walsh@ihuxi.UUCP (11/09/83)
The federal income tax is NOT a head (capitation) tax, and is therefore not unconstitutional. It is based on income, thus the name FEDERAL INCOME TAX. A head tax is a tax imposed on a group, i.e., employees, trade unions, architects, doctors, etc.; Also, it is not progressive as the income tax is, it is usually a flat rate tax. B. Walsh
marchant@ihuxl.UUCP (11/09/83)
news I would like to know if the federal income tax could be considered a capitation tax. If it is the U.S. CONSTITUTION forbids such a tax. Could someone else give an interpretation of this.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (11/10/83)
The first attempt to impose an income tax (in the 19th century, I believe) was indeed declared unconstitutional. This was remedied in 1913, when the 16th Amendment was ratified. Its text reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Attempts to claim that income tax is illegal are at best misguided, and at worst a deliberate attempt to distort the truth. (Note: I'm saying nothing about the methods used by the IRS, or about the desirability or morality of income tax. I'm merely saying that it's specifically permitted by the Constitution.)
halle1@houxz.UUCP (11/10/83)
However, it's a little known fact that this amendment, and several laws, are in fact illegal in that they were not properly signed. Taft (I believe it was he) signed these acts, but HE WAS NOT LEGALLY PRESIDENT. He was born in the "state" of Ohio. Unfortunately, when Congress voted to accept Ohio into the union, something got fouled up and the act was never properly completed. By next Congress, though, people had forgotten this error, and treated Ohio as a state and not a territory. It wasn't until sometime this century that the error was discovered and quietly corrected. So, since he was born in a territory and not a state, Taft, and several others, could not legally be president. So don't pay your taxes, since the amendment is illegal.
jhh@ihldt.UUCP (John Haller) (11/10/83)
Almost every dodge that has been tried for not paying the IRS has been tried, and the IRS has one every one in Tax Court. The illegal Constitutional Amendment, Dollars not being legal tender because of not being based on the gold standard, etc have all been refused. If you use one of these, you will be liable for penalties for malicious non-payment of taxes, which are more severe than the `I forgot' or legitimate mistake penalties. If you still feel like using one reason or another for not paying taxes, at least call a tax lawyer and find out if the argument you want to use has been rejected by the courts. If you still want to avoid taxes, you will probably want to put the tax lawyer on retainer, as you will need him/her. John Haller
mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (11/10/83)
In fact, I think someone recently went to court claiming that since the income tax was voluntary, he was choosing not to voluntarily pay his tax. The court's reaction was not to look for a loophole in the law, but to consider what the effects would be on society if they ruled that income tax was indeed voluntary. Since it would result in the government suddenly going broke, they made the guy pay his taxes.
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (11/10/83)
Apart from the fact (this I'm certain of) that constitutional amendments do not require the signature of the president (according to a Supreme Court ruling around the time of the Civil War), I don't believe that the Constitution disqualifies people born in territories from becoming president. The requirement is that a person be born a citizen, not naturalized -- and that includes anyone born to a U.S. citizen, or born in any possession of the U.S.
marchant@ihuxl.UUCP (11/11/83)
I also agree that a president elected from a territory of the U.S. is a constitutional right. Referring to a case someone mentioned in this matter. There was a fellow from Sycamore, Illinois in March of this year that was found not guilty of paying taxes. He proved to a jury that the federal income tax is voluntary. His name is Ray Garland. I would like to mention that as far as I know the courts have never given a ruling in the matter that income is not wages. Income was defined by the courts as being gain from capital. I would like to say that I am not gaining anything by working for someone. I give a company part of my time and in turn gives me wages for this time. In my honest opinion I can't see how the government can take something from me that I worked for unless I voluntaryly do so. Any comments.
dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (11/13/83)
>>>From: marchant@ihuxl.UUCP >>>I would like to mention that as far as I know the courts have never given a >>>ruling in the matter that income is not wages. Income was defined by the >>>courts as being gain from capital. I would like to say that I am not gaining >>>anything by working for someone. I give a company part of my time and in turn >>>gives me wages for this time. In my honest opinion I can't see how the >>>government can take something from me that I worked for unless I voluntaryly >>>do so. Any comments. Ahem. Pardon a Canadian stepping into this, but please read your Internal Revenue Code (what? you don't have a copy handy? :-) before making such statements. Section 61(a) of the Code states: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income form whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (3) Gains derived from dealings in property; (4) Interest; (5) Rents; (6) Royalties; (7) Dividends; ... etc. It goes up to number 15. But #1 clearly covers wages. Furthermore, you are incorrect (or at least incomplete) in saying that "income was defined by the courts as being gain from capital". The leading case is Eisner v. Macomber, cited at 252 U.S. 189 (1920). The United States Supreme Court declared (at p. 207): Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. Later court definitions extended this definition still further. (By the way, I'm presently taking a course in U.S. tax law as part of my LL.M., which is why I know a bit about your system.) Dave Sherman Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave
pag@hao.UUCP (Peter Gross) (11/16/83)
I heard Ray Garland on the radio a few months ago, and found him to have a very persuasive argument. Apparently he is one of the few that have won a non-payment of taxes case. I thought his case had something to do with the requirement of "filing" the tax forms was unconstitutional (invasion of privacy?). He seemed to say that he had nothing against paying taxes, but that they were voluntary, and the government could not require an individual to file a 1040. If anyone has more substantive information about this case, I would really like to hear about it. --peter
halle1@houxz.UUCP (J.HALLE) (11/16/83)
As I recall, Garland has LOST his case at every level; he just keeps appealing it higher. So while it may be true that he has not paid yet, it is not true that he won his case.
eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (11/19/83)
Unfortunately, I don't have an exact date for this article, but it appeared
in the Seattle Times in early 1983:
CHICAGO (AP) - Raymond Garland had dutifully paid his taxes for a generation,
but stopped filing in 1976 after concluding it was up to the government to
collect and not his duty to volunteer personal information.
Prosecuted for failure to file federal income-tax returns from 1976
through 1979, Garland argued before a U.S. District Court jury that his
beliefs were based on years of study.
The jury acquitted him Wednesday in a verdict that Assistant U.S. Attorney
Jim Ferguson said was "beyond belief". Presiding Judge William T. Hart was
almost as astounded.
After the verdict, Garland, an insurance salesman from Sycamore, called
the jurors "some of the bravest people there are in this country".
Defense and prosecuting attorneys were reluctant to predict the legal
impact of the case, but they agreed the key was not the credibility of
Garland's argument but the jury's conclusion that the defendant sincerely
believed he had done nothing wrong.
"There is a good-faith defense as to understanding the requirements of
the law," defense lawyer Jim Burns said. "I can only guess that the jury
concluded he had a good-faith misunderstanding, or it could have been
straight sympathy. He came across as unbelievably sincere in his beliefs."
Ferguson said the jury was instructed that Garland could not use as a
defense that U.S. tax laws are unconstitutional. The only defense could be
a "good-faith, reasonable belief" in his views, the prosecutor said.
"I suppose if (future defendants) can convince a jury that way, then
maybe they could prevail," the prosecutor said.
Garland was charged last October with failing to file income taxes (sic)
on annual incomes ranging from $16,000 to $33,000, a criminal misdemeanor.
A guilty verdict would have carried a prison sentence of up to four years
and a fine.
Garland, 44, still faces civil penalties. The Internal Revenue Service
could sue for recovery of taxes owed plus a "civil fraud penalty" equal to
50 percent of his tax debt, IRS spokesman Steve Mongelluzzo said. No statute
of limitations exists on suits to recoup returns that were never filed.
Garland said he had filed for more than 20 years before immersing himself
in tax law, the Constitution and IRS instruction booklets.
"He has no gripe about paying taxes, only to filing returns," his
defense lawyer said. "He'd like the IRS to send him a bill on how much tax
he owes."
------------
I have been trying to track down more details about the case, but the
law reporter services seem to have ignored it. I would like to write the
court directly and get a transcript of the trial, but I don't have an
exact date for the case. Does anyone out there know? I know it is
between Jan and May of 1983, but no more.
Dani Eder
Boeing Aerospacegwn@ihlpm.UUCP (Novak) (01/02/86)
During the past year ('85) I had the misfortune to be unemployed for
a period of three months. I would to know if the compensation I received
is taxable and must be reported on the federal and state income tax
forms that are due April 15, 1986.
Please send replies to me directly.
Gary W. Novak
AT&T Bell Labs
Naperville, Il. 60566
ihlpm!gwnsmh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (01/06/86)
> I would to know if the unemployment compensation I received > is taxable and must be reported on the federal income tax The tax treatment of unemployment benefits depends on the amount of your adjusted gross income. Your benefits are taxable if the total of your adjusted gross income and your benefits is 1) greater than $12,000 and your are single or 2) greater than $18,000 and you are married and file a joint return. Workmen's Compensation, employer paid supplemental benefits are not subject to taxation, nor are union financed benefits.
buentin@ccvaxa.UUCP (01/07/86)
Unemployment benefits MUST be reported, taxable or not, on line 20a of the 1040. The taxable amount depends on how much your adj. gross income is. There is a table in the instruction booklet for both the 1040 and 1040a.