The Fourth Tax Reimbursement Argument is a statement that the imposition of US federal income taxes is illegal because of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads "The Congress shall have the power to lay down and collect taxes on income, from any source which originated, without sharing among some States, and without regard to any census or enumeration ", never ratified properly, or that the amendment does not provide power for tax income. The exact ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment is disputed by taxpayers who argue that the text quoted by the Amendment is different from the text put forward by Congress, or that Ohio is not a State during ratification. The legislation of ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment has been rejected in every court case in which they have been raised and have been illegally identified lawfully.
Some protesters argue that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is not effective for changing the law. Others argue that because the language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , income tax is an unconstitutional direct tax that must be shared (shared among people from different states). Some tax protesters claimed that Congress lacked the constitutional power to impose labor taxes or income from labor, citing various court cases. These arguments include claims that the word "income" as used in the Sixteenth Amendment can not be construed as an application to wages; that wages are not income because labor is exchanged for them; that tax wages violate individual rights to property, and some others. Another argument put forward is that because federal income taxes are progressive, the discrimination and inequalities created by taxes must make unconstitutional taxes under the 14th Amendment, which ensures equal protection under the law. Such arguments have been ruled unconditionally on the basis of contemporary jurisprudence.
Video Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments
Ratification of the 16th Amendment
Many tax shooters argue that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States has never been properly ratified (see, for example, Devvy Kidd).
The "non-ratification" argument was given by defendant James Walter Scott in the 1975 case of the United States v. Scott , about sixty-two years after the ratification. In Scott, the defendant - who calls himself "the leader of the national tax resistance" - was convicted of a deliberate failure to file a federal income tax refund for 1969 to 1972, and that conviction was upheld by the US Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit. In the 1977 case of Ex Tam Tame , the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas recorded testimony in this case that taxpayer Bob Tammen has been involved with a group called "United Tax Action Patriot", the group taking the position "that the Sixteenth Amendment is passed incorrectly and therefore invalid". The specific issue of validity of the Amendment's ratification is not filed or decided by the court in the case of Tammen .
After the Scott and Tammen decisions, two lines of court cases were finally developed. The first case group relates to the claims of William J. Benson, co-author of The Law That Never Was (1985). The second line of the case involves the notion that Ohio was not a state in 1913 at the time of ratification.
Benson's opposition
William J. Benson's opinion is essentially that the legislature of various countries passed a ratification of the resolution in which the text of the quotation of the Amendment differs from the text put forward by Congress in terms of capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation (eg, non-comatose spots) , and that these differences make the ratification invalid. Benson makes other assertions including claims that one or more states reject the Amendment and that the wrong state or country is reported to have ratified the Amendment. As explained below, Benson's argument has been rejected in every court case in which they have been raised, and explicitly decides to be fraudulent in 2007.
Benson argues that in Kentucky, the legislature acted on the basis of an amendment without receiving it from the governor, and that the state governor was to submit proposed amendments to the state legislature. Benson also argues that the amendment version made by the Kentucky legislature and acted to remove the words "income" from the text, and therefore the legislature does not even vote on income tax. Benson insisted that once this error was corrected, the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment, though Philander Knox considers Kentucky to have approved it.
Benson also argued that in Oklahoma, the legislature changed the words of the amendment so that the meaning was almost the exact opposite of what Congress meant, and that this was the version they sent back to Knox. Benson alleges that Knox considers Oklahoma to have approved it, despite a memo from his principal legal adviser, Reuben Clark, that the state is not allowed to change the proposal in any way.
Benson argues that lawyers studying this subject have agreed that Kentucky and Oklahoma should not count as approval by Philander Knox, and that if a country can be proven to have violated its own constitution or state law in its approval process, then the consent should be discarded.
The earliest reported case of the trial in which Benson's argument was actually raised seemed to be the United States v. Wojtas and United States v. House . Benson testified in case House did not work. The Benson Competition is comprehensively addressed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States v. Thomas :
Thomas is a tax protester, and one of his arguments is that he does not have to file tax returns because the sixteenth changes are not part of the constitution. It was not properly ratified, Thomas insisted, repeating arguments W. Benson & amp; M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman reviewed documents relating to state ratification of the sixteenth amendment and concluded that only four countries ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insisted that the official ruling of the amendment by State Secretary Knox in 1913 therefore did not apply.
Benson and Beckman found nothing; they rediscovered what Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight countries ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent an official ratification instrument to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notifies the Secretary verbally, and additional states are ratified later, we consider only those that Knox's Secretary considers.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. Others contain diction errors, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text of the Congress sent to states is: "The Congress shall have the power to deposit and collect taxes on income, from any source originating, without sharing among some States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many instruments are neglected to exploit the "State", and some use other words instead. Instruments from Illinois have "rewards" in lieu of "enumeration"; instruments from Missouri replace "levy" to "lie down"; instruments from Washington have "revenues" not "income"; others make similar mistakes.
Thomas insisted that since the states did not approve the exact same text, the amendment did not apply. Secretary Knox considered this argument. State Department attorneys compiled a list of errors in the instrument and - taking into account both the apostasy of irregularities and the treatment of previous amendments that had encountered greater problems - suggested the Secretary that he was authorized to declare amendments adopted. The secretary did it. Although Thomas urges us to take the view of some state courts that only the agreement on a literal text can make legal documents effective, the Supreme Court follows the "registered bill rule". If the legislative document is authenticated in the usual form by the appropriate official, the court will treat the document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark , 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The same principle applies to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett , 258 A. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats it as a conclusive declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment has been adopted. In United States v. Foster , 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir 1986), we rely on Leser, as well as the inconsistency in facing the acceptance of 73 years of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to refuse to claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller , 307 AS 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about the ratification of amendments may be unfair). Knox's secretary stated that quite a number of countries have ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not flawed in a transparent way. We do not have to decide when, if ever, such a decision can be reviewed to know that Knox's Secretary's decision is now beyond review.
Benson did not succeed with the Sixteenth Amendment argument when he had his own legal problem. He was charged for tax evasion and a deliberate failure to file tax returns. The Court rejected the 16th "non-ratification" Amendment argument in the United States v. Benson . William J. Benson was convicted of tax evasion and intentional failure to file tax returns in respect of more than $ 100,000 of unreported revenue, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. He was sentenced to four years in prison and five years probation.
On December 17, 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Benson's non-ratification argument was "Benson's fraud" that had "caused unnecessary confusion and wasted time for customers and the IRS" and resources. " The Court declared: "Benson has failed to show evidence that would create a fully contested fact about whether the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified properly or whether American citizens were legally obliged to pay federal taxes." The court ruled that "Benson's position is groundless and he has using his fraudulent tax advice to deceive other citizens and take advantage of him "by violating 26 USCÃ, § 6700. The Court granted the order under 26 USCÃ,§ 7408 forbidding Benson promoting the theories in Benson's" Relief Package Defense "(which contains arguments non-ratification), which the court referred to as se like "false suggestions and cheating on federal tax payments."
Benson appealed the decision, and the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit also ruled against Benson. The Court of Appeal stated:
Benson knows or has reason to know that his statements are false or cheating. 26 U.S.C. [section] 6700 (a) (2) (A). Benson's claim has found that the Sixteenth Amendment not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.... Benson knows that his claim that he can rely on his book to prevent the federal prosecution is just as wrong as his attempts to rely on his book in his own criminal case are ineffective.
The Court of Appeals also ruled that the government may order Benson to divert its customer list to the government. Benson filed a petition to the United States Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on 30 November 2009.
In Stubbs v. Commissioner , Charles Stubbs argues that he has no Federal income tax liability because the Sixteenth Amendment has not been ratified properly. The Court rejected the argument, stating: "we find Stubbs 'argument selfless, State notification which has ratified the amendment binding on the Secretary of State, and its official ratification certification is conclusive in the courts.... Stubbs' statement of fraudulent behavior on the part of the Secretary of State in ratification ratification does not eliminate the decision of the Secretary of this conclusive effect. "The same Fourteenth Amendment argument has been uniformly rejected by other United States Circuit Courts in other cases including Sisk v. Commissioner ; United States v. Sitka ; and the United States v. Stahl . The non-ratification argument is specifically regarded as frivolous in Brown v. Commissioner ; Lysiak v. Commissioner ; and Miller v. United States .
Ohio statehood
Another argument made by some tax protesters is that because the United States Congress did not pass the official proclamation (Pub L. 204) recognize the date 1803 entered Ohio to the state until 1953 (see Ohio State: 1803-present), Ohio not the state until 1953 and therefore the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified properly. The most rapidly reported court case in which this argument is presented seems to be Ivey v. United States , about sixty-three years after ratification and 173 years after Ohio's recognition as a state. This argument was rejected in the case of Ivey , and was uniformly rejected by the court. See also McMullen v. United States , McCoy v. Alexander , Lorre v. Alexander , McKenney v. Blumenthal and Knoblauch v. Commissioner . Furthermore, even if the ratification of Ohio is invalid, the Amendment is ratified by 41 other countries, far exceeding 36 required for ratifying it properly.
Dalam Baker v. Commissioner , pengadilan menyatakan:
The Petitioner's Theory [that Ohio was not a state until 1953 and that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified correctly] was based on the imposition of the Pub. L. 204, ch. 337, 67 Stat. 407 (1953) deals with the Ohio Reception to the Union. As the legislative history of the Act is increasingly clear, the aim is to resolve the burning debate over the exact date at which Ohio became one of the United States. S. Rept. No. 720 to accompany H.J. Res. 121 (Pub L. 204), 82d Cong. 2d Sess. (1953). We have been cited for unauthorized denoting that Ohio became a country slower than March 1, 1803, regardless of Pub. L. 204.
The argument that the Sixteenth Amendment is not ratified and the variation of this argument has been formally identified as a recklessly federal tax return for fiscal income tax purposes of $ 5,000 imposed under the Internal Revenue Code 6702 (a). The United States continues to recognize 1803 as the date when Ohio became a state, President Thomas Jefferson had signed, on February 19, 1803, a Congressional act that approved the boundaries of Ohio and proposed a state constitution. The resolution of this recognition signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953 recognizes March 1, 1803, as the date of acceptance of Ohio to the Union.
Maps Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments
The Effectiveness of the Sixteenth Amendment
Revoke clause
Some protesters argue that because the Sixteenth Amendment does not contain the words "repeal" or "repealed", the Amendment is not effective for changing the law. According to legal commentator Daniel B. Evans:
Nothing in the Constitution states that an amendment shall specifically withdraw any other provision of the Constitution. In fact, there are 27 amendments to the Constitution, and only one of them specifically revokes the previous provisions. (The 21st Amendment, which ended the Prohibition, specifically canceled the 18th Amendment, which initiated the Prohibition.) If this argument is true, then the defeated presidential candidate will be the vice president of the United States, because the 12th Amendment does not explicitly revoke Article II, Part 1, paragraph 3 of the Constitution. And the Senator will still be elected by the state legislature, because the 17th Amendment does not explicitly revoke any part of Article I, section 3, of the Constitution.
In Buchbinder v. Commissioner , the taxpayers cite the case of Eisner v. Macomber and argues that "The Sixteenth Amendment must be interpreted so as not to 'revoke or modify' the original Article of the Constitution". The United States Tax Court rejected it and all other arguments by Bruce and Elaine Buchbinder (the taxpayer-payers), declared: "We will not dress up frivolous protesters with a cloak of honor... We find that petitioners in matters this has been pursuing the cause of reckless acts.We found that they were responsible for fines in the amount of $ 250.00 under [Internal Revenue Code] section 6673. "The actual statement by the United States Supreme Court at Eisner v. Macomber is that the Sixteenth Amendment "shall not be renewed by loose construction, so as to withdraw or modify, except as applied to income , the provisions of the Constitution which require a population-based division for direct taxes on property, real and personal... Therefore, in order for clauses cited from Article I of the Constitution may have appropriate force and effect, except only amended by the Amendment ... it becomes important to distinguish between what and what is not 'income'. "
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
In Parker v. Commissioner , tax protester Alton M. Parker, Sr., opposed the taxation of individual income, based on the language of the US Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. , which states that the Sixteenth Amendment "does not grant new taxation powers, but only prohibits the complete and complete income taxes previously possessed by Congress from the outset not to be included in the indirect tax category that belongs to him." The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Parker's argument, stating that Parker's proposition "is only partially true, and in its critical aspect, is incorrect". The Court of Appeal reaffirms that Congress has the power to impose income tax, and declares that the Sixteenth Amendment "only omits the requirement that income tax be directly shared among countries". The court ruled that Parker had filed a "reckless" appeal.
Tax protesters argue that in light of this language, income taxes are unconstitutional because it is a direct tax and that taxes must be shared (shared among residents from different states).
The language quoted above at Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is not a legal rule in this case. (Compare Ratio decidendi, Precedent, Stare decisis, and Obiter dictum for a more complete explanation.)
The language quoted about "complete complete strength of the taxation of income held by Congress from the beginning" is a reference to the powers granted to Congress by the original text of Article I of the US Constitution. The reference to "derived from the indirect tax category to which it [income tax] belongs" refers to the effect of the Decision of the Courts of 1895 at Pollock v. Farmers Loans & amp; Trust Co. Where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) - which, like taxes on income from labor, are always considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the rules of distribution) - are, in 1895, was treated as a direct tax. The Sixteenth Amendment rejects the Pollock effect, making the source of income irrelevant with respect to the rules of distribution, and thereby placing taxes on income from the property back into the indirect tax category such as income from labor. (The Sixteenth Amendment states that Congress has the power to impose income tax regardless of source of income, without division among states, and regardless of census or enumeration).
The court noted that the case "was initiated by the applicant [John R. Stanton] as a shareholder of the Baltic Mining Company, referred to as appellee, to order [that is, to prevent] voluntary payments by the company and its officers from taxes deemed to be against it under the income tax section from the tariff action of October 3, 1913 ". On a direct appeal from the court, the US Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision, which has rejected Stanton's motion (ie, has rejected Stanton's request) for a court order to prevent the Baltic Mining Company from paying income tax.
Stanton argues that the tax law is unconstitutional and nullified by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution because it denies "for mining companies and their shareholders the same legal protection and withdrawal [d] their property without due process of law". The court rejected the argument. Stanton also argues that the Sixteenth Amendment "only passes an overwhelming direct income tax without division, whose taxes do not fit" and therefore the income tax "is not within the authority of the Amendment." The court also rejected this argument. Thus, the US Supreme Court, in enforcing the constitutionality of income tax under the 1913 Act, contradicts the arguments of tax protesters that the income tax is unconstitutional either under the Fifth Amendment or the Sixteenth Amendment.
Summary
According to the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress, as many as forty-two states have ratified the amendment.
Tax lawyer Alan O. Dixler writes:
Every year some perverted souls refuse to pay their federal income tax obligations on the theory that the 16th Amendment has never been ratified properly, or on the theory that the 16th Amendment has no possible clause. Not surprisingly, neither the IRS nor the courts show patience for such a thing. If, strictly for the purpose of this discussion , the 16th Amendment is negligible, the taxpayer making such a reckless claim will still be subject to income tax. In the first place, income from personal services may be taxed without share without the existence of the 16th Amendment. Pollock specifically supports Springer who thinks that revenue can be taxed without share. The second Pollock Decision canceled all 1894 income taxes, including taxes on personal service income, due to inseverability; but, unlike the 1894 action, the current code contains the terms of separateness. Also, given the teachings of Graves [ v. New York ex rail. O'Keefe , 306 US 466 (1939)] - that the theory that taxing income from a particular source, in essence, weighs on the source itself is untenable - holding at Pollock is the same as burdening the property because it can not be considered a good law.
In Abrams v. Commissioner , the United States Tax Court states: "Due to the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, it is not material in respect of income taxes, whether taxes are direct or indirect taxs.The overall objective of the Sixteenth Amendment is to exempt all income taxes when imposed from [ requirements] division and from [requirements] the consideration of the source from which the income came. "
See also
- The taxpayer constitutional argument
- Taxpayer history in the United States
- Tax resilience
Note
References
- "The Truth About Tax Concern Argument" (PDF) . Internal Revenue Service. 2014-12-01 . Retrieved 2016-03-02 .
- Sussman, Bernard J. (1999-08-29). "Argument of Idiot Law". Anti Defamation League . Retrieved 2008-03-04 . Ã,
- "Tax Shooter". Quatloos . Retrieved 2008-03-04 .
- Evans, Dan (2007-07-19). "Tax Protester FAQ" . Retrieved 2008-03-04 .
- Danshera Ropes, Tax and Punishment Protests: Ensuring Perceived Intelligence and Mitigation of Systemic Costs , 2005 B.Y.U.L. Rev 1515 (2005).
- Kenneth H. Ryesky, Taxes and Duties: Taxing Systems with Obligations of Public Employee Taxes , 31 Akron L. Rev. 349 (1998).
- Christopher S. Jackson, "The Inane Gospel of Tax Protest: Resist Rendering Unto Caesar - Whatever the Request", 32 Gonzaga Law Review 291-329 (1996-97).
- Allen D. Madison, "The Void of the Opposing Arguments of Taxes," 36 Thomas Jefferson's Law Review 253 (Vol 36, No. 2, Spring 2014).
External links
- Tax Protester FAQ - specific answer to the ratification of the 16th amendment
- The Truth About Tax Concern Arguments - The official response from the IRS.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments