This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although it's not mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, the taxpayer was a practicing attorney. Technically, an attorney is an officer of the court. An attorney in private practice like Springer is not, however, a government employee (not an employee of the judiciary). I don't recall for sure, but some tax protesters may have falsely claimed that Springer was a government employee and that the Court's holding in the case was limited to income of government employees. That would be false.
Many people who read the phrase "officer of the judiciary" (which I have removed) might make three erroneous conclusions: (1) That the Court mentioned that fact in its opinion; (2) That the Court limited its holding to "officers of the judiciary", and (3) that an "officer of the judiciary" is always a government employee.
Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, and court clerks are government employees. Attorneys engaged in the professional private practice of law are not government employees.
More to come. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the 1864 Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . ]" Revenue Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 223, sec. 116 (June 30, 1864). Contrary to what some tax protesters may argue, Springer never contended that the Constitution prohibited the 1864 Act from taxing the income from a "profession, trade, employment, or vocation," or that the 1864 income tax was limited in its application to "government employees" rather than "every person residing in the United States" and "every citizen of the United States residing abroad." Yours, Famspear ( talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's one thing I'm confused about though. The article on the Revenue Act of 1862 does cite the date as July 1, 1862. I'll check on this. Famspear ( talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I found it. It was the date of the amending act that was incorrectly cited on the tax collector's deed. I will make the appropriate changes. Famspear ( talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make so many changes without discussion. You've completely rewritten the article and left out vital information. Mpublius ( talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again.
Dear Mpublius: I see that you are again removing the correct information and re-inserting your false, unsourced information. Please explain why you are doing this. Famspear ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The following comments were left on the article which I've moved here to the talk page:
Edit: I'm not sure who wrote all of this, but it is very incorrect information. In the real case the Supreme Court rulled in favor of Springer, stating that a tax on a persons private wages is clearly an unproportional direct tax which is also clearly a violation of the American Constitution. That is why to this day a law has not been found to support this made up law by the lower courts and IRS. In fact, the IRS is not a government law enforcer and dosent have the power to demand anything from anyone. Even in the IRS code book it states that it is voluntary compliance to file for taxes, real laws are mandatory compliance.
Also at the bottom, i'm not sure where the web page came from, but here is my refference from an education research site. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/supreme_court/supreme_court.cfm http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/102/586.html -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although it's not mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, the taxpayer was a practicing attorney. Technically, an attorney is an officer of the court. An attorney in private practice like Springer is not, however, a government employee (not an employee of the judiciary). I don't recall for sure, but some tax protesters may have falsely claimed that Springer was a government employee and that the Court's holding in the case was limited to income of government employees. That would be false.
Many people who read the phrase "officer of the judiciary" (which I have removed) might make three erroneous conclusions: (1) That the Court mentioned that fact in its opinion; (2) That the Court limited its holding to "officers of the judiciary", and (3) that an "officer of the judiciary" is always a government employee.
Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, and court clerks are government employees. Attorneys engaged in the professional private practice of law are not government employees.
More to come. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear ( talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the 1864 Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . ]" Revenue Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 223, sec. 116 (June 30, 1864). Contrary to what some tax protesters may argue, Springer never contended that the Constitution prohibited the 1864 Act from taxing the income from a "profession, trade, employment, or vocation," or that the 1864 income tax was limited in its application to "government employees" rather than "every person residing in the United States" and "every citizen of the United States residing abroad." Yours, Famspear ( talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's one thing I'm confused about though. The article on the Revenue Act of 1862 does cite the date as July 1, 1862. I'll check on this. Famspear ( talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I found it. It was the date of the amending act that was incorrectly cited on the tax collector's deed. I will make the appropriate changes. Famspear ( talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't make so many changes without discussion. You've completely rewritten the article and left out vital information. Mpublius ( talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again.
Dear Mpublius: I see that you are again removing the correct information and re-inserting your false, unsourced information. Please explain why you are doing this. Famspear ( talk) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The following comments were left on the article which I've moved here to the talk page:
Edit: I'm not sure who wrote all of this, but it is very incorrect information. In the real case the Supreme Court rulled in favor of Springer, stating that a tax on a persons private wages is clearly an unproportional direct tax which is also clearly a violation of the American Constitution. That is why to this day a law has not been found to support this made up law by the lower courts and IRS. In fact, the IRS is not a government law enforcer and dosent have the power to demand anything from anyone. Even in the IRS code book it states that it is voluntary compliance to file for taxes, real laws are mandatory compliance.
Also at the bottom, i'm not sure where the web page came from, but here is my refference from an education research site. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/supreme_court/supreme_court.cfm http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/102/586.html -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)