WHAT YOU NEED
TO REALIZE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND
What you need to realize in order to properly understand the true nature of today’s income tax, which has been implemented directly from the original legislation that was enacted and upheld when tested by the Supreme Court in 1916, is that, first: in 1916 the court determined the income tax legislation being tested was constitutional as an indirect tax.
"...by
the previous ruling (Brushaber
v. Union Pacific R.R. Co), it was settled that the
provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary
power of income taxation
possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the
category of indirect taxation to
which it inherently belonged.." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240
The reason why they ruled that the income tax was an indirect tax is because they knew, from the Brushaber decision just handed down, that they were testing “the income tax provisions of the tariff act”:
“As a
stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill
to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the
tariff act of
And they also knew that a tariff is one kind of an impost under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1:
"The
Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, … but all duties, imposts and excises
shall be uniform throughout the
Which establishes the power of the federal government to uniformly tax, indirectly, certain activities – exports (duties), imports (imposts), and excise taxable activities (excises).
Because it was laid as the income tax provisions of the tariff (act), the income tax was easily recognized by the court as belonging to the indirect category of imposts. In addition, the court also recognized that the legislators, in writing this tariff legislation in 1913, had very carefully taken their “cues” from the Court itself in the Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co. case, on how to write income tax legislation that would, in the future, stand the test of constitutionality that the legislation tested in Pollock had failed.
In the Pollock case in 1896, the Supreme Court had declared the legislation tested in that case unconstitutional because it was determined by the court to be an attempt to tax directly and without apportionment. However, in discussing the character, nature and histories of both direct and indirect taxation under the Constitution, the Pollock Court states:
“Ordinarily, all taxes paid
primarily by persons who can shift the
burden upon someone else, or who are under
no legal compulsion to pay them, are
considered indirect taxes;” Pollock v. Farmer’s
Loan & Trust Co.,
157
This, “shifting of the burden” is a very simple concept to understand, and very important. It requires the involvement of a (federal) tax collector that actually pays the tax in place of the subject taxpayer. For example, the sales tax in a State. In States where there is a sales tax, it always, always, works like this. The sales tax is imposed on transactions conducted by the customers of the store. It is not imposed on the store itself, who plays the role of the tax collector, or even on the customers, who are given the role of the taxpayer, it is imposed on the purchases of the store’s customers who buy the goods sold by the store. The customers must pay the tax in addition to the cost of goods purchased, and therein become the taxpayers of the tax. The store, while it is not “taxed” itself by the legislation directly, is always tasked by the enacting legislation with the burden of acting as a tax collector for the (State) government.
The Store must collect the tax at the cash register on all of the transactions of its customers, and while the store then becomes the payor of the tax when it sends the collected tax money to the State, it is not the taxpayer because the funds the store turns over to the State as tax do not come out of the pocket of the store, but from the pockets of its customers. So, the customer (taxpayer) pays the sales tax to the tax collector - the store, and the store then, as a tax collector, turns the collected funds over to the State. It’s all indirect because the burden to pay the tax is shifted from the tax collector who actually pays the tax to the State, to some other person (the underlying taxpayer) from whom the tax was collected.
If one wants to avoid the legal compulsion to pay the sales tax, don’t’ go to the store, and you don’t have to pay the sales tax on goods you grow or make yourself, because there is no legal compulsion to do so. If you don’t want to be a tax collector, don’t open a store and you don’t have to collect tax on transactions.
And what happens if the tax collector – the store, fails to do his duty under the law? The government does not go to the individual taxpayers to demand the past due tax, interest, penalties and additions to tax, they go to the tax collector, the store that failed in its duty to timely collect and turn over the required tax imposed on the transactions of its customers. The government, you see, never deals at all with the taxpaying customers directly. It always deals, only with the tax collector. It only deals with its army of tax collectors – the stores, and never has any direct contact at all with the taxpayers, the customers of the store. And this complete and total lack of all and any contact between the government and the actual taxpayer is the classic hallmark and indication of an indirect tax, as noted by the Supreme Court in the Pollock decision. The sales tax is an indirect tax because there is a third party tax collector who is the only person liable to the government for the payment of the tax, but who shifts the burden of the tax he pays to some other underlying party who is the actual taxpayer (customers), even though they are not the actual payors of the tax to the State.
Now, as stated above, in addition to knowing a tariff is an indirect tax, the Supreme Court also recognized immediately that the legislators of the income tax legislation enacted in 1913 and being tested by the court, had done their homework regarding the writing of constitutional income tax legislation that legitimately imposes and INDIRECTLY collects an indirect (income) tax laid in a tariff act. They recognized that:
“2. The act
provides for collecting the tax at the
source; that is, makes it the duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax on
interest due on bonds and mortgages unless the owner … gives a notice that he
claims an exemption” (emphasis
added) Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co, 240
They immediately saw that the “duty of corporations, etc., to retain and pay the sum of the tax” could be immediately recognized by everyone as creating a tax collector in the law, in the form of a Withholding Agent, who was being tasked by the legislation with the duty to collect the income tax from subject persons through the “duty” to “retain and pay the sum of the tax”. Today we call this identified duty “withholding”, and the reason why is because that is how this “duty” is clearly defined in the statutes, with no confusion, at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(16):
(a)…
(16). Withholding Agent. - The term "Withholding Agent" means any person required to deduct and withhold any tax under the provisions of sections 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.”
This is the legislatively defined “duty” in the law (today), that was identified by the Supreme Court in 1916 in the Brushaber decision, to recognize the income tax legislation being tested in that case as an indirect tax that was collected indirectly, by “collecting the tax at the source” by withholding money as tax under the “duty of the corporations, etc. to retain and pay the sum of the tax”.
With those referenced, defining sections (from (a)(16) above) providing:
§ 1441. Withholding of Tax on Nonresident
Aliens
§ 1442 Withholding of Tax on Foreign Corporations
§ 1443 Foreign Tax Exempt Organizations
The Withholding
Agent is then made liable by statute, indirectly, for the tax he
collects (by withholding), in Section 1461, which
is the only code section in existence in Subtitle A (income taxes) that
makes anyone liable for the payment of the income tax. It very clearly states:
§
1461 Liability for withheld
tax.
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax
under this chapter is hereby made liable
for such tax and is hereby
indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any
payments made in accordance with the
provisions of this chapter.
So, what you have to realize in order to recognize
and properly understand the true character and nature of the income tax,
is that under the actual provisions of the laws enacted, tested and upheld by
the court in 1913, it is the “corporations,
etc.”, including domestic corporations and American citizens, who are cast
in the role of federal tax collectors as Withholding
Agents, just as the store is made a tax collector in the state’s sales
tax system. And, it is the Withholding Agent who collects income tax
from subject foreign persons, who pay
the tax by virtue of its being withheld from their payments, and thus become
the taxpayers, but who never actually deal with the government because the tax
is collected indirectly as an indirect tax.
The Withholding
Agents, while they are the payors of the tax, like the stores, are
not the taxpayers, because they are allowed to shift the burden of the
tax they pay to some other party, the persons from whom tax is withheld. In the
indirect sales tax, the burden is shifted from the store to the customer by
adding the cost of tax to the cost of the goods purchased. In the indirect federal income tax, the burden is shifted from the Withholding Agent to the foreign person by
withholding money as tax from payments made to those subject foreign persons from whom the tax is withheld
under the provisions of Sections 1441, 1442 and 1443. There are no other withholding provisions anywhere
in Subtitle A.
And, if the Withholding Agent wishes to avoid the legal compulsion to pay,
as noted earlier from the Pollock
decision, where it stated:
“Ordinarily, all taxes paid
primarily by persons who can shift the
burden upon someone else, or who are under
no legal compulsion to pay them, are
considered indirect taxes;” Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co.,
157
then he can hire a citizen or resident alien to do the job instead of hiring a non-resident alien or foreign corporation, and thereby avoid the withholding of income tax and the “duty… to retain and pay the sum of tax” identified in the legislation by the Supreme Court.
What you have to understand, is that: As
an indirect tax that is collected by Withholding Agents who shift the burden of the tax
they pay to subject foreign parties, THERE
IS NO DUTY IN THE LAW FOR A CITIZEN TO PAY INCOME TAX ON THEIR OWN EARNINGS, or to file a Form 1040 reporting their own earnings,
because,
CITIZENS
ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PAY INCOME TAX ON THEIR OWN DOMESTIC EARNINGS,
They are required by law to ACT AS TAX
COLLECTORS in the form of “Withholding
Agents” and withhold income tax from payments made to foreign,
non-resident persons. That’s
all. That’s the indirect tax that was
tested and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1916. And, just like the sales
tax that is actually written in the law, the federal income tax is also only
collected and paid indirectly by federal tax collectors. There is no direct taxation of the citizens
own income written in the law.
And if we enforced the tax as it is actually
written instead of in the unlawful communistic manner
that we do, we wouldn’t have the illegal immigrant
labor problem in
Being
compelled to pay income tax as though it were a direct tax without
apportionment on all the labor and fruits of the labor of the American people,
that’s not the constitutional Republic, THAT’S THE
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO, AND THAT’s REPUGNANT TO
THE CONSTITUTION
! I don’t know who converted it, but it
is all illegal, because it is NOT in the law, and completely violates
everything in the Constitution, and IMPLEMENTS EVERYTHING
IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO !
Thomas
Jefferson said “A wise and frugal government shall not take from the
mouth of labor the bread it has earned”.
Income
tax does exactly that. FOR GOD’S SAKE, INCOME
TAX IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT !!!
So,
what you really have to understand is, that if you want your country back, if
you want your freedom back, YOU
HAVE TO STOP VOLUNTARILY PRACTICING COMMUNISM
BECAUSE YOU ARE AFRAID OF YOUR GOVERNMENT
(the IRS) !
As long as Americans continue to allow our
government to intimidate us through the IRS into practicing communism
voluntarily or out of fear, thus ceding our true political and economic power
to the government completely, we will never be free again as a people !
When the People fear their own government, you have only
tyranny.
When the government fears the People, you have
What’s
your assessment of the situation today?
Honestly.
