"The income tax system is a self-reporting and self-assessing one. It is based upon voluntary assessment and payment not distraint"
Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145 176
"Doubt relative to statutory construction should be resolved in favor of the individual, not the government"
Greyhound Corp. v. United States, 495 F2d 863
"The legal right of an individual to decrease or altogether avoid his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted"
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465
"Congress cannot by any definition (of income in this case) it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully expressed."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189
"In construing federal revenue statute, Supreme Court gives no weight to Treasury regulation which attempts to add to statute something which is not there." United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351 (1957), 1 L. Ed. 2d 1394, 77 S. Ct. 1138 (1957)
"Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress"
Blatt Co. v. United States, 59 S. Ct. 472
"The extension of tax by implication is not favored"
Reinecke v. Gardner, 277 U.S. 239
"All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void"
Marbury v. Madison, 5th US (2 Cranch) 137, 180
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon"
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635
"The 16th Amendment does not justify the taxation of persons or things previously immune. It was intended only to remove all occasions for any apportionment of income taxes among the states. It does not authorize a tax on a salary"
Evans V. Gore, 253 U.S. 245
"In numerous cases where the IRS has sought enforcement of its summons pursuant to statute, courts have held that a taxpayer may refuse production of personal books and records by assertion of his privilege against self-incrimination."
Hill v. Philpott, 445 F2d 144, 146
"To penalize the failure to give a statement which is self-incriminatory, is beyond the power of Congress"
United States v. Lombardo, 228 F. 980,981
"The requirement of an offence committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court"
United States v Bishop, 412 U.S. 346, 361
"A personal right that is not transferable or assignable is also not taxable. Damages for alienation of affections, defamation of personal character do not constitute income"
United States v. Kaiser, 80 S.Ct. 1264
"Income means gains/profit from property severed from capitol, however invested or employed. Income is not a wage or compensation fro any type of labor"
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739
"Tax on income derived from property was the equivalent of a direct tax on the income-producing property itself and must be apportioned in accordance with provisions of Article I of the Constitution"
Home Mutual Insurance Co v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 639 F2d 333
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them"
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491
"Because Federal courts are limited in jurisdiction, the presumption is that it is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears."
Grace v. American Central Insurance Co., 109 U.S. 278
"Courts have no power to rewrite legislative enactments to give effect to their ideas of policy and fitness or the desirability of symmetry in statutes."
Busse v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 479 F2d 1143
"The Fifth Amendment applies alike to criminal and civil proceedings"
McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34
"If the defendant had a subjective good faith belief, no matter ow unreasonable, that he was not required to file a tax return, the government cannot establish that the defendant acted willfully"
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192
"(b) A person may not be compelled to choose between the exercise of a First Amendment right and participation in an otherwise available public program. It is true that the Indiana law does not compel a violation of conscience, but where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial"
Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana..., 450 U.S. 107
"The door of the Free Exercise Clause stands tightly closed against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303. Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488; nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67; nor employ the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of particular religious views, Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573; cf. Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233. On the other hand, [374 U.S. 398, 403] the Court has rejected challenges under the Free Exercise Clause to governmental regulation of certain overt acts prompted by religious beliefs or principles, for "even when the action is in accord with one's religious convictions, [it] is not totally free from legislative restrictions." Braunfeld v. Brown, 329 U.S. 14.
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
"It is too late in the day to doubt that the liberties of religion and expression may be infringed by the denial of or placing of conditions upon a benefit or privilege. 6 American [374 U.S. 398, 405] Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 390; Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183,191-192; Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 155-156. For example, in Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603, 611, the Court recognized with respect to Federal Social Security benefits that "[t]he interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due Process Clause." In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, we emphasized that conditions upon public benefits cannot be sustained if they so operate, whatever their purpose, as to inhibit or deter the exercise of First Amendment freedoms."
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398
"Certain aspects of religious exercise cannot, in any way, be restricted or burdened by either federal or state legislation. Compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship is strictly forbidden. The freedom to hold religious beliefs and opinions is absolute. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166."
Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599
"For religious freedom - the freedom to believe and to practice strange and, it may be, foreign creeds - has classically been one of the highest values of our society. See, e. g., Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 115 (1943); Jones v. City of Opelika, 319 U.S. 103 (1943); Martin v.City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943); Follett v. Town of McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 (1944); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 510 (1946). Even the most concentrated and fully articulated attack on this high standard has seemingly admitted its validity in principle, while [366 U.S. 599, 613] deploring some incidental phraseology. See Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 89, 95-96 (1949) (concurring opinion); but cf. Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956). The honored place of religious freedom in our constitutional hierarchy, suggested long ago by the argument of counsel in Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the City of New Orleans, 3 How. 589, 600 (1845), and foreshadowed by a prescient footnote in United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, n. 4 (1938), must now be taken to be settled"
Braunfeld v Brown, 366 U.S. 599
"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons. Although the denial of government benefits over religious objection can raise serious Free Exercise problems, these two very different forms of government action are not governed by the same constitutional standard. A governmental burden on religious liberty is not insulated from review simply because it is indirect, Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1981) (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, at 404); [476 U.S. 693, 707] but the nature of the burden is relevant to the standard the government must meet to justify the burden."
Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693
"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists."
Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-718 (1981)
"The federal government has nothing approaching a police power"
United States v. Lopez
"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of the words and the rules of grammar"
United States v. Goldenberg, 168 U.S. 95
"Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction"
[New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]
"All legislation is prima facie territorial"
[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213, U.S. 347 at 357-358]
"There is a canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]
"the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ..."
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 212, 221, 223]
"... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government"
[Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82]
"No sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction"
[Stanard v. Olesen, 74 S. Ct.768]
"Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to exist."
[Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
"Jurisdiction, once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided."
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
"... Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown."
[Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]
"The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings"
[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528]
"If any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and subject matter, the case must be dismissed."
[Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42]
Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56 S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135, Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d 272, Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83 L. Ed. 111, and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1, also all confirm, that, when challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts.
"Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously".
[...Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example...]
Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.
[Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)]
Last Update: 08/11/97
Web Author: The Disciples of Truth
Copyright ©1997 by Agents of the LORD GOD R SAFE - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED