Crack the Internal Revenue Code
http://www.avalonhealthinfo.com/articles/1047/1/Crack-the-Internal-Revenue-Code/Page1.html
By Lost Horizons
Published on 06/2/2008
Readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have already retained or taken back well over from the federal and state governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'-- and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they've paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the "income tax", and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing-- many for several years in a row now. You need to know the truth, too!
Crack the Internal Revenue Code ...and help put Leviathan on a starvation diet. Everything else is just watering the lawn while the house burns down.
Readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have already retained or taken back well over 3,025,283.13
from the federal and state governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'-- and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they've paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the "income tax", and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing-- many for several years in a row now. You need to know the truth, too!
Need A Crash Course In The Surprising Reality Of The Income Tax?
Start With This Short Film
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
So, federal capitations (taxes on normal, private-sector earnings) are prohibited...
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
So, the tax is an excise on the exercise of privilege, not a tax on money...
"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…”
“It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property’.”
United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)
”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”
United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
So, working, earning money, being paid, etc., in the private sector are NOT privileges... (Tell me you really didn't need a court to point that out to you...)
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
“[Taxation of "income" is] 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, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)
"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
So, the 16th Amendment has nothin' to do with nothin' about any of the foregoing...
"We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-- everything that comes in-- are income…”
United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)
Just so. What is called "income" in the internal revenue laws (that is, what is taxed under those laws) is NOT "money" or "receipts" or "earnings", etc.. It is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise. Thus, it is only receipts resulting from the exercise of federal privilege that are relevant to those laws and the related taxes.
Now Get The Book That Explains It All: 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'
Readers of 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America' have already retained or taken back well over 3,025,283.13
from the federal and state governments-- including Social Security and Medicare 'contributions'-- and kept it in their own pockets where it belongs, simply by knowing what the law actually says. These Americans have gotten back every penny they've paid or had withheld from them during the year in connection with the "income tax", and have secured written acknowledgements that they owed nothing-- many for several years in a row now. You need to know the truth, too!
Need A Crash Course In The Surprising Reality Of The Income Tax?
Start With This Short Film
Now, read what a few of the experts have to say:
"No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9
So, federal capitations (taxes on normal, private-sector earnings) are prohibited...
"The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income [earnings] as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."
F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580
"...the requirement to pay [excise] taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
United States Supreme Court, Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
So, the tax is an excise on the exercise of privilege, not a tax on money...
"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others."
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…”
“It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property’.”
United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)
”Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property- partaking of the nature of each- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property”
United States Supreme Court, Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
So, working, earning money, being paid, etc., in the private sector are NOT privileges... (Tell me you really didn't need a court to point that out to you...)
“We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it...”
“[Taxation of "income" is] 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, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” (That is, if the "income" tax ever comes to be administered as something other than an excise, or on something unsuited to an excise, the rule of apportionment must be applied.)
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . ."
United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...”
United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes were still subject to the rule of uniformity."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division of the Library of Congress, Report No. 80-19A, entitled “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding The Federal Income Tax Laws”, page CRS-5 (1979)
"The legislative history merely shows... ...that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17 -18 (1916)."
United States Supreme Court, South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988)
So, the 16th Amendment has nothin' to do with nothin' about any of the foregoing...
"We must reject… …the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-- everything that comes in-- are income…”
United States Supreme Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)
Just so. What is called "income" in the internal revenue laws (that is, what is taxed under those laws) is NOT "money" or "receipts" or "earnings", etc.. It is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise. Thus, it is only receipts resulting from the exercise of federal privilege that are relevant to those laws and the related taxes.
Now Get The Book That Explains It All: 'Cracking the Code- The Fascinating Truth About Taxation In America'