fg_admin
Forum Replies Created
-
For more information on this, see:
Sovereignty for Police Officers, Form #12.022
-
SOURCE: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy/message/20120228.213127.e948b84b.en.html
________________David Champion permanent injunction – January 24, 2012
Granting the government’s motion for summary judgment, the court entered a permanent injunction on January 24, 2012, that prohibits Champion from (a) assisting individuals in becoming “nontaxpayers,” (b ) assisting individuals in evading their income tax obligations through their “nontaxpayer” status, (c ) instructing individuals that they can become, or are, “nontaxpayers,” (d) assisting individuals in avoiding reporting their Social Security Numbers, Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or any other identification information that might be disclosed to the IRS by a third party, (e) creating or forming trusts of any kind for individuals, and/or (f) assisting individuals in creating or forming trusts of any kind. Champion must post a copy of the injunction on his web sites, and must provide the government with a list of the names and addresses of purchasers of his book and the names and addresses of customers who paid him for any tax-related services. No. 2:11-cv-01175-DDP -SS (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal. 1/24/2012).
read more here:
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/david-champion -
SOURCE: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy/message/20120626.210326.18773868.en.html
______________________________IRS: Lynn Meredith appeal conclusion 06/26/2012
US v. Meredith, No. 05-50452
Convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States, mail fraud, false representation of a Social Security number, passport fraud, and failure to file income tax returns, arising from defendants’ participation in businesses that helped customers evade federal and state income taxes, are: 1) affirmed where their convictions did not violate the First Amendment, because defendants did far more than advocate tax evasion; 2) affirmed over claims of error in the indictment and jury instructions; but 3) vacated as to a restitution order and remanded for recalculation because the district court failed to consider evidence that defendant presented at sentencing.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, and those stated in the accompanying memorandum disposition, the convictions and the sentences for Meredith, Giordano, and Bybee are affirmed, with the exception
of Giordano’s restitution order, which is vacated and remanded for recalculation.AFFIRMED in part and VACATED AND REMANDED in part.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1604441.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_9th
-
SOURCE: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy/message/20130328.223430.ce36c8c1.en.html
______________________________Date: March 28, 2013
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Subject: David Miner convicted todayKNOXVILLE — A federal jury today convicted a former Gatlinburg businessman in a scheme to beat the IRS in the tax game.
A U.S. District Court jury deliberated roughly seven hours over two days before finding David Miner guilty of plotting to impede and harass IRS agents and twice failing to file income tax returns.
For $1,200, Miner sold a program to “decode” via an IRS manual a client’s Individual Master File, or IMF, which uses computer codes to document a person’s tax history, point out errors and write letters demanding the IRS fix those problems.
Miner also advised clients to target specific IRS agents with threats of civil and criminal litigation, testimony has shown. Miner called his business IRx-Solutions. He also operated a separate firm that would create trusts that Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Dale contends were designed to try to shield a client’s assets from the IRS.
Miner insisted he truly believed after much study the IRS did not have the power to tax a person’s pay and did not intentionally try to defy the taxman or help others do so.
More details as they develop online and in Friday’s News Sentinel.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/mar/28/david-miner-convicted-of-scheme-to-beat-harass/
-
David Miner Update:
SOURCE: http://archive.mail-list.com/paycheck-piracy/message/20130325.020808.650e87ae.en.html______________
Subject: New Update
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:58:41 -0400
From: Dave Miner
Reply-To:
Organization: Blue Ridge Group
To: Dave MinerDear Family and Friends —
As always, I am sending this to my email address and creating a blind carbon copy (bcc) for each of you to protect your privacy.
I have added a few people to my list for this update, so for their benefit I will give a brief history.
In December of 2010, the Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against me to stop me from helping people fight the IRS. In March of 2011, the DOJ filed a second case against me, this time a criminal case, to put me in jail for doing what the civil case accuses me of doing. I am in the process of fighting the criminal case. I started with a court-appointed attorney who did nothing for 6 months but file extensions to have the case delayed. Initially, he was polite but totally refused to use any of my arguments or materials, even though he admitted he had never tried a tax case, not even sitting in to watch one, in his 20-some years of being an attorney. Finally, he called me and admitted he had got around to reading my materials and told me he had concluded that I was right on everything and that he believed I would win. The next week I received a notice from the court informing me that my attorney had retired from practicing law and that another public defender had been appointed in his stead.
My new attorney called me and informed me that she would be using none of my arguments or materials because they “all consistently lose in court.” I pointed out that I have spent dozens of hours researching these issues and could not find one case in the hundreds of cases I had reviewed where even one of my arguments had lost in court. She informed me that she was the attorney and that her views would control my defense. I told her that “You are the attorney and that you know more about court procedure than I will ever learn. But I am the expert on tax law and tax procedures, since you have never tried a tax case or studied tax law and tax procedures. You are the attorney but that does not mean you are always right.” The relationship went from bad to worse after that. I finally arranged to have Larry Becraft, the best known, and possibly the best, defense attorney on tax cases.
He agreed to take my case based on my promise to pay his fees as quickly as possible. I am doing my best to pay him, and succeeding only somewhat. Since I am not keeping to the aggressive payment schedule, I am hoping he will continue to represent me anyway. If he does not, then it will be my fault for not paying his fees.
The civil case has been “administratively closed” since the criminal case was filed. I was fighting the civil case by myself, called “pro se” for those of you unfamiliar with legal terminology.
The criminal case opened this past Tuesday. I am accused of 2 counts of willful failure to file (I haven’t filed in 22 years…), and one count of corruptly impeding the IRS in its lawful role of collecting taxes from people. If convicted, I can be put in federal prison for as much as 7 years, and fined several hundred thousand dollars. Obviously, the judge can sentence me to less time in prison and less fines, but so far we have not been able to get a feel for the judge’s views or inclination.
I sat through several days of testimony (this past Tuesday through Friday) with the prosecution trying to paint me as a really bad and dishonest man offering services that I knew were totally ineffective. A question we will bring up sometime this next week is, “If I was unsuccessful in helping people fight the IRS, then how can I be accused of impeding the IRS?”
So far, there has been no testimony as to my being required to file. The prosecution and its witnesses have been focused on actions I have done that could be construed as impeding the IRS. Again, so far, the prosecution has not presented any testimony that I have ACTUALLY impeded, only that actions on my part COULD have impeded the IRS. And we are part way through the last prosecution witness, so they better get to it or they will end prosecution testimony having presented no proof that I have, in fact, impeded the IRS.
We have only one witness for the defense, and that is me. It looks like I will take the stand sometime this coming Monday afternoon. I will probably testify Monday and Tuesday, with the jury retreating to deliberate on Wednesday. The case MIGHT be concluded Wednesday or, more probably, on Thursday.
The trial is in Knoxville, TN but I am currently in Huntsville, AL where Larry Becraft lives. We are taking the weekend to prepare my testimony, and I am taking a break from the work to send an update to my family and friends. Hopefully, the next thing you will hear from me is an email announcing that I have won my case.
I don’t know what more to say, except that I am now and have been all along confident that I have broken no laws, and that I have encouraged no one else to break any laws, and that the jury will see that. The prosecution has to prove that I believed I was violating the tax laws and that I did it anyway. It is my INTENT that is the only thing on trial, not what the actual laws state. My position was and is that my INTENT was to help people slow or stop the IRS from violating the tax laws and its own regulations.
I have not consulted my attorney on this post, so I don’t want to say anything ore than this. But I have attached a document that explains in a nutshell my views and position.
For those of you that pray, please pray that the jury believes me rather than the prosecution.
Yours in financial freedom,
Dave Miner
http://www.IRx-Solutions.com“There is no section of the Internal Revenue Code or its enabling Regulations that requires me, an individual American NOT involved in a revenue-taxable activity, to file a Form 1040 or pay an income tax.”
-
The act of persecuting a group whose characteristics can’t be and aren’t completely defined is, itself, DOMESTIC TERRORISM. Prosecuting someone for an offense that can’t even be legally defined is the ultimate violation of due process and terrorism:
“Perhaps the most difficult hurdle for law enforcement is dealing with stereotypes. The first generation sovereign movement (from 1970 to 1995) was comprised mostly of middle-aged, high-school educated, white men with some military background, and hard-right, often racist values, located mostly in in rural communities west of the Mississippi. Today, the second sovereign wave (1999 to present) can include anybody: black, white, rural, urban, Asian, Hispanic, young, old, armed, unarmed, male, female, conservative, liberal, semi-literate, college-educated, from any walk of life. For example, dentists, chiropractors, and even police officers all seem drawn to the movement in recent years.”
“Sovereigns are also difficult to identity because there is no membership group for them to join, no charismatic leader, no organization name, no master list of adherents, and no consistency in the schemes they promote and buy into. There are hundreds of sovereign legal theories being peddled in seminars, in books, and on the Internet, and many of these theories contradict each other.”
[SOURCE: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jjmacnab/2012/02/13/what-is-a-sovereign-citizen/3/]
“Sovereign citizen” is getting to be as ubiquitous as “frivolous” in the courts. It essentially means “heretic who won’t join the state sponsored religion and engage in pagan government worship”. That religion is described in:
Socialism: The New American Civil Religion, Form #05.016
DIRECT LINK: http://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/SocialismCivilReligion.pdf
FORMS PAGE: http://sedm.org/Forms/FormIndex.htm
Now go drink your propaganda kool aide or we govco will throw you in jail as a “frivolous” dissident.
-
New video to counteract the above propaganda:
Sovereignty for Police Officers, Form #12.022
-
_____________________
Obama Budget to Cap Retirement Accounts at $3 Million
The budget President Barack Obama will submit on April 10 will contain a proposal that would prohibit individuals from accumulating more than $3 million in Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and tax-preferred retirement accounts.
According to a White House statement, the Obama administration believes the current rules allow some wealthy individuals “to accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
“The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013,” the statement said. “This proposal would raise $9 billion over 10 years.”
Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, told Bloomberg News his group intends to “vigorously oppose” the proposal.
“It is a plan killer,” Graff said. “As business owners reach the cap, they will lose their incentive to maintain a plan, and either shut down the plan or greatly reduce benefits. This would leave workers with a greatly diminished plan or without any plan at all.”
-
SOURCE: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57579850-38/irs-chief-well-rewrite-our-e-mail-search-policy/
___________________________
IRS chief: We’ll rewrite our e-mail search policy
Still unclear is whether taxpayers’ other private communications, including on Facebook and Twitter, will receive the same treatment.
Declan McCullagh
by Declan McCullagh
| April 16, 2013 10:11 AM PDT
Sen. Chuck Grassley asked today whether the IRS obtained a search warrant before reading private Facebook or Twitter messages. He didn’t get an answer.
Sen. Chuck Grassley asked today whether the IRS obtained a search warrant before reading private Facebook or Twitter messages. He didn’t get an answer.
(Credit: Getty Images)
The head of the Internal Revenue Service said today the agency would abandon its controversial policy that claimed the right to read taxpayers’ e-mail without first obtaining a search warrant.
Steven Miller, the IRS’ acting commissioner, said at a U.S. Senate hearing that the no-warrant-required policy would be ditched within 30 days for e-mail, but he did not make the same commitment for other private electronic communications.
“We intend to do that” for e-mail, Miller said, in response to prodding from Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has become a frequent champion of civil liberties in the electronic realm.
Internal IRS memos prepared by the agency’s lawyers and disclosed last week said Americans enjoy “generally no privacy” in their e-mail, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and similar online communications. Until today’s Senate hearing, the IRS had declined to answer questions about the memos.
“When will we actually get a public statement that the agency will not seek to obtain electronic communications without a warrant?” Wyden asked. “When would we get that actual public statement?”
Miller said that it was currently the agency’s policy to obtain a “search warrant in advance” when conducting a criminal probe that required access to taxpayers’ e-mail records. However, he told Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, that he didn’t know whether that was the case for private communications exchanged through Facebook and Twitter.
One IRS 2009 Search Warrant Handbook obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union argues that “e-mails and other transmissions generally lose their reasonable expectation of privacy and thus their Fourth Amendment protection once they have been sent from an individual’s computer.” The handbook was prepared by the Office of Chief Counsel for the Criminal Tax Division and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.
The IRS continued to take the same position, the documents indicate, even after a federal appeals court ruled in the 2010 case U.S. v. Warshak that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their e-mail. A few e-mail providers, including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and Facebook, but not all, have taken the position that Warshak mandates warrants for e-mail.
In response to prodding from Sen. Ron Wyden (left), acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller said the agency would change its written policies.
In response to prodding from Sen. Ron Wyden (left), acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller (right) said the agency would change its written policies.
(Credit: U.S. Senate)
Before the Warshak decision, the general rule since 1986 had been that police could obtain Americans’ e-mail messages that were more than 180 days old with an administrative subpoena or what’s known as a 2703(d) order, both of which lack a warrant’s probable cause requirement.
The rule was adopted as part of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act in the era of telephone modems, BBSs, and UUCP links, long before gigabytes of e-mail stored in the cloud was ever envisioned. Since then, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Warshak, technology had changed dramatically: “People are now able to send sensitive and intimate information, instantaneously, to friends, family, and colleagues half a world away…. By obtaining access to someone’s e-mail, government agents gain the ability to peer deeply into his activities.”
A March 2011 update to the IRS manual, published four months after the Warshak decision, says that nothing has changed and that “investigators can obtain everything in an account except for unopened e-mail or voice mail stored with a provider for 180 days or less” without a warrant. An October 2011 memorandum (PDF) from IRS senior counsel William Spatz took a similar position.
The IRS’ criminal investigation division boasts nearly 4,000 employees, about 2,600 of whom are special agents who investigate suspected tax criminals. Willfully attempting to conceal income from the IRS is a crime.
IRS statistics for the fiscal year that ended last month show that it secured nearly 2,000 indictments against Americans during that period, with an average prison term of 46 months.
Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate, a congressionally created position, said during today’s hearing that her office was not consulted when the IRS drafted its now-abandoned e-mail access policy.
“Regrettably that memo was not shared with me prior to it being made public — nor was it circulated for my comments,” Olson said. “It might have looked different if the voice of the taxpayer had an opportunity to comment on it.”
-
BEST SUMMATION OF BARACK AND MICHELLE EVER
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and talk show host in Los Angeles .(This man is black.)
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal, not policy related.You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture.”
The truth is I do not like the Obama�s, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obama�s.
As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists. They are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America . They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan’s made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish.
Obama’s arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance. Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman.
He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.
He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel .
His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
-
_________________
Swartz death inspires expanded effort to liberate paywalled court docs Document-sharing extension for Firefox now covers Chrome and appellate courts.
Aaron Swartz is remembered most for his campaign to liberate articles from the academic database JSTOR. That effort led to his indictment on federal hacking charges, which his family blamed for his January suicide. But years earlier, in 2008, Swartz liberated millions of documents from PACER, the paywalled website for federal court records.
In 2009, a group of researchers at Princeton created a Firefox extension called RECAP to help users redistribute PACER documents. (Disclosure: I was a RECAP co-creator but am no longer actively involved in the project.) Swartz’s document liberation efforts were crucial to the success of RECAP because the RECAP team seeded its databases with the 2.7 million documents Swartz had downloaded.
A few days after Swartz’s death, the entrepreneur Aaron Greenspan announced the Aaron Swartz Memorial Grants, two $5000 grants to improve RECAP. On Tuesday, the RECAP project announced the winners of two grants. One recipient ported the RECAP extension from Firefox to Chrome. The other extended RECAP to capture documents from the appellate courts as well as those at the trial court level.
Tear down this paywall
When the PACER website was created in the 1990s, it was a big step forward for public access to judicial records. Previously, users could only access information through a clunky dial-up service, or by physically traveling to the courthouse. But over the last decade, the PACER website has fallen farther and farther behind. As storage and bandwidth costs plummeted, the courts actually raised PACER fees from seven to 10 cents per page.
RECAP was intended to save users money while also illustrating the absurdity of charging so much money for access to public documents. When a user browses PACER, RECAP automatically notifies the user if the document she wants is already available for free online. RECAP also automatically sends copies of documents the user purchases to an online archive so they can later be shared with other users. The archive is hosted free of charge by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organization based in California.
RECAP has become widely used by journalists, academics, and online activists. Ars reporters are heavy PACER users, as are the anti-troll activists who have dogged organizations like Prenda Law. One anti-troll activist told us he spends about $50 a month on PACER, a number that would presumably be even higher without RECAP.
Until Tuesday, RECAP was a Firefox-only project. Now a Chrome version has been developed by Ka-Ping Yee, an engineer at Google.org.
“Aaron was a friend, and I was powerfully affected by his passing,” Yee said in a statement released by the RECAP team. “His life’s work embodied many of the ideals I have long supported. I was disappointed in myself that I hadn’t done much to further these causes, and the grants gave me the opportunity to turn a time of great sadness into a useful contribution.”
Yee says he will give his $5000 award to GiveWell, a charity promoted by Aaron Swartz.
The extension of RECAP to the appellate courts was accomplished by a pair of Italians, high school student Filippo Valsorda and graduate student Alessio Palmero Aprosio.
“While working on the project, we got a feel of how the PACER system is unjust and broken,” Valsorda said on the RECAP website. “We were fool enough to make a search for ‘Smith’ and got billed $25 without any warning.”
Steve Schultze, the Princeton researcher who runs RECAP, says he’s still looking for ideas to improve the project. Google has pledged two $5,000 prizes for proposals to improve the system. Schultze told us that the cash is still up for grabs.
-
Here is another approach to the question of this thread:
The federal income tax: A direct or indirect tax?
http://nontaxpayer.net/brushaberpollock.html
_________
The federal income tax: A direct or indirect tax? Maybe it can be either depending upon the circumstances.I started reading and studying about the federal income tax in the mid 1970’s. As most everyone else, I early on became acquainted with the Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Supreme Court decision. Many today still look to that decision to arrive at the conclusion that the income tax is an indirect excise tax. Those who do so fail to properly understand what the court was deciding upon. They also have failed to read the Pollock decision, which decision was just a little over 20 years previous to the Brushaber case. In the Pollock case, which can be read below, the court stated that the income tax was a direct tax and cited examples where other jurisdictions had made similar statements. So, did the Brushaber court just a few years later state that the income tax was in its nature an indirect tax thereby totally ignoring the statements in the Pollock case?
The federal income tax is pursuant to Art. 4 § 3(2), Congress’ constitutionally delegated authority over its territory and other property. Under that clause, Congress acts in the capacity of a state legislature and, within Congress’ Art. 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction, Congress can do most anything that is not repugnant to the Constitution. Prior to the 16th amendment, Congress could lay and collect indirect taxes under that constitutional authority but Art. 1 § 9(4) forbade to the United States, or Congress, the laying of any other direct tax unless apportioned according to the rule of apportionment. With the adoption of the 16th amendment, Congress was permitted an exception to Art. 1 § 9(4) and was allowed to lay and collect a direct tax on incomes within its Art. 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction. In 1913, after the adoption of the 16th amendment, Congress started taxing the incomes of its citizens of the United States and the incomes of residents of the United States. Congress also laid a tax on incomes being earned within its jurisdiction by persons who were not resident within the United States, i.e., not resident within areas subject to the Art. 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction of Congress. For the purposes of the federal income tax, these persons were, and are today, considered nonresident aliens. Frank Brushaber, who was a citizen and resident of New York, was receiving income from the Union Pacific Railroad Co. and, for purposes of the federal income tax, was deemed to be a nonresident alien.
In 1915 the book, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913, was written by Roger Foster of the New York Bar. On page 152 of that work, he writes the following:
§ 33. The nature of the tax. The incidence of the tax is ordinarily upon the recipients of the income affected. In a large number of cases, however, it falls directly upon property by compelling the payment of the tax by debtors, collecting agents and persons acting in a fiduciary capacity, and authorizing their deduction of the same from the amount of income paid to its ultimate recipients.
The “recipients of the income affected” referenced here would have been the citizens and residents of the United States. There was no general withholding requirement or law until the 1940’s and the tax would have been collected directly from them as a direct tax. However, where payments subject to the income tax to nonresident aliens were concerned, “debtors, collecting agents, and persons acting in a fiduciary capacity” were authorized to deduct the correct amount of tax, for which they were also made liable, and the remainder of the income was then turned over to the intended recipients, or the nonresident aliens. As the Brushaber court held, such a tax was in the nature of an indirect excise tax. With the 1913 income tax act, the tax was authorized to be collected as either a direct tax or as an indirect tax and it just depended upon whom the recipient of the income was to determine if the tax was considered direct or indirect.
Many people who choose to rely on the Brushaber case have not taken the time to investigate the background of the Union Pacific Railroad Co. An understanding of that background is a necessity if one wants to understand the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Brushaber case. Below are several pages from an 1800’s publication concerning the building of the Union Pacific railroad. The first page points out that the UPRR Co. was chartered by the United States, which made it at least a domestic corporation. The next page (#19) points out that the railroad was to be built with the aid of the United States, on public lands or United States property, and some of the money was to be raised by U.S. Government 30 year bonds. On page 30, it points out that the building of the railroad was in fact a government work, built largely with government money, and by government engineers. By the time the Brushaber case came along, the railroad had been built and the UPRR Co. had been rechartered in Utah. But we cannot escape the fact that the building of the railroad was a goverment project and was built on federal lands. The railroad was still within Congress’ Art. 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction and Congress was taxing incomes earned from that railroad. Where Brushaber was concerned, he was not a United States citizen or resident. He was a citizen and resident of New York, a nonresident alien of the United States. The income tax law provided that the income he, a nonresident alien, was receiving from within Congress’ Art. 4 § 3(2) jurisdiction be taxed and the United States payor, the Union Pacific RR Co., was required to withhold a certain percentage of that income as taxes and turn it over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue. With these given set of facts, the Supreme Court ruled that the tax on Brushaber’s income, which was collected at the source by the Union Pacific Railroad Co., was an indirect excise tax and could be collected as such.
The Brushaber case has caused many people much difficulty over the years. That is because they have not understood the federal income tax is not an Art. 1 § 8(1) tax. It is pursuant to Art. 4 § 3(2). Once one understands that, then it is easy to comprehend how Brushaber, a citizen and resident of New York, was considered to be a nonresident alien where the federal income tax law was concerned. Most citizens of the several States would also be considered to be nonresident aliens under the United States’ income tax law. There are many citizens of the several States though who work within federal areas, or for the federal government, or for it instrumentalities. They make themselves liable for the federal income tax. Social Security accounts are also being used to trap the citizens of the several States into the income tax scheme.
__________________________
Federal income tax pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2
http://nontaxpayer.net/Art_4.3.2_tax.html
Federal Income Tax – Pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2)
This page updated on November 21, 2012.
If you desire to understand the federal income tax, you have to look at its beginning legislation and try to make sense of it.
Two questions that need to be asked and answered:
Where did the legislation apply?
Why was the tax not uniform?The federal income tax is not pursuant to the constitutionally express authority for taxation delegated to Congress at Article 1 § 8(1). It is pursuant to an implied power of Article 4 § 3(2), Congress’ constitutionally delegated powers over its territory and other property. The federal income tax is not a national tax, it is in the nature of a state income tax. By knowing what evidences to look for, one can discern the true nature of the income tax.
(I started studying the federal income tax around 1975. I have read numerous articles and books concerning it and absolutely none of them ever explained or made sense out of the following definitions. The information in my book allows one to comprehend these definitions.)
The following are definitions from the income tax acts for the years listed:
Definition at 38 Stat. 177 from Income Tax Act of 1913:
That the word State or United States when used in this section shall be construed to include any Territory, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.
Definition at 39 Stat. 773 from Income Tax Act of 1916:
That the word State or United States when used in this section shall be construed to include any Territory, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.
Definition at 40 Stat. 302 from Income Tax Act of 1917:
The term United States means only the States, the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia.
To understand the above definitions, one must be aware that the term “Territory” has two different meanings in the law. The following is from a 1933 Supreme Court decision:
In this connection, the peculiar language of the territorial clause, article 4, s 3, cl. 2, of the Constitution, should be noted. By that clause Congress is given power ‘to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.’ Literally, the word ‘territory,’ as there used, signifies property, since the language is not ‘territory or property,’ but ‘territory or other property.’ There thus arises an evident difference between the words ‘the territory’ and ‘a territory’ of the United States. The former merely designates a particular part or parts of the earth’s surface–the imperially extensive real estate holdings of the nation; the latter is a governmental subdivision which happened to be called a ‘territory,’ but which quite as well could have been called a ‘colony’ or a ‘province.’ ‘The Territories,’ it was said in First National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133, 25 L.Ed. 1046, ‘are but political subdivisions of the outlying dominion of the United States.’
So Territory as used in Article 4 § 3(2) includes the real estate holdings of the United States, which are subject to its jurisdiction, as well as any area which Congress has organized under a governmental body prior to such area becoming a State of the Union. Congress exercises legislative jurisdiction over these areas and can make “all needful rules and regulations” for them while acting in its capacity as a state legislature over such areas. We can see from the definitions above that both uses of the term “Territory” are used. Hawaii and Alaska were incorporated as United States’ Territories in 1898 and 1912 respectively. Puerto Rico became a Commonwealth in 1952. The District of Columbia can’t be an organized Territory of the United States and the Philippine Islands was never an organized Territory of the United States. So in the 1913 and 1916 acts, the term “Territory” was used in the sense of areas of land over which Congress was the supreme legislative body pursuant to Article 4 § 3(2). In the 1917 Act definition, the term “Territory” was used for Alaska and Hawaii in the sense of an area organized and incorporated under a governmental body.
In 1915 the book, A Treatise on the Federal Income Tax Under the Act of 1913, was written by Roger Foster of the New York Bar. On page 152 of that work, he writes the following:
§ 34. Incidence of the tax with respect to territory and places exempted from the same. The tax applies to all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, to all residents of the United States irrespective of their citizenship, to the income of all property owned and and of every business, trade or profession carried on, in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.1 It is levied in Alaska, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands.2 But it is “provided that the administration of the law and the collection of the taxes imposed in Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands shall be by the appropriate internal revenue officers of those governments, and all revenues collected in Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands thereunder shall accrue intact to the general governments, thereof, respectively.”3 The Act expressly directs: “That the word ‘State’ or ‘United States’ when used in this section shall be construed to incude any Territory, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, when such construction is necessary to carry out its provisions.”4 Although there might be ground for argument that the phrase “any Territory” applies to the Hawaiian Islands, it was the evident intention of Congress that the residents of Hawaii, at least when not citizens of the United States, are exempt from the tax, for the reason that the Legislature of Hawaii has imposed an Income Tax upon all residents of that territory.5
[Footnote #5] 5 Hawaii Law of April 30, 1901, Session of 1901, Act 20, quoted in full, infra, Part V.
Please note that Hawaii and Alaska were both organized Territories of the United States at the time of the 1913 Income Tax Act with Hawaii being exempted from the Act while Alaska was specifically included.
Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes over United States’ territories and insular possessions pursuant to the constitutional authority of Article 4 § 3(2).
From a 1920s federal case:
[1] The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for the collection thereof in the possessions of the United States, is not restricted by constitutional provision (section 8, article 1), which may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and apportionment when legislating for the mainland or United States proper, for it acts in the premises under the authority of clause 2, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States..In the following Treasury Orders, it can be seen that the Commissioner was authorized to administer the internal revenue laws in U.S. territories and insular possessions. No such delegation of authority can be found authorizing the Commissioner to administer the internal revenue laws within the legislative jurisdictions of the several States.
TO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.
TO 150-01 dated September 28, 1995
3. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall, to the extent of authority vested in the Commissioner, provide for the administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S. territories and insular possessions and other areas of the world.
The authors of the Constitution in their design of that document intended for taxes to be as uniform as possible. The Article 1 § 8 clause for taxes provides that excise taxes are to be uniform and direct taxes are to be fairly apportioned according to population. Now if some areas are being taxed and other areas aren’t, or tax laws are being passed specifically for some areas while other areas are under a different set of tax laws, then it is assured that such tax laws are not pursuant to Article 1 § 8(1) but Article 4 § 3(2). In the 1913 tax code the following page is found, which substantiates part of the information in the Foster treatise.
It is plain to see from the above page of the 1913 income tax act that while the act applied to Porto (Puerto) Rico and the Philippine Islands the internal revenue taxes collected were to be covered into the respective treasuries of those two insular possessions with those taxes being administered not by United States officers but by the internal revenue officers of those governments, and the Philippine Islands’ government was specifically authorized to use its own court system in administering the income tax. It is quite plain that Congress in the 1913 income tax act was making laws specifically for areas under its Article 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction. It is interesting to note that if one will go read at this webpage http://welcome.topuertorico.org/government.shtml one will see that while the United States administers Social Security in Puerto Rico the Puerto Ricans are otherwise exempt from the Internal Revenue Code.
Again, by reading from the 1920s federal court case, one can see that Congress was making laws specifically for areas under Congress’ Article 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction and also, neither was the tax uniform. While previous to 1918 some citizens of the United States in certain possessions of the United States were taxed, it was not until the 1918 act that the incomes of all citizens of the United States wherever resident were made taxable.
When Congress enacted the Revenue Law of October 3, 1917, by section 5 (Comp. St. 1918, Sec. 6336vv) it saw fit to provide expressly that the provisions of the title should not extend to the Philippines or Porto Rico, and the local Legislatures were given power to amend, alter, modify, or repeal the income tax laws in force in the islands, respectively. The result was that under the act of 1916 the entire net income of every individual, a citizen or resident of the United States, resident in the Philippines, became taxable thereunder, but subject to the jurisdiction of the Philippines in respect to tax matters. But Congress, acting doubtless under the after-war needs, by the Revenue Act of 1918, changed the situation and made the net income of every individual citizen of the United States taxable, no matter where he resides. In the place of the taxes imposed by the act of 1916 (subdivision (a) section 1), and by the act of 1917 (section 1) the net income of ‘every individual’ was subject to the rate prescribed (section 210); and in place of taxes imposed by subdivision ( :cool:, section 1, of the act of 1916, and section 2 of the act of 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Sec. 6336aaa), but in addition to the normal tax imposed by section 210 of the act the surtaxes prescribed should be collected.
[2] The comprehensiveness of the 1918 act is as great as language could make it, for it applied to the income of every individual, changing the rates, and obviously imposing taxes at the new rates, where no tax could have been imposed prior to the 1918 act. We are unable to infer that, by using the words ‘in lieu of,’ Congress meant to tax only those incomes of individuals who had been subject to taxation under the two prior acts. It is more reasonable to hold that, where the individual was liable under the prior act of 1916, the new act of 1918 became the controlling standard. Where, by the act of 1917, he was relieved of the increased rates of that act, but had been subject to the 1916 act, he was covered by the provisions of the 1918 act, and in the event he was never before included he became liable under the very broad terms of the act of 1918. Section 260, supra, of the act of 1918, also leads to the conclusions indicated. The language there used discriminates, by making individuals who are citizens of a possession of the United States, yet not otherwise citizens of the United States, and who are not residents of the United States, subject to be taxed only as to income derived from sources within the United States. Unless such a person has income so derived, he is not subject to the act.
When one becomes acquainted with the proper information, it becomes plain that the income tax is not pursuant to Article 1 § 8(1). The income tax applies to incomes and persons which or who are subject to the Article 4 § 3(2) legislative jurisdiction Congress exercises over its territory and other property. Until Americans understand that, they will not understand the federal income tax.
-
Sandra Oconnor
Part 1: Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor doesn’t envy the current Court its more difficult decisions.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-5-2013/sandra-day-o-connor-pt–1
Part 2: Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor shares the opinion-writing process and defends the Court’s transparency.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-5-2013/sandra-day-o-connor-pt–2
-
Mitchell is WRONG on the following subjects:
1. He thinks the Fourteenth Amendment makes state citizens subject to the municipal laws of the national government. It doesn’t because the geographical “United States” in the Constitution is not the same as that within federal statutes. He also doesn’t relate his view of citizenship to options appearing on federal forms such as the I-9 or passport, so he obviously doesn’t understand citizenship completely.
2. He doesn’t understand the two CONTEXTS for legal terms: STATUTORY and CONSTITUTIONAL.
3. He PRESUMES that the two contexts are equivalent.
4. He falsely says “subject to THE jurisdiction” found in the Fourteenth Amendment means subject to the MUNICIPAL jurisdiction of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark said that “subject to THE jurisdiction” meant “subject to the POLITICAL and not CIVIL” jurisdiction of Congress. Otherwise it would have said “subject to ITS jurisdiction”.
5. He falsely believes that “national” and “municipal” laws are opposites. In fact, “federal” and “national” are the opposites. “Municipal” falls under “national”. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/USvUSA.htm
6. He clearly doesn’t understand the concept of domicile and how it interacts with one’s nationality to determine choice of law that governs a controversy. See:
http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Remedies/DomicileBasisForTaxation.htm
7. He also doesn’t tie in how franchises are the method of reaching extraterritorially. He does post “Invisible Contracts” on his supremelaw.org website, which deals indirectly with franchises, but the treatment of franchises in that book is entirely insufficient. See:
http://famguardian.org/Publications/InvisibleContracts/InvisibleContracts.htm
On a more positive note, he does agree that Congress has two species of legislative power. He just doesn’t know or understand how to distinguish the two from each other with the proper terminology. That’s unfortunate, because he does appear articulate and has been studying the subject for over 23 years. We have been at it a lot less time than that.