Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 7

message: Dear Brad C and Wixpositor: I’ll respond to your comments about my response to the comments by Brad C here. The statement I made was: “Despite lots and lots of litigation by tax protesters to try to get a Federal court to rule that Congress does not have constitutional authority to tax income, including income in the form of wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services, over the years, the protesters have lost ‘every single case’.” In case you missed it, what I was saying was that in every case where a tax protester argued that Congress does not have constitutional authority to tax income, including income in the form of wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services, the tax protesters have lost that point. No court has ever ruled in favor of a tax protester on that argument.
The fact that direct taxes also include head taxes is most certainly relevant to defining a direct tax. Your statement that “It is what it is regardless of what it encompasses”, is of course a tautology and is of course a correct statement. You are also correct when you say that a direct tax includes (but is not limited to) taxes on real and personal property. None of this changes the fact that Brad C made an incorrect statement about a definition, and I provided a correction.
Wixpositor, your statement that “any tax, regardless of its name, must fall within the indirect class to be collectible within the States” is both legally incorrect and legally frivolous. Nothing in the text of Article I states -- and no Federal court has ever ruled -- that any tax, regardless of its name, must fall within the “indirect” class to be collectible within the States.
Now let’s talk about the Kuglin, Kellums, and Garland cases – using the example of Kuglin, a case which is erroneously cited by tax protesters over and over. We are going to have to talk about some of the basics of the U.S. legal system.
You readily admit that “These cases were won on the lack of willfulness, but they were won.” You – and Carl Worden, the author of the Sierra Times article you referenced – miss the importance of that statement. Let’s look at this Carl Worden verbiage from the material you cited regarding the Kuglin case:
::Now pinch yourself and review this astonishing turn of events: A highly trained and educated federal prosecutor in Memphis was unable to convince 12 American citizens that Vernice Kuglin was required to pay federal income taxes. He was clearly unable to produce a single section of the Tax Code to that end, and the jury was unanimous in clearing Kuglin of all charges against her. If the foregoing was not so, Kuglin would have been convicted.
This is a tired, old tax protester argument. Every time a tax protester (or other taxpayer) is acquitted in a criminal case, the tax protesters try to argue that this is a ruling by a court of law that “wages are not taxable,” “there is no law making me liable for a tax,” etc., etc.
Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that two categories of issues (questions) are determined in court. These are called “questions of fact” and “questions of law.”
Let’s look at this question: Under the Internal Revenue Code, are wages, salaries, and other forms of compensation for personal services includible in gross income -- and taxable -- for Federal income tax purposes? That is a question of law. Questions of law are decided only by a judge, not by a jury.
Let’s look at this question: Is the willful attempt in any manner to evade or defeat the assessment of any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code (or the attempt to evade or defeat the payment of such a tax) a felony under Internal Revenue Code? That is another question of law, to be decided by a judge, not by a jury.
One example of a question of fact would be: Did this particular taxpayer engage in an affirmative act to evade or defeat either the assessment of a Federal tax or the payment of a Federal tax, in connection with wages he or she received (actus reus)?
Another example of a fact question would be: Was this particular taxpayer aware of the existence of a law that made wages taxable for Federal income tax purposes (mens rea)?
Still another example of a fact question would be: Was any portion of the aforementioned Federal tax (for this particular taxpayer) unpaid at the time of the aforementioned actus reus and the mens rea (i.e., was there an actual tax deficiency) (attendant circumstance)?
Notice that on the question of whether this particular taxpayer was aware of the existence of a law that made wages taxable for Federal income tax purposes, the question is not whether the taxpayer agreed with the law, or agreed that it should be the law, or even believed that it really was the law. The question is whether the taxpayer was aware of the existence of the law.
Think of the situation where you are standing on a railroad track. Someone standing off to the side yells, warning you that a train is coming. You look down the track and you see the train speeding at you, and you say “No, that’s not a train, it’s just a mirage.” The fact that you do not believe that what you see is “a real train” when in fact it is a real train does not change the fact that you are aware of its existence.
In a criminal case, a “not guilty” verdict by the jury does not constitute a ruling by the court on any point of law. Again, juries determine what are called “questions of fact.” Juries do not determine questions of law, and juries render verdicts, not court judgments. No U.S. jury has ever ruled that wages are not taxable; indeed, no jury has the power to make such a ruling.
On a rare occasion, a jury may render a verdict that seems to a prosecutor or a news reporter, or maybe to you or me, to fly in the face of the facts and the law as presented to the jury. Legal scholars refer to this phenomenon as Jury nullification. Some commentators may even refer to this phenomenon as the jury “nullifying the law itself” – as applied in that particular case.
I’m sorry, but arguing that a “not guilty” verdict based on a finding of lack of willfulness in a criminal tax case is a ruling by the jury that wages are not taxable is like arguing that a “not guilty” verdict based on a finding of lack of willfulness in a murder case is a ruling by the jury that murder is not against the law.
Willfulness is one of the elements that the prosecution must prove in a criminal tax case – beyond a reasonable doubt. Under our legal system, proof in this context means PERSUASION. The jury may be persuaded that the defendant engaged in the conduct. The jury may be persuaded that a tax was owed. But if the jury is not persuaded that the defendant’s conduct was also WILLFUL, that jury is required, as instructed by the judge, to render a verdict of NOT GUILTY. Jury nullification in a particular case applies only to a verdict by a jury in that particular case. Jury nullification does not constitute a legal judgment by the court itself that the underlying law is somehow invalid, or non-existent, or wrongly applied, or wrongly interpreted, or wrongly anything else.
It is possible, but difficult, to empanel a jury of twelve people who will unanimously ignore the judge’s instructions on the law and render a “not guilty” verdict based on a belief by the members of the jury that wages are not taxable, or that wages should not be taxable. But even if that were to occur, or even if it has occurred in the Kuglin or other cases, that does not mean that wages are not taxable under the Internal Revenue Code, any more than a not guilty verdict in a murder case would mean that murder is not illegal. No Federal court has ever ruled that wages are not taxable for Federal income tax purposes.
Now, let’s look at this statement by Wixpositor:
::I will agree with Famspear that the protesters have lost most of these cases, but I attribute that fact to the propensity of federal judges to not want to be blackballed by the U.S. Attorney’s office and to their lack of fealty to their oaths of office rather than to the accuracy of their decisions.
Now, let’s look at this statement by Wixpositor:
::Additionally, many (most) of the arguments presented were either poorly framed or not on point at all, so of course they lost. (One can ascertain the contents of the arguments by reading the court decisions in these cases.)
And let’s look at this verbiage:
::[ . . . ] wages are property (wages are money and money is property). The inferior courts use the common definition of income (“everything that comes in”) rather than its legal definition and then build decisions based on their faulty definition. The government has managed to cobble together a morass of conflicting lower court decisions based on poorly-framed arguments to keep the Constitution at bay [ . . . ]
This is another tired, old tax protester argument. Despite litigating hundreds and hundreds of these cases over the years since the mid-1970s (when tax protester arguments began showing up in reported court decisions in appreciable numbers), the tax protesters just haven’t quite gotten it right, we are led to believe. Every tax protester presumably thinks his argument, which just hasn’t been argued in just the right way, will be the one that finally breaks the spell and convinces the courts that 99.9999% of all legislators, lawyers, CPAs, judges, law professors, etc., etc., for the past umpteen years just didn’t know how to do this right, and that the tax protesters were right all along. The tax protester argument seems to be that the courts just somehow have it wrong, presumably either unintentionally (incompetence?) or intentionally (conspiracy?).
Let’s look at this statement by Wixpositor:
::Wages are not income in the constitutional sense because a tax on them is not in the indirect class, which encompasses the only taxes that the federal government is allowed to collect from within the States.
Again, this statement is legally incorrect. Nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution states that a tax on wages is “not in the indirect class.” No Federal court has ever upheld the argument that, under Article I or any other provision of the United States Constitution, a tax on wages is a direct tax. Nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution states that taxes in the “indirect class” are “the only taxes that the federal government is allowed to collect from within the states” – and no court has ever upheld that argument. These arguments are legally frivolous.
I, Famspear, have never “claimed” that the 16th Amendment “has powers which in fact it does not have.” The law is as follows: Congress has the 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. There is no “exception” in the text of the Sixteenth Amendment that applies to “direct taxes” or “taxes that happen to be red” or “taxes that happen to be blue” or any other kind of taxes. If it’s an income tax, then Congress has the power to lay and collect it – without apportionment, etc. That’s not merely my personal “belief.” That’s not my original research. You can argue about what you personally believe the Constitution means from now until doom’s day, and you can argue about what you personally believe income means, but you cannot get around the central reality that the Constitution says what it says (to use another tautology), and that under the U.S. legal system the law is what the courts rule the law is.
Now, let’s look at this language from Wixpositor:
::The Supreme Court (as opposed to the mistaken lower courts) has never held that the federal government has the authority to collect an unapportioned direct tax from within the States. (However, the federal government can collect an unapportioned direct tax from within territory which it owns, leading to further confusion.)
This verbiage illustrates again the wisdom of the Wikipedia policy against “original research.” By his own admission, Wixpositor pretty much “ignores” decisions of the “mistaken lower courts.” This is code language by Wixpositor which really means: I, Wixpositor, have come up with my own theory, and the courts are wrong.
The attitude of the U.S. Supreme Court toward tax protesters is summed up in the most recent tax protester case to be decided by the Court: the ‘’Cheek’’ case. In Cheek the Court stated:
:Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax. [ . . . ] We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. [ . . . ] As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong. Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205-206 (footnote omitted).
In this case, Mr. Cheek’s first conviction was actually reversed by the Supreme Court on a non-tax protester argument regarding an incorrect instruction by the judge on “willfulness” (remember my explanation about questions of law and questions of fact?), and the case was remanded for a new trial. Cheek was convicted under the corrected instruction per the holdings of the Supreme Court. His conviction was upheld on appeal. He asked for a review by the Supreme Court and – guess what – the Supreme Court let his conviction stand, by declining his petition. Mr. Cheek went to prison.
Let’s look at this statement by Wixpositor:
::If not, Brad C’s and my statement that the federal government does not have the authority to collect an unapportioned direct tax within the States remains in agreement with the law of the land. Sorry.
Wixpositor, the issue – properly framed -- is whether the federal government has the authority to impose and collect an unapportioned income tax within the States. The answer that every Federal court has given – every Federal court that has decided the issue – is yes. The courts have uniformly applied that rule to taxes on lots of different kinds of income – including, especially, wages, salaries, and other forms of compensation for personal services. And each court that has considered the argument that wages cannot be taxed because the tax is “direct” has rejected that argument.
Sorry.
Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 22:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More response to Brad C and Wixpositor