Talk:Tax protester constitutional arguments

"Not a tax case"

I'm seeing a lot of statements in this article like:

No issues of taxation were presented to or decided by the Court, and the word "tax" is not found in the text of the Court's decision.

While certainly interesting, I'm not sure that's sufficient refutation of most of these points. The quotes seem to usually be used because they define terms in ways that cast doubts on tax legality, not because those cases explicitly said that the taxes involved were illegal. IANAL, so maybe there's some legal principle that means that such definitions only apply to the area of law considered in the case (and if that's true, you may want to explicitly mention it), but to a layman it seems a little strange. —Brent Dax 06:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

That isn't strange at all, and it is really not all that different from ordinary conversation. If you tell your eight-year-old that he cannot stay up past ten, that is not a promise that you and your wife won't stay up past midnight. If the court tells an employer that he has no right to tell his employees how to spend their money, that has no relevance to whether the government has the power of taxation, or to a case of guardianship.

Congress routinely defines words like "person", "income" and "interstate commerce" differently in one law than in another. There are whole sections of the United States Code devoted to telling you what these meanings are in different places. This can be frustrating for us laymen who try to understand the law, because our intuition leads us astray. In most cases, the reason for this seemingly odd behavior is a good one: it makes the law simpler to write. It is easier to make plurals and possessives out of "income" than out of "corporate gross income after deduction of the costs of materials."

In many of the tax-protester materials, this fact about the law and how it is written and interpreted is ignored. When a judge is talking about a personal injury case, he will use definitions and principles that are relevant, and will not worry about ones that are not. Robert A.West (Talk) 19:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brent Dax: From a legal standpoint, one of the most devastating things you can do to a tax protester is to say, about a particular case cited by a tax protester, that the case was not even a tax case. Under the U.S. legal system, we follow the rule of Stare decisis. See also Precedent and Ratio decidendi, and compare Obiter dictum. It is nonsensical, from a legal standpoint, for a tax protester to cite a particular court decision for a particular argument when that court decision did not even involve the subject matter at hand. To correctly point out that a particular case cited by the protester does not even mention the word "tax" is, from a legal standpoint, a complete refutation of the protester argument. Tax protester arguments suffer from a whole lot of other problems, but this is definitely one of the basic ones.

Another very devastating thing you can do to a tax protester is point out that, where the protester cites a particular case for a particular proposition, the case in question actually is a tax case and the ruling contradicts the protester's argument (you apparently saw some examples in the article).

The quotes in the cases do not "cast doubts on tax legality" from a legal standpoint -- and in law the legal standpoint is the only "standpoint" that counts. Taxation is a legal subject, and can be properly analyzed only by using principles of legal analysis.

We already have links to some of the relevant Wikipedia articles on proper legal analysis (see the discussion of the Stanton case). I'll take a look at the article and see if we can improve it. Yours, Famspear 20:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see where editor Robert A West has beat me to the punch in the article (see the section on Stanton). Yours, Famspear 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to make two other points. First, although the information presented certainly does refute tax protester arguments, my view is that refutation or persuasion is not the purpose of this Wikipedia article. Questions about the legal validity of tax protester arguments cannot be decided in Wikipedia anyway. Legal questions are decided ultimately -- and only -- in court. Instead, the Wikipedia reader is (hopefully) provided with verifiable information on tax protester arguments both pro and con, and (hopefully) that information is presented with a neutral point of view -- and the reader is left to make his or her own conclusion, if desired. The reason the material in the article refutes tax protester arguments is that tax protester arguments are legally invalid; a learned person who elucubrates the matter properly is drawn inevitably to this conclusion. Second: The points about certain cases not even mentioning the word "tax" are simply icing on the cake. As mentioned above, lots of cases cited by protesters actually are tax cases -- it's just that the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory texts never really are what the protesters would like them to be, and the courts never rule on those texts the way the protesters would want them to rule. Yours, Famspear 02:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Brent Dax: Here is a quote from the begining of the article on Perl:

Perl is a dynamic programming language designed by Larry Wall and first released in 1987. Perl borrows features from a variety of other languages including C, shell scripting (sh), AWK, sed and Lisp.

Structurally, Perl is based on the brace-delimited block style of AWK and C, and was widely adopted for its strengths in string processing, and lack of the arbitrary limitations of many scripting languages at the time.

Good grief. What in the world is a "brace-delimited block style"? What is "string processing"? What is a "scripting language"? And how are the other mentioned languages (such as "AWK" and "C") used? Why is Perl described as a "dynamic" language? Is there a language that's not dynamic? What does dynamic mean in this particular context? I use computers every day and I have no idea what these terms really mean. After reading the introduction, I (as a layman) still have little if any concept of what "Perl" is (beyond the fact that it's a programming language). My eyes glaze over, and I figure it's useless to even finish reading the article, if there's this much undefined computer-related jargon just in the first few lines.

I'll bet there are technical definitions somewhere for all those terms. (In fairness I should point out that some of the technical terms are linked to related Wikipedia articles.) As Wikipedia is used by the general public, the Perl article probably should define these technical terms (if the definitions are found further down in the article, I don't even know, as "mine eyes" are still in too much of a deep state of "glaze" and I stopped reading). So, your point about explictly mentioning a bit of the underlying legal principles in the article on Tax protester constitutional arguments is well taken. Just as computer tekkies may occasionally forget that non-computer people aren't familiar with lots of computer terms, lawyers can forget or lose sight of the fact that non-lawyers cannot know the underlying legal principles. Thanks, Famspear 16:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I believe this article should have more secondary sources. Right now, it is nearly all primary. --Benn Newman 00:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor Benn Newman: Regarding your point about secondary sources, the article is the result of many months of attacks on Wikipedia by tax protesters who have been inserting original research, non-neutral POV, unverified statements in tax-related articles. A decision apparently was made to concentrate the tax protester arguments, which are by definition legally frivolous and held by a small minority of people, into an article on tax protesters. That article gradually became too large and unwieldy, and was broken up earlier this year in to what is now: Tax protester; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester history; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; and Tax protester conspiracy arguments.

I note the following Wikipedia rule regarding original research (with some bolding added by me):

Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.[1]

Thus, I would argue that the Wikipedia rules on original research expressly recognize the example of Primary authority (which, I argue, is roughly analogous to Wikipedia's "primary source" concept) -- in the example given, an article on a court decision (Braunfeld v. Brown')-- as a way of providing the main support for an article on legal matters. Of course, we are always looking for additional Secondary authority materials -- sources roughly analogous to the Wikipedia concept of "secondary sources."

Much of the tax protester material that has appeared in Wikipedia has been copied and pasted from personal web sites, blogs, and so on -- hardly qualifying as proper sourcing for purposes of Wikipedia. Much of these materials cite actual court cases (primary authority). The problem is that the tax protesters nearly always misrepresent what the courts actually rule in the cited cases and, in some instances, actually include false "quotations" from the material. It would be virtually impossible to find secondary authority or secondary sources to illuminate the truth about every false entry or quotation. A better source, in this particlar kind of situation, is the actual Primary authority that is being falsely cited by the tax protesters. Yours, Famspear 18:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying. But that doesn't mean that they (the tax protesters) weren't right, right? *grin* More seriously: Taking what the court says and saying it is the "truth" (which it may be) is still not a neutral point of view. See also Wikipedia:Describing points of view. I think we can represent what the tax protesters' points of view(s) is(/are) and the courts' views are. --Benn Newman 21:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor Benn Newman: Well, if Einstein's theory of relativity is a correct statement of how the laws of physics work, then it is "true" for that reason -- and not because Einstein and 99% of all present-day scientists contend it's true, or believe it's true, or say it's true.

Secular law (made made law) of the USA is a bit different. Under the rules of the U.S. legal system, the law literally is what courts rule that it is in an actual case or controversy. Some of the key concepts are Stare decisis and Ratio decidendi. Further, under our legal system, it is emphatically the province and duty of the courts to say what the law is, to paraphrase a famous Supreme Court case. To study the ontology of U.S. law, to understand what law really is, you study statutes, regs, treaties, and other sources as well -- but it's primarily a study of court decisions. Court decisions are where the rubber meets the road under our legal system.

I believe these articles do represent what the tax protesters' points of views are, and the courts' "views" as well. Further, the articles strive for neutral point of view, as they do not say "the courts are right" or "the protesters are right." There is a difference between saying "the court ruled in this case that the income tax was not unconstitutional, and this ruling contradicts the tax protester argument" (which is both verifiable and neutral) and saying "the court ruling in this case is correct." There is a nuance here. I don't think the articles say that "the courts are correct" (even though, by definition, the courts are correct).

The court's Ratio decidendi in any particular case must be determined using certain rules of legal analysis. The holding or holdings of each case can be broadly or narrowly stated, but under the rules of legal analysis there is simply no room for the tax protester argument (for example) that Merchants' Loan somehow stands for the legally frivolous idea that non-corporate income is not taxable as "income," as the Court in that case ruled that the income of a decedent's estate -- which is an example of non-corporate income -- IS taxable as income.

Any article on tax protester arguments that follows the Wikipedia rules (verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research) will by definition leave most normally intelligent people with the correct impression that the tax protesters are incorrect -- because that is the actual state of the law. Tax protester arguments are a legal equivalent to the argument that the moon is made of green cheese. Wikipedia would do its readers a disservice if Wikipedia were to strain to try to provide equal weight to the tax protester argument. Indeed, by including tax protester arguments in Wikipedia, I would argue we are actually giving undue weight to them. Imagine Encyclopedia Brittanica giving substantial article space to the argument that the moon is made of green cheese -- comparing and contrasting scientific theories about the moon with the green cheese argument. Here you will have a good idea of the situation.

Please give us any suggestions you can on improving neutral POV, etc., on any of these related articles. Yours, Famspear 22:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point on OR, since the article contains no claims not in the sources cited and makes no evaluative claims of its own. In a democracy, everyone is entitled to an equal opinion about what the law should be, but once the courts have spoken, that is the law. I am reminded of a story where a lawyer, arguing before the Supreme Court, was interrupted by the Chief Justice: "Young man, your argument is fascinating, but it is not the law." To this, the lawyer replied, "Well, it was until Your Honor spoke." Courts do change their minds, and higher courts overrule lower ones, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and in any event there is no overruling the Supreme Court.

Famspear has replied convincingly to the OR point, and the rejoinder discussed NPOV, not NOR. Accordingly, I consider the OR claim dropped and have removed the tag. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of article text and replacement with material apparently copied from tax protester web site

On 16 November 2006, a new user called Bobbyppp deleted essentially the entire article and replaced it with material apparently copied almost verbatim from a page at the "We the People" tax protester web site at http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/Update04-May-10.htm. Obviously, this violates copyright and numerous Wikipedia policies including Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Also, tax protester web sites are not suitable authoritative sources for "what the law is."

The material was also blatantly false, with phony descriptions of what the Supreme Court ruled in cases like Brushaber. For example, the following statement was included in the text dump: "However, in 1916, the Supreme Court brought the devilish action of Congress and the Executive branch to a screeching halt. The Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber (and the cases bundled with it), that wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

That statement is totally false.

The Court in Brushaber ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (whether considered to be direct taxes or indirect taxes) be apportioned among the states according to population. The Court also ruled that the Revenue Act of 1913, imposing unapportioned income taxes, is not unconstitutional. The Court further ruled that the Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law. The Court also ruled that the Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Neither in Brushaber nor in any other Federal court case has any Federal court ever ruled that "wages are NOT income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."

Not only that, but the issue of whether wages are income was not even decided by the Court in Brushaber. That issue was not even presented to the Court in Brushaber. The terms "wage," "wages," "salary," and "salaries" do not even appear in the text of Brushaber. The material was twice reverted by Wikipedia editors. Yours, Famspear 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I've deleted a set of bullet points from the section Arguments that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified (see my deletion here). Much of the text is a verbatim copy of arguments from the page http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/usatoday.htm and so is a copyright violation. It might be a good idea to include some of these claims in the article, but we need to describe them in our own words. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 19:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Still too long!

Geez, even this page is getting too long - any thoughts on a logical split? bd2412 T 05:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm. This is just a preliminary idea, but maybe sections 11 and 12 (on the "labor" and "corporate profits" arguments) are similar enough to each other (and different enough from the rest of the "constitutional" material) that they could go in a separate article. I don't know. I gotta get to sleep, though. Maybe I can come up with an idea in my sleep. Catch you later! Yours, Famspear 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that the arguments about the Sixteenth Amendment itself (whether it was ratified, whether it is effective, what it permits to be taxed) are distinct from the arguments stemming from other constitutional rights, and the Federal Zone argument. Whichever way it goes, we should aim for something that splits the material up fairly evenly, and is amenable to a reasonable title. bd2412 T 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganized this article into what I think are logical divisions:

1. Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments
2. Sixteenth Amendment effectiveness arguments
3. Arguments using other constitutional amendments
4. Federal government authority arguments
5. Definition of "income" arguments
6. Taxing labor or income from labor

Maybe we could create a new series of article based on that structure. They might be as follows:

• Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments or Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments
• Tax protester arguments about the meaning of "income" or Tax protester arguments about the definition of "income"
• Tax protester arguments about taxing wages

I'm note sure if there's enough material in the Federal government authority and Arguments using other constitutional amendments to warrant separate articles. The article about the Sixteenth Amendment arguments could either focus on the ratification arguments or include both ratification and effectiveness arguments; again, I don't think the effectiveness argument section by itself is significant enough to warrant a separate article. Any thoughts? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 16:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

August 2006 decision in Murphy vacated

Because the August 2006 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the Murphy case was vacated (rendered void) by the same court on 22 December 2006, I have removed the quotations from the opinion that had been used to support the now-voided judgment. Yours, Famspear 14:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Original research moved from article

The following text has been moved from the article to here, for discussion:

The Constitution Prohibits the Collection of a Direct Tax

This is the one argument which has constitutional traction. The Supreme Court has ruled on many occasions that the sixteenth Amendment did not alter the original taxing clauses of the Constitution. For example,

“The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.”—Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 (1920)

Additionally,

“[B]y the previous ruling [Brushaber] 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 U.S. 103, 112 (1916)

Who took the power of Congress to tax “income” out of the indirect class? The Supreme Court, by its Pollock decision! The Sixteenth Amendment simply put it back. Stanton, supra, clearly shows that Article 1 has always restricted the definition of "income" to be only that on which an indirect tax can be laid and collected. Congress cannot define a direct tax as being an indirect tax just to enable it to pass constitutional muster. The class of a tax (direct or indirect) is not determined by now it is imposed but rather by its effect on the one who remits it to the government. If its burden can be shifted (as in a tax on manufacturing or on sales) the tax is indirect. If its burden cannot be shifted (as in a tax on property, including money), then that same tax is direct.

From these decisions and others one can determine that the “income” which Congress can tax is only that on which an indirect tax can be laid and collected. Since the main purpose of the Internal Revenue Code is to collect taxes within the States, any such tax imposed by the IRC, including the income tax, must be indirect to avoid conflict with Article 1. “The way they do it” is to bring the term “income” into the mix to create confusion. Regardless of its name, if a tax is indirect it is allowed by Article, and if it is direct it is prohibited by Article 1.

Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 18:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's look at these arguments one by one. First of all, the statement that "The Constitution Prohibits the Collection of a Direct Tax" is both incorrect and, on its face, absurd. The Constitution specifically states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . . " Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1. The only limitation on "Taxes" (i.e., direct taxes) was: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration . . . ." Art. I, sec. 9, cl. 4. As stated over and over again in the case law, all income taxes had been considered excises (not direct taxes) until the time of Pollock in 1895. In Pollock the Court ruled that a tax on income from one particular source -- namely property -- should, however, be treated as a tax on the property itself (a direct tax), and was therefore required to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment, however, overruled Pollock by specifically stating that Congress has the power to tax incomes from whatever source without apportionment. The courts have always recognized that Congress had the power to tax incomes long before the Sixteenth Amendment -- indeed, that's why you see the language to the effect that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.

The statement "Article 1 has always restricted the definition of 'income' to be only that on which an indirect tax can be laid and collected" is from a legal standpoint nonsensical. Article 1 (Article I of the Constitution) does not define income and Article I places no restrictions on the definition of income. Indeed, the term "income" is not found in the taxing provisions of Article I.

The statement that "Congress cannot define a direct tax as being an indirect tax just to enable it to pass constitutional muster" is probably correct -- but misses the point. The Sixteenth Amendment means exactly what it says. The Amendment is not limited to income taxes that happen to be direct taxes or income taxes that happen to be indirect taxes. If it's a "tax on incomes," then it's covered by the language of the Sixteenth Amendment, and that means that Congress not only can impose that tax, but can impose that tax regardless of the source of the income without having to apportion the tax among the states according to population.

The statement that the "class of a tax (direct or indirect) is not determined by now [sic; should be "how"] it is imposed but rather by its effect on the one who remits it to the government" misses the point. The point is that the constitutional validity of an income tax has nothing to do with how it is imposed -- and the validity also has nothing to do with its effect on who remits it to the government. Nothing in the language of Article I or in the Sixteenth Amendment places these kinds of restrictions on the Congressional power to tax incomes.

The law does not care whether the burden of the income tax "can be shifted (as in a tax on manufacturing or on sales)." The law also does not care whether the income tax is considered direct or indirect. In other words, the source of the income (which was the key consideration in Pollock in deciding whether the income tax was direct or indirect) is legally irrelevant after the Sixteenth Amendment with respect to the apportionment rule. If it's an income tax, the apportionment restriction simply does not apply.

The statement: "Since the main purpose of the Internal Revenue Code is to collect taxes within the States, any such tax imposed by the IRC, including the income tax, must be indirect to avoid conflict with Article 1" is another nonsensical statement, from a legal standpoint. With respect to the apportionment rule, the law does not care whether a particular income tax "conflicts" with Article I. The Sixteenth Amendment means what it says.

The only remaining constitutional restriction on income taxes found in the text of the constitution itself would be the unformity requirement for indirect taxes (excises). Excises must be imposed with what the courts have ruled is geographical uniformity. That basically means that the Congress could not impose an income tax, for example, just on incomes of people living in New York and Montana.

There are other possible restrictions, but they relate more to what the definition of "income" should be for purposes of the Constitution. Also, there's a requirement that taxing measures (not just income tax measures) originate in the House of Representatives, and so on.

The text I have been discussing is objectionable because it is unverifiable and is original research (incorrect research at that). There is simply no Federal court decision where any court has ruled the arguments in the text to be legally valid. Citations to tax protester web sites are not reliable for purposes of Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 20:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Tax protester constitutional arguments → Tax protester constitutional arguments in the United States This article deals almost exclusively about this phenomenon in the United States. Please discuss at Talk:Tax protester#Requested move. —  AjaxSmack  06:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Explaination of Brushaber Ruling"

The Brushaber case was about the right of Congress to tax the income of Corporations.

Union Pacific Railroad was a Corporation ("person") that owned property. That property was used to produce "income" which was taxable. The 16th Amendment was brough about to address the fact the the U.S. Supreme Court in the Pollock case had classified a tax that was long thought to be indirect, as direct. It's main directive was to prevent other Courts from doing what the Court in the Pollock case did: reclassifying an income tax as direct, when it is actually indirect.

The 16th Amendment did NOT do away with the requirements for apportionment for a direct tax, thereby creating a new power to directly tax incomes without apportionment, as so many people falsely believe. In the Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling [Brushaber] 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, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a MISTAKEN THEORY deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed." [emphasis mine]

The 16th Amendment DID NOT give the Congress the power to directly tax income without Apportionment. This is evidenced by the fact that 1:2:3 and 1:9:4 of the U.S. Constitution are still intact, and have never been overturned by Amendment to the Constitution (c.f. "Prohibition" Amendment XVIII, and "Repeal of Prohibition" Amendment XXI of said Constitution). In order for the income of sovereign men and women to be taxed, there must be apportionment. IRS readily admits that incomes of individual people are not taxed according to apportionment requirements. Congress has NEVER had the power to levy a direct tax in disregard to the rule of apportionment, and they never will.

The Pollock ruling damaged Congress' ability to filch money from the people. In light of that fact, Congress created the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909. That Act taxed, via an excise -or "privilege"- tax, doing business as a corporation. The value of the privilege of doing business as a corporation was determined by the amount of income the corporation produced, minus deductions. By passing the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, Congress now has effectively sidestepped the Pollock ruling, and once again is filching money from the people by deceiving them into believing they are required to file a 1040 income tax return form (which form, consequently, bears an OMB number which makes it the WRONG form for an individual man or woman to report income on). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.84.117.14 (talk • contribs) 12:58 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear anonymous user at IP 162.84.117.14: Your analysis is partly correct and partly incorrect. In Brushaber the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as follows:

1. The Sixteenth Amendment removes the requirement that income taxes (whether considered to be direct taxes or indirect taxes) be apportioned among the states according to population. The Revenue Act of 1913, imposing income taxes that are not apportioned among the states according to each state's population, is not unconstitutional.

2. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the government taking property without due process of law.

3. The Federal income tax statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Those are the issues that Frank Brushaber litigated. He lost on those issues. The Court ruled against him.

Your comment -- that the Sixteenth Amendment's directive was to prevent the reclassification of an income tax as direct, when it is actually indirect -- is basically correct.

The argument that the 16th Amendment did not do away with the requirements for apportionment for a direct tax, thereby creating a new power to directly tax incomes without apportionment is incorrect, and has been uniformly rejected by the courts. No Federal court has ever upheld this argument. Indeed, the courts have uniformly ruled that income taxes, whether considered direct or indirect, are not required to be apportioned. Not only that, but even before the Sixteenth Amendment the Congress had the power to tax incomes in the form of wages, salaries, etc., without any apportionment requirement. Even the Pollock court indicated that. All this has been covered in Wikipedia articles and talk pages.

Specifically, no Federal income tax has ever been apportioned, and yet every court since 1913 ruling on the the direct tax-indirect tax-apportionment issue has ruled that Federal income taxes on wages, salaries, interest, dividends, corporate profit, etc., etc., etc., are constitutional, even without apportionment. Some of the cases are cited in the article. The statement that the amendment did not give Congress the power to directly tax income without apportionment is incorrect.

The statement that the provisions of Article I are “still intact” is, in the sense you are intending, incorrect. The provisions of Article I have indeed been overturned (modified, partially repealed, etc.) by the Sixteenth Amendment, but of course only with respect to income taxes. Your reference to the 18th and 21st amendment is nothing more than a reference to the incorrect “the 16th amendment does not contain the word repeal” argument. That argument is totally incorrect from a legal standpoint. Indeed, I believe the 21st amendment is just about the only amendment that does contain the word “repealed.”

One of the repetitive tactics of tax protesters is to invent a non-existent rule of law in order to try to pretend that a real rule of law does not exist. Under U.S. law, there is simply no rule that says that a constitutional amendment must contain the words “repeal” or “repealed” to change (modify, amend, repeal, or partially repeal) something in the original seven articles of the Constitution. The United States follows the doctrine of implied repeal. This means that many constitutional amendments change (modify, amend, repeal, or partially repeal) something in the original seven articles, yet do not contain the words “repeal” or “repealed.” If your argument were correct, each state legislature would still be electing the members of the U.S. Senate from that state, and slavery would still be constitutional, and presidential inauguration day would be held in March instead of January, and presidents would still be able to serve an unlimited number of terms, etc., etc., etc.

Now let’s look at this statement:

By passing the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, Congress now has effectively sidestepped the Pollock ruling, and once again is filching money from the people by deceiving them into believing they are required to file a 1040 income tax return form (which form, consequently, bears an OMB number which makes it the WRONG form for an individual man or woman to report income on).

I hope this does not come as too much of a shock, but the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 has not been in effect for many years. Nothing in that Act, when it was in effect, had anything to do with taxation of individuals or filing a Form 1040. The Form 1040 filing requirement was brought in after the 1913 Act, not the 1909 Act. The 1913 Act was passed several months after the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Your reference to “OMB” is a variation on the incorrect “OMB control number” argument. Some tax protesters argue that Form 1040 does not contain an OMB control number (even though it most certainly does), and that therefore – somehow – the filing of income tax returns and payment of income taxes is not required. That argument is incorrect.

By contrast, you are arguing that because Form 1040 DOES contain the OMB control number, that somehow that makes it “the WRONG form for an individual man or woman to report income on.” That argument is also incorrect.

The presence or absence of an OMB control number on a tax form has nothing to do with a person’s legal obligation to file a Federal income tax return or pay a Federal income tax. Those obligations are imposed by statute. No tax protester has ever won in court on these arguments. For background on OMB control number arguments, see Tax protester statutory arguments.

This highlights one of the problems for tax protesters. They can’t even agree among themselves. And the more they litigate these issues, the more the losses keep piling up. The more the losses keep piling up, the more precedent is set against them. Yours, Famspear 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To whomever it may matter:

Respectfully i ask that you read verbatim from the Brushaber case and you will find quite contrary to what you have just said that it if fact states that the 16th DID NOT give congress any new powers.

many lower courts seem to misunderstand it as well.

It is perhaps the biggest mistake made in most IRS prosecutions. lawyers cite the case and claim it gives powers when CLEARLY they put it to the test and it is VOIDED (Not constitutional) each time.

read it carefully please

Guys i am not sure what was reverted here, but this line of reasoning is fatally flawed.

someone is reading this from another source.

The brushaber case CLEARLY shows that the 16th made NO taxation changes for the average person.

From this in substance it indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish ( that is to say making ALL income taxable). Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived

240 US 1

We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] 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, as follows:

1.The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment, and therefore if a tax is levied under its assumed authority which does not partake of the characteristics exacted by the Amendment, it is outside of the Amendment, and is void as a direct tax in the general constitutional sense because not apportioned.

2.As the Amendment authorizes a tax only upon incomes 'from whatever source derived,' the exclusion from taxation of some income of designated persons and classes is not authorized, and hence the '''constitutionality of the law must be tested by the general provisions of the Constitution as to taxation''', and thus again the tax is void for want of apportionment.

3.As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived' for which the Amendment provides must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, therefore no tax comes under the authority of the Amendment not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the assailed statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, causing the statute again to be void in the absence of apportionment.

But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states.

So exactly how does anyone claim that this case upholds the 16th's power to lay direct tax on the average income or that it gave any NEW powers of taxation to the government ?

has anyone even read the cited cases?

It pronounced, “Realizing and receiving income or earnings is not a privilege that can be taxed.” 206 Tenn. at 698. In justifying this conclusion, the Court stated that “[s]ince the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as privilege.” 206 Tenn. at 699

Jack Cole Company v. MacFarland, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 (1960)

There are many lawyers who are misquoting this. but if you look at it closely you will find that it Clearly and Plainly says the 16th amendment made no change to congress's ability to tax us.

I am quite open to anything proving otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.136.69 (talk • contribs) on 13 August 2007

Dear user at IP 60.245.137.69. I notice that you are posting similar comments in many different talk pages. No lawyers are misquoting the case. This has been covered over and over and over again in Wikipedia. You have not added anything new. By the way, the Jack Cole Company case isn't even a Federal income tax case. It's not a Federal court case at all, and includes no ruling on the validity of Federal income taxes or the Sixteenth Amendment.

You may want to read the cited cases yourself. The material you inserted appears to have been based on tax protester arguments found on the internet. This kind of material has been posted in Wikipedia over and over. Nothing new.

The Court in Brushaber UPHELD the validity of the Federal income tax. And NO FEDERAL COURT HAS EVER HELD that the income of an individual cannot be taxed. There was an old case where the Supreme Court made a ruling on certain income taxes of Federal judges, but that had nothing to do with the validity of Federal income taxation in general -- and that case was later overruled by the Supreme Court itself, anyway.

Now, let's look at your verbiage here:

Respectfully i ask that you read verbatim from the Brushaber case and you will find quite contrary to what you have just said that it if fact states that the 16th DID NOT give congress any new powers.

many lower courts seem to misunderstand it as well.

It is perhaps the biggest mistake made in most IRS prosecutions.  ::lawyers cite the case and claim it gives powers when CLEARLY they put it to the test and it is VOIDED (Not constitutional) each time.

read it carefully please

Guys i am not sure what was reverted here, but this line of reasoning is fatally flawed.

With all due respect, this is completely wrong. The exact text of the Brushaber case is available for anyone to read on line. Mr. Frank Brushaber was arguing that the Federal income tax on CORPORATE income was unconstitutional. HE LOST THE CASE. The Court UPHELD the corporate income tax. Also, the INDIVIDUAL income tax wasn't even at issue in the case. And NO FEDERAL court -- either before or after the Sixteenth Amendment -- has ever ruled that Congress cannot validly impose a Federal income tax on the income of U.S. citizens or residents. None. Not even one single case.

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a tax protester who wanted to argue that the income of an individual was not taxable is the case of Cheek v. United States, in 1991. The Supreme Court generally doesn't even hear these kinds of cases any more - they are treated as so frivolous.

Under American law, we follow a rule called Stare decisis. That means that you cannot simply take quotations from court opinions and argue that they mean something other than what the court actually ruled. The Supreme Court UPHELD the income tax in Brushaber. Yours, Famspear 10:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Verbiage regarding section 6702 penalties

Regarding the following unsourced verbiage recently inserted in the article:

It should be noted a court cannot assess a penalty under 26USC6702. Only an administrative agency (Internal Revenue Service) can assess such a penalty because a violation of 26USC6702 is a Civil penalty and addresses a knowing or consenting filing of a return of tax by a person (nontaxpayer) with a duty to act on behalf of a tax shelter (taxpayer) that purports a violation of 26UCC6700 and 26USC6701 (See 26USC6703).

It is correct to say that the IRS, and not the court, "assesses" penalties, as the term "assessment" is used in the Code. Assessment of taxes, penalties and interest is an administrative function, not a judicial function. This has nothing really to do with the fact that a section 6702 violation is a civil penalty, etc. The verbiage seems to have very little to do with the discussion in the article. At any rate, where a taxpayer contests the assessment of a section 6702 penalty in court, the court decides whether or not the penalty will be upheld. The court does this by way of a judgment. That's a judicial function.

The verbiage regarding "nontaxpayer" and "taxpayer" is nonsensical, from a tax law standpoint. In short: Unsourced, tangential, partially incorrect verbiage. Yours, Famspear 16:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I should also point out that the appeals court in the Lovell case (see the article) specifically stated that the taxpayers "appeal from a district court order granting summary judgment and assessing a $500 frivolous return penalty under 26 U. S. C. A. §6702(a)." In other words, the appeals court was saying that the district court "assessed" the penalty. However, in this case the appeals court was using the term "assess" in a more general, colloquial non-technical sense, and not with the formal statutory meaning in which the IRS, as an administrative agency, "assesses" a tax or penalty by recording it on the books of the U.S. Treasury. Nevertheless, I went ahead and changed the verbiage in the article from "assess" to "uphold." Lots of legal terms, like lots of other terms, have more than one meaning. Yours, Famspear 16:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoted to GA

Yes you meet the standards: well-written, accurate and verifiable, broad and not losing focus (ie. not wandering outside the scope of the title), neutral (not advocating taxdodging, not pro-government), stable - good collaboration on talk (and may a thousand flowers bloom, may a hundred schools of thought contend), THERE ARE NO IMAGES but lack thereof is not fatal to attaining GA. FA-status requires that style standards must be upheld, that the writing is compelling or brilliant, that the coverage is comprehensive. Meditate upon it. My view is that your writing and coverage, especially the latter, do meet the FA-standard. Now I propose that I might steal an image from United States Supreme Court or the article on the 16th Amendment to place here. Paying taxes buys civilisation (my view) - schools, hospitals, rubbish removal, police, roads .. even courtrooms! Don't be late for April 15.BongHitz4Musa 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Irwin Schiff

Love to find a pic of this taxdodger to put in the article .. someone who personifies tax protesting in the United States. I've added in a pic of Justice OWH from 1930 and a copy of the 16th Amendment as images. Interesting how the leading cases are not often from the level of the United States Supreme Court.BongHitz4Musa 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Amendment argument

I know we were looking for more sources for these articles. Read this article recently by Alan Keyes - http://www.renewamerica.us/news/070412keyes.htm. Might be able to be used for sourcing purposes, though he doesn't state that it allows you to refuse to file an income tax return. He does discusses the argument as a civil liberty issue. Morphh ^(talk) 11:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I found the section titled "Shallow legal arguments" to be something that might be worth noting in the article. Most of the article sections discuss the court ruling on a particular argument, however, I'm not seeing that we've added something that presents that most protesters believe the courts do not reliably represent the rule of law and are cooperating in the imposition of an income tax regime that contradicts the Constitution. This article could be used as a source for such a viewpoint. Morphh ^(talk) 3:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that the courts are failing to properly interpret the law is not a constitutional argument; it is covered under Tax protester conspiracy arguments. bd2412 T 05:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrote Second Paragraph

I'm leaving this note on a relativlely small edit because those who authored it obviously spent a lot of time researching this material, and I wouldn't want them to think I'm being contrary or unapreciative. I believe that the line "However, supporters of such arguments may also be inclined to contend that statutory and conspiracy arguments apply as well." needed to be removed. It seems to be an "Informal Relevance fallacy". Anyone, regardless of their views on this or any other subject, in general, "may also be inclined" to believe anything. --Electrostatic1 09:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Electrostatic1: I'm not sure I follow you. The statement "However, supporters of such arguments may also be inclined to contend that statutory and conspiracy arguments apply as well" is not a "fallacy." It is statement of fact. Some supporters of constitutional arguments against a particular tax statute may indeed also contend that statutory, etc., arguments apply to that same statute as well. I agree that the arguments these people make are fallacious. That, however, is a separate concept.

I think you might be saying that if a statute is unconstitutional, you don't need to consider a separate "statutory construction" argument about the meaning of that statute -- and if you're saying that, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean that tax protesters aren't doing both things anyway.

The article here is trying to describe one aspect of the tax protesters' arguments. The fact that the protesters' "reasoning" might be fallacious (such as arguing both constitutional and statutory construction at the same time) does not mean that Wikipedia should omit a statement or description of that "reasoning" in the article. The article is not saying that this "reasoning" is valid reasoning; the article is saying: This is what the tax protesters are saying.

Any thoughts? Yours, Famspear 11:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Famspear: I suppose what I am trying to say is that for an encylopedia article it would be fine to say "However, certain supporters of such arguments have contended that statutory and conspiracy arguments apply as well." provided it was properly sourced. The difference would be the "may also be inclined to contend" vs. "have contended". "Have contended" can be verified as fact and documented, "may also be inclined to contend" is automagically true no matter what the argument, and hence fallacious as an argument. (Try it out, it can be quite amusing... It can never be proven wrong. "Supporters of insert phrase may also be inclined to contend that insert phrase.") I would have changed it to that myself, although I didn't have time to research a source last night, and didn't want to change it to an unsourced certainty. Electrostatic1 05:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up for non-lawyers (i.e., for normal people) I should point out that in a court of law it is generally acceptable to argue "conflicting" theories within a case. For example if you are fighting against the government on some issue, you could go into court and argue that "statute X is unconstitutional because it violates provision Y of the Constitution." That's a contention about constitutionality of the statute.

Then, in a separate place in your pleading you could argue something like "Well, even if statute X does not violate provision Y, statute X should be construed to mean 'Z' -- even though the government says that the statute means 'not Z.'" That would be a statutory construction argument.

Then, you could make a third argument that "Well, if the government is right and statute X does mean 'not Z', the statute does not apply to me anyway, because of some rule in statute M" (another statutory construction argument, probably).

Unless one of those arguments happens to be legally frivolous, it would be permissible to make all three arguments in the same pleading. You are generally allowed to plead and argue as many alternative theories as you like. Yours, Famspear 16:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Electrostatic1: OK, I see what you mean about sourcing. Rather than add a citation tag, and based on your point about sourcing, I am going to go ahead and remove the sentence "However, supporters of such arguments may also be inclined to contend that statutory and conspiracy arguments apply as well". I guess someone could add it back later with some sourcing, if appropriate. Thanks for explaining this. Yours, Famspear 14:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbiased my ***

This article is clarly biased. All it does is attack the tax honest movement... hell the article on alien abductions sounds less one sided. One of the earliest claims is that no court has said that the 16th Amendment was illegally ratified. Bullshit. "If you went back and examined that carefully (the 16th Amendment), you would find that a sufficient number of states never ratified that amendment" ~ U.S. District Court Judge, James C. Fox, 2003 Most of the court cases cited do not include the fact that many of the judges says things that are clearly those infamous cases where judges bend the laws in order to keep with the status quo. Does this make them any less important, no. But as for a wikipedia article it is something that deserves to be mentioned. This article has just been used as means of attacking the Tax Honesty Movement. The repetitive use of the phrase "Some tax protesters argue that..." followed by why that claim is wrong because of what one judge says. I'm sorry but since when did a local country or district judge has the right to over-rule the Constitution of the United States. Thats like saying the guy in the cubicle deciding corporate policy. The author of this is clearly some IRS lapdog who believes that if we got rid of the income tax we wouldn't be able to fund government (and obviously we ha don't government until 1913 when the means to fund it were established). This article portrays the members of the Tax Honest Movement as stupid and uninformed people who just wanna get out of paying their taxes. TheHoustonKid 14:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

However I would suggest that the title of the article be changed from "Tax protester constitutional arguments" to "Rebuttals against tax protester constitutional arguments". That would fairly turn this page into a list of reasons why tax protesters are wrong rather than something that, based on the article title, should list the arguments either with equal credence given to both sides or without arguments against tax protesters arguments.

TheHoustonKid 14:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear TheHoustonKid: This article is not "one-sided." It lists both the tax protester arguments and the court rulings against those arguments. The article does not attack the "tax honesty movement" or anyone else.

The statement you mentioned by Judge Fox was not a ruling by Judge Fox. It was a statement he made in open court in a discussion with parties in a case. The case had nothing to do with the validity of the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and Judge Fox was referring to material he had read or heard about somewhere. Plenty of courts have made actual rulings on the Sixteenth Amendment. Those rulings are reported in the article. Every single court, without exception, has rejected the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. To report otherwise in a Wikipedia article would be dishonest.

Regarding your statement that "[m][ost of the court cases cited do not include the fact that many of the judges says things that are clearly those infamous cases where judges bend the laws in order to keep with the status quo" deserves to be mentioned, you are absolutely incorrect. Here's why.

First, it's not a verifiable statement. That means that it is not sourced. Whether the statement is true or false, it is your own opinion. Wikipedia has a rule called "Verifiability" and a rule called "No Original Research." In other words, if you can find a reliable third party source that has claimed that "most of the court cases cited do not include the fact that many of the judges says things that are clearly those infamous cases where judges bend the laws in order to keep with the status quo" -- you can cite that source. You cannot, however, just insert that into the article based on your own opinion or even as your own conclusion based on research that you yourself may have done.

Now, let's look at your critique of the repetitive use of the phrase "Some tax protesters argue that..." followed by "why that claim is wrong because of what one judge says," as you put it. You object to this treatment. Your objection is completely wrong. Here's why.

First, we're not talking about what "one judge says." We're talking about what hundreds and hundreds of judges have ruled in official court proceedings, over and over, since the mid-1970s (and even before). What a judge rules in a court of law is not merely that judge's personal opinion. Court rulings are official judgments about what the law is in connection with an actual case or controversy. Under the U.S. legal system, "what the law is" is not decided by Wikipedia editors. The law is decided by judges in actual court rulings. The fact that you may disagree with a particular ruling, or the fact that you may mis-characterize that ruling as just a statement of what "one judge says," is of no significance.

In Wikipedia, we have a rule called "Neutral Point of View." Neutral Point of View in general includes the concept of presenting both sides of the argument, without stating that one side or another is correct.

Regarding your suggestion that the article "should list the arguments either with equal credence given to both sides or without arguments against tax protesters arguments" -- that is completely wrong, and violates a basic tenet of Wikipedia. One of the basic concepts is that neutral point of view does not require giving equal weight to all sides. By definition, tax protester arguments are arguments that have been universally and uniformly ruled to be without legal merit for many, many years and, indeed, have been often ruled legally frivolous, which is even worse. Trying to present the material in these article by giving equal "credence" (as you put it) to both sides would not only violate that rule, but would be, bluntly, dishonest. Your approach would make about as much sense as requiring, in an article on The Moon, that Wikipedia discuss the scientific community's theories about the physical composition of The Moon and then giving equal credence to those who believe that The Moon is made of green cheese. We are not required to give equal weight to the green cheese theory. That would not be neutral point of view; it would be foolish.

Wikipedia also has a rule about No Personal Attacks. That means: Comment on the material, not on the contributor. Your comments about the writer (mainly me, in this case) somehow being an IRS "lapdog" are not only totally false, but may also constitute a violation of the rule against personal attacks. You don't even know who I am, or who the other contributors are.

Please review the Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. I encourage you to post your comments and suggestions about improving the article here on this talk page. Let's be more specific. The "NPOV" tag is probably inappropriate, and is being removed. To tag this article as being not neutral point of view is inappropriate, as you have apparently never edited this article or participated in the talk page discussion before. Yours, Famspear 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said, Famspear. I would add that if we included every instance of a court ruling against each of the proposed arguments, we'd have a few dozen article's worth of material. Whether taxes are required to fund the goverment is irrelevant to the question of whether there is a Sixteenth Amendment, and whether it permits the taxation of income. But if you feel the courts have rules wrongly on the issue over all these decades, please inform the IRS that you will not be paying income taxes based on these errors, and you will have the opportunity to challenge the precedent of the courts. bd2412 T 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article's tone is against tax protestors, which seems to give the article a bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.236.86 (talk)

Murphy material condensed; new section added

Dear editors: I have deleted the separate section on the Murphy case and incorporated a more more brief description of the Murphy case together with a quote from the seminal Penn Mutual case from many years ago. The Murphy material was a bit repetitive of the detail already shown in the separate Wikipedia article on Murphy. Together, Penn Mutual and Murphy are leading cases for the precept that although Congress cannot "make" something "be" income that is not really income, Congress may constitutionally call something income, and may tax it as income. Yours, Famspear 15:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Equal protection clause

An anonymous editor has been adding the following verbiage:

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment however does negate the progressive structure of the federal income tax system, as higher percentages of income are allegedly owed by wealthier citizens. The Sixteenth Amendment provides only that income tax need not be apportioned among the states (it makes no mention of the people), and as such does not negate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this way the tax code, while not inherently unconstitutional, is unconstitutionally implemented.

This material has been removed by me and at least one other editor. Aside from being unsourced original research, the verbiage about the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment somehow negating the progessive structure of Federal income taxes is, unfortunately, completely false. However, when I get a chance I will check and see if there are any court cases on this. Perhaps it can be reworked and added back as another example of a tax protester argument. Yours, Famspear 13:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly is this argument unsourced? The current tax code affords low income households and invididuals the ability to reclaim nearly all of the income tax paid in a given fiscal year through the tax return process, whereas the wealthy often recieve no return, and sometimes end up owing more tax than previously owed. This law does not protect the property rights of citizens equally, and as such is unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. SOURCE: Section 1. 14th and all of the 16th. Further, I have made my case, until you can make one contradicting it, I'll thank you to leave this portion of the article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesthead115 (talk • contribs)

Mesthead, you need to provide a weblink, book, magazine, to the source making the statement. The reference to the Amendment does not provide the arguments that you have presented nor state that such is unconstitutional. Please provide a reliable source to who makes this arguement. It can not be you. It must be something from a reliable published source. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Section 1. Amendment XIV, last line: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Amendment XVI: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

Amendment XIV clearly states that all citizens of this country shall have equal protection under the laws of this nation. Since the XVI amendment makes no mention of the people, and only the states, it does not negate the idea that the equal protection clause ensures that the law treats us all equally. No published work will contend this idea because it doesn't merit publication, it's clearly written in the Constitution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mesthead115 (talk • contribs) 16:43, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Please read the policy on original research. You are drawing conclusions that are not expressely identified in the constitution. That the implementation of a progressive income tax violates the 14th. Without drawing this conclusion, the entire paragraph is irrelavant. The conclusion is unsourced and appears to be origional research. If you can provide a source for the conclusion, then I believe the editors here will work to include it as another argument if it has sufficent weight for inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 17:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not drawing any conclusions that cannot be seen by any literate person.

Fact: 14th ensures equal protection Fact: Income tax is progressive Fact: Income tax is not equally protective. Conclusion: Income tax violates the 14th Amendment as currently implemented.

This entire article relies on editorials and supreme court cases that draw conclusions from fact. How are my conclusions less valid than their's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mesthead115 (talk • contribs) 17:28, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Dear Mesthead: As explained below, you are asking the wrong question. The issue is not whether your conclusions cannot be seen by any literate persons. The problem with your conclusions is that they are your conclusions, not those of a reliable third party published source.

For purposes of Wikipedia, "unsourced" means that you have not provided a citation to a reliable, published, third party source that stands for the proposition in the text you propose to insert.

Under the rules of Wikipedia, it is OK for the entire article to rely on "editorials and supreme court cases that draw conclusions from fact" -- as those are published third party sources. It is NOT acceptable for you, as a Wikipedia editor, to make your own arguments and draw your own conclusions and then insert them into an article, no matter how logical you feel your own arguments may be.

That means that if you want the article to say that, under the Fourteenth Amendment, progressive income taxes are somehow invalid, you cannot merely cite the "Fourteenth Amendment." The text of the Fourteenth Amendment does not even mention any kind of taxes, much less say anything about "progressive" income taxes being a violation of "equal protection." The argument that progressive income taxes violate the equal protection clause is called an interpretation (whether correct or incorrect). That means that if you want to include that interpretation in a Wikipedia article, you need to find a reliable third party published source that has interpreted the Amendment that way -- not merely inserting your own interpretation. The material as presented violated two rules: Verifiabilty, and No Original Research.

Regarding No Original Research, what you are doing is trying to synthesize. That is not allowed. Here is the rule:

Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. [ . . . ]

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

In addition, as I stated above, your argument may well be a tax protester argument that has been made in a court of law. If I can find any court cases on this, I will bring that to your attention. For purposes of Wikipedia, you could then say that such and such a taxpayer raised this issue or tried to push this interpretation in case XXXX, and the court in that case ruled against that taxpayer (which would surely be the case). Stay tuned. Famspear 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Editors: Here is the verbiage:

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment however does negate the progressive structure of the federal income tax system, as higher percentages of income are allegedly owed by wealthier citizens. The Sixteenth Amendment provides only that income tax need not be apportioned among the states (it makes no mention of the people), and as such does not negate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this way the tax code, while not inherently unconstitutional, is unconstitutionally implemented.

Obviously, Wikipedia itself cannot take the blatant position that the equal protection clause "negates" the progressive income tax, etc., etc. This is Mesthead's conclusion, not a conclusion by a reliable, published, third party source. Famspear 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mesthead - If the conclusion is so apparent, then it should be easy to find a reliable source for it. Perhaps I'm illiterate but I read it differently - people have equal protection of the law. My understanding is that the law must be applied to you and me equally but the law is a progressive income tax. If I make $10 and you make $10, we both pay xx. If I make $10 and you make $100, the law says I pay xx and you pay xxx. If I make $100, then I will also pay xxx. The law is applied equally. If two people making the same amount defined in the law were treated differently (blacks pay this and whites pay this), then I think it would apply. I have no basis for my conclusion, I haven't studied it.. so I could be completely incorrect. I'm just showing how others may view it. It seems your concluding that the 14th means that the law must be written to treat all people equally, which is not how I interpret it. It says equal protection of the laws. All non-discretionary spending is allocated to some program (law) that qualifies citizens based on age, income, etc. But anyway... still need some form or source. Morphh ^(talk) 18:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: OK, unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional because of the progressivity of the tax. Specifically, the argument in that case was that the Federal income tax was:

repugnant to the Constitution [ . . . ] because of the illegal discriminations and inequalities which it creates, including the provision for a progressive tax on the income of individuals' [ . . . ]. [italics added]

The Supreme Court ruling rejected that argument. The case is Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115 (1916). That may be the end of the matter, but stay tuned, I will keep looking. Yours, Famspear 18:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mesthead, I would think the average literate person would notice that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment says "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [my emphasis]. We are talking about the federal income tax here. Even if your original interpretation of the meaning of "equal protection" were the accepted meaning, it still would not be relevant to the federal income tax. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)