Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR. Co. 240 S 1 (1916)

The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4, BOTH specify that direct taxes must be APPORTIONED.

The Court ruled that:

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporate Excise tax of 19099 (36 Statute 112). - The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors- merely an equal exchange of funds for services".

"...the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source 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 impost, subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class."

And:

..Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone..."

Since the income tax is "without apportionment" by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment, it cannot be a direct tax, because direct taxes MUST still be apportioned. So, the income tax is still an indirect tax.

According to the SC, the 16th does nothing except move the income tax out of the INDIRECT classification of duties(imposed on foreign imports). and into the indirect classification of excises (imposed on priviledges and commodities).

But it is still an indirect tax, not a direct tax without apportionment, as deceptively claimed by the IRS.

The Brushaber decision concludes by referring the reader, for the definition of excise taxes, to the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.(1911) decision, handed down five years earlier.

If you look this case up and read it, you will see that the SC tells Frank Brushaber(an American citizen) that the tax IS constitutional (as an indirect excise) and that he has to pay it (the income tax). The IRS relies on, and cites this Court ruling, as absolute proof that the income tax is constitutional, and they are right; However, F.B., a citizen, filed ths law suit on behalf of his foreign principles, from whom he was required to deduct and withhold income tax as their(the foreigners) withholding agent.

First sentence, first paragraph provides a reference to this:

"..the appellant(a party who appeals a lower courts decision) filed his bill to enjoin (to legally prohibit or restrain) the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913"

And Treasury Decision 2313 shows the orders that resulted within the IRS as a result of his SC decision.

This is a case about the taxation of Foreigners.

-----------------------------------------------------

I made a mistake in IRS 7 by linking Sec. 6654 to TD 2313. However, by looking more closely at the tax code, I began to see what others have been saying; that there is no actual, lawful statute requiring the filing of a 1040 or paying of income tax by US citizens, unless they are withholding agents for foreigners, or they (citizens) are earning income from foreign countries. This is reflected in the code.

We have been lead to believe that the tax code is "speaking" to US-(the average citizen) when we read it, because we have been told by those we trust that it's true.

When you read it, you see the phrases throughout- "when required, taxable income, taxpayer, when liable, individuals who are liable, etc. BUT no where in the code can it be shown that YOU-AVERAGE CITIZEN, MUST PAY AN INCOME TAX.

If it were so, it would be absolutely clear, in no uncertain terms.

But it does not name citizens, because to do so, would violate Article 1.

Put US tax code in a search engine; and then click on Subtitle A- Income TAX and look for your specific command to file. If you find it, please come back and tell me.

Next, click on Subtitle C Employment taxes. Yes, you must file -IF YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE VOLUNTARY SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM.- which has been proven to be voluntary.

Next, I suggest a repeat visit to the sites referenced by Flint, and Jose, like "What the justice department thinks of tax protestors" etc. Notice the complete absence of lawful statutes which direct without a doubt, you the citizen to file. If there was one, you can be sure it would be THERE in bold print.

What we see instead are propaganda, slurs, and innuendo.

I'll bump Joses' treat back up to new answers, so you can take a look.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 14, 2001

Answers

If anyone really wants to read the Brushaber decision, the cite is http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html. Decide for yourself.

Much of what KoFE quotes above is not from the opinion itself, but from the arguments of Brushaber's counsel, which were rejected by the court. What is quoted from the opinion is taken out of context.

Even if you are a current or aspiring tax nut, don't take KoFE to seriously. He's a "snip kiddy" -- he cuts and pastes from tax protest web sites, but has no real understanding of the tax code (past or present), or anything else about the issue. For the most part, he does not appear to even read the material he quotes in context until comeone calls him on it and provides him with a cite to it.

If you want to go the tax nut route, at least find a web site where the author has spent some time studying the tax code.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 14, 2001.

Porter, you will come back and post the statute that shows citizens are liable, won't you?

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 14, 2001.

EH:

It is nice of you to provide intelligent responses. But, I am sure that you know that everyone here ignores KoFE. He is to tax law what al-d is to religion.

Yet, keep it up. I am learning a lot.

Best Wishes,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 14, 2001.

I guess Z is ignoring me like voluntary is mandatory. Good one Z.

BTW, tell me what you have learned. I am interested.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 14, 2001.

Yea, Z, I know -- I've pretty much decided that he's a lost cause. I mean what can you say about someone that things Brushaber applies to foreigners only (personally, I think he's still not read the actual case).

To a large extent I got into this mess because I'm interested in "fringe thought." I mean, before the invention of the internet, I never would have guessed that there were people out there (at least coherent people) who believed in things like chemtrails or argued that you _really_ weren't legally liable to pay taxes. I'm sort of interested in where such people come from intellectually.

Unfortunately, KoFE (while realitvely coherent for one of the tax nut persuasion)has offered little insite into this. I think my description of him as a "snip kiddy" is appropriate. He cuts and pastes from tax nut web sites without any particular understanding. He's also exibited a remarkable lack of knowledge about current tax issues, such as withholding, estimate tax and the like, that most people develop when they get a real job and income, or at least leave their late twenties. Thus, I conclude he's either very young, or locked into a very dead end, low wage job, or both.

Either way, I've pretty much decided that he has no input that's of any significant interest to me. Hopefully, however, KoFE will at some time in the future sit down, study hard, and become a tax nut who's opinions are actually worth something.

Ah, well. Live and learn.

-- E.H.Porter (just.wondering@about.it), May 14, 2001.

ShitForBrains,

In Z's nearterm absence, I can vouch that I learned quite a lot today:

1) Most of what you talk about is from the losing side of the argument.

2) When you do in fact quote the legal opinion, you quote it out of context.

3) You are a "snip kiddy". This is a new term for me, but I learned that it means that you cut and paste from tax protest web sites, but have little or no real understanding of the tax code (past or present), or anything else.

4) For the most part, you do not even appear to even read the material you quote.

Ahhhh.... learning is such a pleasure. Thank you E. Porter. I look forward to reading your next post.

-- B (B@b.com), May 14, 2001.

Sorry for any confusion EHP, and that your most recent post overlapped my response to the weird-one. I have not had my morning java, and so cannot type as rapidly as you. ShitForBrains = KoFE, of course.

-- b (B@B.com), May 14, 2001.

EHP was an excellent band until they sold out. Did the same thing as Metallica, but they just did it alot quicker.

-- dem zombies (follow@your.leader), May 14, 2001.

Shit for brains; very original. Ask Porter how to find the Statute that makes a citizen liable. If he can't find it, no one can. You DO believe it exist, don't you? Of course you do. That's the main reason you are upset.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 14, 2001.

No. Not again!

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), May 14, 2001.

KoFE, I read your tax posts with interest. I'm willing to believe the way taxation is carried out could be wrong or illegal. I'm not willing to fight the system. I'm a coward. I don't want my doors kicked in and my person seized. All the people who make fun of you and say you're wrong are probably as unwilling as I am to experiment with tax freedom, although I wouldn't refer to them as cowards. The person I know for sure is a coward is myself. And there you have it.

-- helen (not@my.house), May 14, 2001.

IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT PORTER IS AN IRS AGENT!!!!

WATCH OUT, HE'LL GET YOU!

-- porter is a fear monger (fear@monger.com), May 15, 2001.

Thank you Helen, but I do not think you are a coward. We all have fear, and unfortunately, there are those within and without our gov. who use it on us like a weapon.

My purpose is to raise awareness about the truth of it, hopefully to the point where we (the public) will stop mindlessly policing each other, and start holding the liars accountable.

My challenge to the "authorities" on this post is:

"Show me the statute that makes a citizen liable"

BTW, Porter, I'm still waiting for your expert analysis of TD 2313. For anyone who might be curious, here is the address for the entire short notice. It's a letter from the Treasury Sec. to IRS agents, explaining the policy resultant from the SC decision in Brushaber v. U. P.R.R. Co.- the case `that the IRS holds up as proof that they are authorized to demand your property.

This letter indicates a different view.

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

The "specific exemption" in paragraph C is referring to the Underwood Tariff Act Oct 3, 1913

Hope to have it posted soon. Maybe Porter would be kind enough to provide a link.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 15, 2001.