

The answer to whether the 16th revised or added to the constitution was stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916) :

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

-- KoFE (Your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001.


BTW, I'd like to hear comments on that ruling above. -(Stanton )

If I'm misquoting, or it's entirely out of context, and irrelevant, I'd like to hear about it.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 06, 2001.


KoFE:

I genuinely don't know what point you are trying to drive at here. The 16th Amendment was meant (according to my understanding) to clarify and simplify what had become a very clumsy and roundabout mechanism. There was considerable confusion as to what was a direct or indirect tax, and there was the apportionment issue.

So the 16th amendment actually DID something. It cleared away the confusion caused by the various confusing opinions in the Pollock decision and simplified the entire matter by saying Congress can tax incomes without regard to any pre-existing strictures, either from the Constitution itself or from various decisions interpreting the tax clauses. It says Congress can now impose any income tax it wants without any restrictions or limitations of any kind at all.

So Stanton says the power to impose an income tax without apportionment does not add a new kind of tax -- that Congress had *always* had the power to tax incomes. The 16th Amendment simply lets Congress tax incomes however it sees fit.

There has been some terminology confusion, I agree. The court is trying not to make new law unnecessarily, and this can lead to some strange terms. They said (and you quote) in Stanton that by eliminating the apportionment requirement from income taxes, the 16th had effectively moved such taxes into the indirect tax classification (since these had had no apportionment requirements to begin with).

But beyond all this trivia, what is your point? Income taxes have always been constitutional and legal. The wording you quote is intended as a clarification of Brushaber, who had claimed (wrongly) that the 16th amendment gave Congress new powers to tax. The court is saying it did not do that, it simply made income taxes much easier to construct.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 06, 2001.



Ok KoFE,

I went to the Cornell site and found my way to paragraph (e) excpetions as follows:

(e) Exceptions (1) Where tax is small amount No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if the tax shown on the return for such taxable year (or, if no return is filed, the tax), reduced by the credit allowable under section 31, is less than $1,000. (2) Where no tax liability for preceding taxable year No addition to tax shall be imposed under subsection (a) for any taxable year if - (A) the preceding taxable year was a taxable year of 12 months, (B) the individual did not have any liability for tax for the preceding taxable year, and (C) the individual was a citizen or resident of the United States throughout the preceding taxable year.

What this says to me (remember this section is dealing with penalties for failure to pay estimated tax) is that if the preceding year was a taxable twelve month year (it would be different if you used a fiscal year for tax purposes than a calendar year I suppose) and you did not owe any tax in the preceding tax year and IF YOU WERE A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES THROUGHOUT THAT PRECEDING TAXABLE YEAR. Then you would owe no ADDITIONAL TAX OR PENALTY on the taxes that were due and payable that year even though you did not pay them as you should have.

What this says to me is that if you owed no tax last year but you owed tax this year but hadn't paid the tax you are given an exemption from the penalty or addition to the tax that is due and payable. Presumably this is granted to give you the tax payer a break from penalties because you had no tax liability in the prior year and may not have been aware of the tax liability that you were accruing in the current tax year. Seems too nice but reasonable I guess. However, it does not say that you owe NO tax for that tax year. You just get out of the penalty.

I still don't get what you are trying to say by citing these sources. They certainly do not say you don't have to pay taxes. Am I misinterpreting your sources or your position?

And these arguements with Flint over amendments and changes and the actual effect of an amendment to the Constitution. What's up with that? What you are saying is not making sense. I can see the attraction of trying to argue with Flint, but you are not doing it very well.

I admit that I am jumping in here kind of late in the game. I read most of the posts in IRS 1 & 2 but did not check in on the other threads. It was my understanding that your position was that we did not have to pay income taxes. This would be a position that I would love to support but I don't think it has any legal basis.

Since the IRS Nos. etc. etc. keep popping up I decided to check this out again. If I am missing your point let me know.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 07, 2001.


Stanton V. Baltic Mining is saying: "by the previous ruling"....

They are refering to Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co. wherein the SC ruled that since the provision of Article 1- requiring that direct taxes(on citizens) be apportioned were not repealed, they are still in affect. And that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen. Article 1 cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our law. So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself, the SC ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax

If you just look up the Brushaber decision and read it quickly it appears that the SC tells The US citizen (Brushaber) that the tax is constitutional and he has to pay it. It reads as if the citizen is being told by the Court that he has to pay the income tax. But, the fact is Frank Brushaber was the US agent for a group of foriegners who had stock in the Union Pacific RR.

Under the 16th, he (Brushabr) and the U. P. RR were both made withholding agents and were both ordered by the government to deduct, withhold, and pay over the income tax to the government, on the foriegners income from the stock.

Frank Brusaber filed this suit on behalf of his foriegn principles, who had no standing in the U.S. Courts. By that decision, essentially the SC was telling the Foriegners that it was a priviledge for them to earn income in the U.S. and that priviledged income was taxable without apportionment.

TD 2313 goes on to carify that, by informing IRS agents that income taxes are to be collected from nonresident aliens, while citizens are exempt, (if they meet the requirements of paragraph C.)

If these statutes and decisions don't exist, are misquoted, or taken out of context, I would appreciate it if someone would point it out.

If you read Paragraph C without automatically assuming YOU have lability for a taxable year, it becomes clear that the 16th is probably not talking about you.

(That is, unless you hae foreign earned income)

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 07, 2001.


This is getting too painful to watch anymore.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 07, 2001.

OK, here's my reading.

Brushaber was a test of the 16th Amendment. In order to escape the tax levied (on his clients), Brushaber made a very circuitous claim here, as follows:

1) There are two kinds of taxes, direct (taxes on wealth), and indirect (taxes on commerce).

2) An income tax was considered a tax on wealth, and not on commerce. It was thus a direct tax.

3) BUT, the Constitution said a direct tax must be apportioned (divided equally among the states), and the income tax was not apportioned.

4) Therefore, an income tax was neither direct (since it was not apportioned) nor indirect (since it was not a tax on commerce).

5) Therefore, this was a new kind of tax

6) BUT, clearly those who created the 16th Amendment did not intend to create a new kind of tax. And it could not be an older kind of tax, because if it were it would cause the Constituton to contradict itself.

7) Therefore, the 16th Amendment really didn't accomplish anything at all, and Brushaber's clients didn't owe these taxes after all!

The Supreme Court (of course) disagreed with this reasoning, and said that the 16th Amendment had simply classified an income tax as an indirect tax (a tax on commerce, which makes sense anyway). That amendment says Congress can henceforth tax incomes without any of the restrictons against direct taxes, since it is no longer a direct tax. And since Brushaber was trying to escape taxes according to the letter of restrictions that no longer applied, his claims were invalid and his clients owed that tax.

The rest of KoFE's argument about foreign nationals and residencies and old administrative directives is silly and irrelevant, brought in to obfuscate the constitutional issues and for no other reason. I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find some administrative directives creating isolated and limited exceptions of all kinds. But these are not constitutional principles in any way.

Meanwhile, the 16th Amendment means exactly what it says -- that Congress can levy an income tax without ANY of the restrictions applied to the category of "direct taxes".

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 2001.


fyi

The 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment. The 18th has not been stricken from the records.

-- (amendment@repeals.amendment), May 07, 2001.



Flint -- KoFE doesn't listen or doesn't care. What Stanton Mining and the rest of those cases around that period of time say is basically this:

1. Congress has a general power to tax. Congress can tax you, me, pigs, trees, incomes, or outhouses as it sees fit. This is the Constitution's § 8 of Article I power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises."

2.There are only three restrictions on federal taxing power, all of which relate to uniformity. The Founding Fathers did not want one section of the country to screw another over. Those limitations are the requirements of Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, that "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," Art. I, § 2, cl. 3, that "direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States" and of Art. I, § 9, cl. 4, that "no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."

3. Direct taxes must be apportioned between the states in proportion to a census. A direct tax is a tax on a specific object. Property taxes are a classic direct tax. This is why there is no Federal property tax. Such a tax would violate the approtionment rules, as South Dakota is worth a lot less than New York.

4. The line between what is and is not a direct tax has never been clearly defined. This was the subject of a lot of litigation around the turn of the century. The issue that went to the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429; 158 U.S. 601 dealt with corporate dividends. The Court (at the risk of over- simplifying) said that it was obvious that a tax on ownership of corporate stock was a direct tax which required apportionment. It then said that taxing corporate dividends was the same as taxing the ownership of the stock itself. The Pollock Decision's holding was basically that a tax on passive income from stock was essentially a direct tax on the stock itself, which required apportionment.

5. Rather than debate the subject, the Country passed Amendment 16. This held basically the following: if it's income, it can be taxed without apportionment; we don't give a shit whether it is or is not a "direct tax."

6. The statements in various cases at the time that the 16th Amendment created no new power to tax reflect responses to various tax-nuts and KoFE's of the day (he just thinks he's a new phenomenon; every argument he makes is at least 80 years old). The Court pointed out (correctly) that the power to tax incomes is provided by Article I, and the 16th amendment did not increase or decrease it. The 16th amendment merely removed the "apportionment" requirement.

7. It is also important that the Pollock decision dealt with passive income, i.e., stock dividends. There was no debate at the time that active income, i.e., business income from entrepreneurial activity, was taxable without apportionment.

8. As an aside, we are all used to the fact that congress generally does not employ "direct taxes," so we forget why this was important to the Founding Fathers. But, this is why we have no national property tax. This is also why South Dakota's legislators cannot successfully push for a national tax on (say) trees and ocean front footage -- an act that would (in the absence of the relevant constitutional provisions) result in a retaliatory move by California's legislators to push for a federal tax on grasslands and buffalo.

Hope this helps. KoFE won't get it, but as best as I can tell all he does is parrot the tax protest sites. He really doesn't seem to understand any of it.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 07, 2001.


Oh, Flint -- your comment that "there are two kinds of taxes, direct (taxes on wealth), and indirect (taxes on commerce). . . an income tax was considered a tax on wealth, and not on commerce [and] was thus a direct tax" is basically correct, but over simplified.

There was never a decision that all income taxes were "direct taxes." This is where the tax nuts frequently diverge from reality. The question at issue at the time was basically the difference between "active" and "passive" incomes, although they did not use those terms at the time -- those are contemporary. The question was - - if you could not tax a particular object without apportionment, to what extent could you tax the incidents of ownership; i.e., how far could you go without actually taxing the thing itself.

I doubt that a modern Court would agree, but the argument that a tax on passive income from an object is the same as taxing the object itself. The same argument was never seriously made regarding active income, such as income from wages.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 07, 2001.


And, to throw a bone to KoFE --

You ask:

"The answer to whether the 16th revised or added to the constitution was stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916) :

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited The answer to whether the 16th revised or added to the constitution was stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 249 US 112 (1916)"

"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."

************************************

Yes, that quote from Stanton Mining is absolutely, positively correct and is still good law. And it means that, absolutely and positively, Congress has a "complete and plenary power of income taxation," which, since it can now not be "taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged," means that Congress does not have to worry about whether a tax on a particular type of income is "direct," must be apportioned, or anything else to levy an income tax.

In other words, after the 16th Amendment, all those messy limitations on "direct taxation" were rendered moot, and Congress can now tax your income whenever and wherever it desires.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 07, 2001.


I know I'm not the only one who is familiar with tactics of disinformation.

Rule no. 5 Associate opponents with unpoulat titles such as kooks, right wing, liberal, left wing, terrorist, conspiracy buffs, radcals, militia, racist, etc.

Rule no. 6 Hit and run.In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.

Rule no 9 Play dumb. No matter what evidence orlogical argument is offered, avoid dscussing issues with denial have any credibilty, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have any logic,or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Rule no !0 Associate opponents charges with old news.

As I said, Porter thinks federal laws don't have to adhere to the Constitution. You can use your favorite Amendment however it suits you. If you like one, and it conflicts another, just ignore it.

Ifyou can't explain Sec 6654.Paragraph C., just ignore that too.

And- TD2313

How did that go? "I'm sure there have been other decisions since that nullified that old one?" LOL

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 07, 2001.


This shit is getting real old. *yawn*

-- nunya (nun@ya.biz), May 07, 2001.

E.H. Porter:

OK, thanks for the clarification. I hadn't wondered about apportionment before, but what you say makes sense. Until at least some time after the Civil War, there were antagonistic blocks of states with distinct economic interests. Indeed, one of the factors that triggered the Civil War was that the addition of new states was bound to upset the delicate balance in Congress. The battle over Kansas was bitter, and made it clear to the South that slavery's profitability was not going to be portable, so they were doomed to be an outvoted minority in Congress forever unless they broke free to go their own way.

I'm sure that without the Constitutional safeguards you mention, the situation would have been much worse, and triggered a civil war much sooner. The costs of losing the resulting taxation battles would have been too high.

I wonder if such concerns carry as much force today as at the time? Somehow I doubt it -- originally, the states were the soverigns, and the US was just a federation of them for convenience. Even in the Civil War, each outfit represented a state and not a nation. Today, states have mostly become administrative jurisdictions, and state lines have quaint unimportant historical origins but don't mean that much. All commerce is interstate commerce by now, and I think we realize that punishing any state(s) at the benefit of others is a poor idea.

So today, the concern isn't with *how* we pay taxes, as with how much tax we end up paying in one form or another. It may all be proper and legal, but it seems awful high...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 07, 2001.


KoFE -- as I've said before, I really don't understand what you're saying. You say:

Ifyou can't explain Sec 6654.Paragraph C., just ignore that too. And- TD2313

TD2313 is a 1916 ruling. It refers to something called "Paragraph C" I must admit that I do not have easy access to a copy of the 1916 tax code. Why do you think that the "paragraph C" you keep talking about has any relationship to "Sec 6654.Paragraph C" in the current code?

And, more importantly, why do you think that "paragraph C" from the 1916 version of the tax code is relvant to anything at all.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 07, 2001.


When I started this debate, I had no idea that I would have to de-program the people I debate with.

A lawyer who doesn't know repealed from valid.

Rule no. 8 Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" or "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows" and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 08, 2001.


It's like a horrible train wreck! I really don't WANT to watch....but yet, I just cannot look away!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 08, 2001.

Hey, Uncle Deedah -- Hey, KoFE:

I just gotta love it. Brave KoFE, intrepid defender of truth, has just cracked the secret conspiracy. He is the first person on the planet to figure out that a reference in a 1916 treasury decision on taxation of non-resident aliens to a "Paragraph C" really refers to section 6654, Paragraph C in the current income tax code (first enacted on August 16, 1954, or about 38 years later) dealing with failure to pay estimated tax.

By effectively proving that the IRS invented time travel at least as far back as 1916, he explains the awful and awe inspiring power of that agency AND BLOWS THE LID OFF THE WHOLE TERRIBLE INCOME TAX CONSPIRACY.

I guess Flint and I are just going to face it. The jig is up. The game is over. KoFE knows now; nothing can stop him. Our evil plan of disinformation has FAILED!!!! The New World Order and I are already planning to convert our businesses from world domination to cookie manufacturing and marketing.

Oh, and KoFE -- next time you visit the Cornell Law School web site version of the U.S. Code, try clicking on the "notes" section. It will tell you when the statute in question was enacted. Geez, guy -- being delusional is cute, but being incompetent is just down right embarrassing.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 08, 2001.


Rule no. 5 Associate opponents with unpoulat titles such as kooks, right wing, liberal, left wing, terrorist, conspiracy buffs, radcals, militia, racist, etc.

If the shoe fits...

that goes for the rest of those rules too.

-- (shoe@fits.well), May 08, 2001.


So you admit that Brushaber was about Nonresident aliens.

Now we're finally getting somewhere. Go back to IRS 6 and eat your words.

BTW, I wouldn't celebrate soon.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 08, 2001.


KoFE:

I think you have a somewhat different problem at this point. Anyone who has bothered to read this thread now knows all there is to know about Brushaber -- the precedents to it, the subsequent cases, the litigants, the arguments, the decision, the reasoning, and the entire shebang.

This means nobody will be fooled by the same doubtletalk any more, if anyone ever was. You will have to find a new schtick. Otherwise you become boring.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 08, 2001.


KoFE -- being a tax nut is cute here on the Internet. Being a dumb tax nut, however, is unforgivable. Couldn't you at least bother to read the B.S. you claim to quote?

For the record, if anyone cares: Treasury Decision 2313 is about non- resident aliens. Brushaber v. Union Pacific does not contain the words "non-resident" or "alien" in its text. Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad who didn't think he had to pay income taxes on his stock dividends. The case does not specify, but given it was an appeal from the Southern District of New York, I'd say Brushaber was a New Yorker.

Now, on the other hand, I'd suppose some would claim that a New Yorker is an alien of some sort or the other.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 08, 2001.


It's you who's not fooling any one. You have an annoying habit of posting bullshit and declaring yourself a winner; then when I call your bluff, you can't back it up.

You have posted absolutely nothing to validate your claim. Nothing, but your personal opinion. Slurs, and guesswork don't make your case, jackass. Pssssst, hey Flint; just hit the "back" key.

-- KoFE (Your@town.USSA), May 08, 2001.


Surreal! Even the mindless insults sound cribbed from some parroted source and not understood. What's amusing is that these copied insults describe KoFE's behavior with such unerring accuracy, and nobody else's. But that's the risk you run when you don't understand what you're posting.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 08, 2001.

KoFE -- just read Brushaber v. Union Pacific. The cite is 240 U.S. 1, 60 L. Ed. 493, 36 S. Ct. 236.

You tell me what it says.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 08, 2001.


Frank Brushaber was a withholding agent for a group of nonresident aliens. He filed suit on their behalf. The court is telling him he has to pay the income tax imposed on the nonresident aliens. That's what the ruling is about. But the IRS uses it to imply that the court was talking to Joe citizen.

The Stanton decision is refering to Brushaber, and saying that it "conferred no new power" to Congress, but allowed income tax without apportionment, which it had always been able to do.

Yes, it could; but to who? Not to citizens, because it would violate the article 1.clause of direct tax.

So, one amendment does not conflict with another, and they are both valid if applied correctly.

If Frank Brushaber was not a withholding agent, then I have no case.

If he was, then TD 2313 takes on a new meaning.

I'll assume you are correct(for now) about paragraph C, although I would look to see if it existed then also, or something similar.

I'm not claiming some evil conspiracy. I'm saying that it's being taken out of context, and misapplied thru ignorance. Why this draws such a lynch mob, I can't figure out, but it's been educational.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 08, 2001.


KoFE -- I'm just curious now. I've given up arguing. But, what in the merry hell makes you think your statements as following is true:

**************************** "Frank Brushaber was a withholding agent for a group of nonresident aliens. He filed suit on their behalf. The court is telling him he has to pay the income tax imposed on the nonresident aliens. That's what the ruling is about." ****************************

Have you actually READ the damned case? The actual decision describes Brushaber as "a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company [who] filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of October 3, 1913."

There is absolutely nothing in the text of the opinion that relates to aliens -- non-resident, space, or otherwise.

If you really don't have the internet search skills to find a copy of the decision, I can post one for you here. I use www.versuslaw.com and www.westlaw.com to review this material, but I am not sure that would be of use to you as those are both fee based services.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.


Hey Porter,

Be careful with that NWO stuff, okay?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 09, 2001.


Nonresident alien is a term the IRS uses to describe people who are not citizens who work in this country. Their income is the subject of the tax code. They, and U S citizens earning foreign income, are liable because of our tax treaties with other countries.

Brushaber is representing nonresident alien stockholders, because they have no standing in the court. He is a withholding agent.

As I said, if you read Brushaber without background information, it appears that the SC is telling him (as Joe citizen) that yes, he has to pay the income tax, because Congress has always had the power to tax incomes without apportionment.

That is why Stanton says it was ruled in (Brushaber) that the 16th "conferred no new power of taxation", but confirmed that congress could tax incomes without apportionment. (foreign earned income fits in this category) (a direct tax on citizens doesn't)

That is why there is no direct mandate written in the code that actually commands the citizen to pay an income tax. BTW, I'm seeing evidence that Sec. 6654 was in the earlier code also. And it doesn't say quarterly, but estimated tax, which is what you pay when you file a 1040.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 09, 2001.


KoFE -- other than that you read it on some tax nut web site somewhere, why do you think Brushaber was a "withholding agent?" The Supreme Court says he was a stockholder. And, it's pretty clear that the Supreme Court did not limit its holding to aliens.

Did you read the case yet?

And where did you get that B.S. about aliens "not having standing." Aliens -- both resident and non-resident -- sue in U.S. Courts all the time. The Constitution, Article III, Section 2, specifically provides for suits by "foreign States, citizens or subjects."

Indeed, the contrary is true. No one, ever, has had standing to sue for another other than in a stated represented capacity. This is called the "real party in interest" rule, currently codified in Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 17(a)("every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest").

Thus, if Brushaber had been sueing on behalf of someone else, the case would have been titled "Larry Limey and Francis Frog, by Brushaber as agent . . ." or "Brushaber as withholding agent for Larry Limey and Francis Frog . . ." Since the case was titled Brushaber v. Union Pacific, Brushaber was representing Brushaber and Brushaber alone.

Keep trying KoFE -- but I greatly fear that your knowledge of the American legal system is so limited that you never will be able to do anything more constructive than parrot what you read on tax web sites. What was it that P.T. Barunum said was "born every minute?"

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.


By the way, KoFE -- your comment that "And it doesn't say quarterly, but estimated tax, which is what you pay when you file a 1040" is of some significance.

Most people who've paid taxes for any period of time knows this is not true. Anyone with any significant self employment or investment income knows it as well. Estimated taxes are due at least quarterly and are generally paid with form 1040ES. (by the way, wage withholding didn't start until about 1943).

This is a really basic mistake, KoFE. It indicates you don't know the first thing about even the current tax system, much less the system in effect in 1913 or 1916. My guess is that you're under 25 years old, are a student or work in a dead-end, low wage job, or both. Even as for a "tax nut" you're displaying a surprising amount of ignorance. Go find yourself a good "tax nut" web site. If you're going to make a bad argument, at least you could learn enough about the subject so that you don't look like a total fool when you do so.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.


I don't have a problem admitting mistakes. If I'm wrong. The statement I made about them not having standing in the court could be a mistake, or a technical error. Either you are entirely correct, or in this case the law was different at that time, or Brushaber himself filed the suit that way for a technical reason.

TD 2313 provides evidence that nonresident aliens were affected by the ruling.

And, of course I don't know all there is to know about the law. But then there are some things you obviously don't either.

Such as: Section 6654 Paragraph C If citizens are exempt from filing an estimated "quaterly",(although the word "quaterly" does not appear in Paragraph C ) then there should be no penalty for not doing so, Porter. And yet the IRS will penalize you for not doing so. Which tax nut website told you to file quaterly?

I'm willing to prove what I said or admit that I'm wrong. My basic claim is Brushaber was acting as a withholding agent for nonresident aliens. One strong point of reference is TD 2313. Maybe you ought to read it again.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 09, 2001.


And so, KoFE, this thread forms a complete circle -- As Jack said in the first Answer posted:

"Okay I went and read the document at the above address. Though i am not a lawyer, it appeared to be a ruling regarding interest and dividends earned by non-resident aliens and stating that such income is taxable as decided by some court case. So what? How does this imply that I (a resident citizen) DON'T have to pay income tax."

"As I have not read all of the previous IRS Nos. posts perhaps I am missing something that would make this more relevent. At face value I don't see how this has any bearing on anything"

With regard to Brushaber -- the Supreme Court said he was a stockholder. You don't believe the Supreme Court and think he was a "withholding agent" for a bunch of unnamed aliens. I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court justices involved were there at the time and I have no reason to believe they were lying in their opinion.

Well, that's what I always want to find out -- why you believe this nonsense. Now I know.

And, of course, the question you still have not answered -- have you actually read the Brushaber decision? It's long, but I can post it here in full text if you want me to.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.


Oh, and KoFE -- your grasp of even modern tax law is extremely poor. There is no penalty for failure to file quarterly. There is a penalty for underwithholding. Proper quarterly filings can prevent an underwithholding penalty (assuming the proper amount of estimated tax is paid), but failure to file quartely will not necessarily result in underwithholding.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.

E.H.

Please post the decision or at least a link so there can be no question about what it says. Maybe then there will be an end to Unk's torture.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 09, 2001.


Jack -- since I used a fee based citation service, I've had difficultly locating a "public domain" version of the Brushaber decision. I hesitate to post it full text here, because it's really long, and really really boring. But, I think I've found something; See if this works:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 09, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ