![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material in this article was split out from the overly-long Tax protester article. The edit history of this material is contained with that article. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user has inserted the following tax protester rhetoric into the article, which has been removed for the reasons stated below:
This is the usual false information from tax protesters. Aside from violating the rules on Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, the materials are objectionable as follows.
The material repeats the usual false tax protester rhetoric about the “IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax.” The IRS has cited the applicable statutes over and over, and some of the statutes are even listed in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. See Tax protester statutory arguments.
The statement that “the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this” is patently false. The Freedom of Information Act does not guarantee that the IRS must show tax protesters or anyone else “the law” that imposes the income tax, etc. And not only has the IRS cited the laws on innumerable occasions, the law is publicly available at local libraries, on government web sites, on the Cornell University Law School web site, etc., etc.
The verbiage about Senator Daniel Inouye and his “letter” is completely unsourced, violating Wikipedia rules on Verifiability. Further, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has never performed any research showing or concluding that there is no provision requiring an individual to pay income tax. Indeed, just the opposite. CRS has even published materials about the application of the Federal income tax laws.
The verbiage about direct and indirect taxes is the same old tax protester rhetoric. Please read Tax protester constitutional arguments and articles on Brushaber and Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The statement “Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax” is absolutely false. Since 1913, neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal income tax. Indeed, every tax protester argument on this point that has been presented to the Federal courts has been rejected.
Regarding the supposed statement by The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax” – The Times may well have said that, as the courts have said that over and over. That is a correct statement of the law. The problem is that the tax protesters have ignored the rulings in those cases as well as the rest of the text of those cases. The reason the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the government to levy a new tax (specifically an income tax) is that the Congress has always had that power to levy income taxes. Go back and read the actual texts of the cited court cases – not some verbiage from a tax protester. Sorry. Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review this article. Try to avoid opinion, limit yourselves only to facts and, for once, open your eyes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca neo ( talk • contribs) .
Dear fellow user Fca neo: Please review this article and try to limit your comments regarding neutral point of view to something that actually points out or discusses neutral point of view. Vague references to "facts" and "opinion," without more, are less helpful than provision of specific examples. Also, the enigmatic statement "open your eyes" itself seems to evoke a non-neutral point of view.
The material in this and related articles has been extensively studied by many Wikipedia editors for many months, and is actually (in my opinion) in very good shape, both from a technical legal standpoint and from the standpoint of the Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. You may want to consider reviewing those rules.
Also, you may want to consider signing your talk page (discussion page) posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will automatically add your signature. Thanks, yours, Famspear 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
"These are predomantly [sic] US based arguments that will not stand in most courts in other countries."
I removed it not because it is incorrect; indeed, I would agree it is basically correct. The reason I removed it is that it is arguably original research, or at least unsourced (unverifiable), or both, AND because (at least in my opinion) it's a bit off topic. Yes, the article is about tax protester arguments that are predominantly U.S. based, and that's because the article is about arguments about U.S. law. I don't even know if other countries have the phenomenon of tax protesters in the same way that the U.S. does. And the statement that the arguments will not stand in most courts in other countries, while probably correct, at least arguably misses the point that tax protester arguments never stand in U.S. courts either. Indeed, the arguments are so frivolous that this is essentially why the treatment of this kind of material has been limited in Wikipedia to articles specifically about tax protesters, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:
More explanation later. Yours, Famspear 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: Dear anonymous user at IP 75.72.81.229: The arguments in the above commentary, (which was posted by IP 75.72.81.229), have been covered over and over here in Wikipedia. Please read all talk (discussion) pages.
The statement that "the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax" is nonsensical. The legal obligation for filing tax returns and paying the related taxes is imposed by statute, not by the IRS. The IRS is simply the government agency charged with enforcing the statute.
Regarding the IRS Tax Code, there is no such thing as a tax that is not "mandatory." There is no such thing as a "table of taxes you are liable for" -- taxes are not listed that way in the statute.
The whole voluntary - not voluntary argument has already been covered and explained.
And, for the gazillionth time, please read the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to:
All this is covered in much more depth at:
Tax protester constitutional arguments
Tax protester statutory arguments
Tax protester conspiracy arguments
Please read all these articles in full. Then, if you have any questions, post your questions on the talk (discussion) page for the applicable article. Thanks, Famspear 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the comments by IP 75.72.81.229 challenging "any proponant [sic] of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW" -- aside from the fact that Wikipedia editors have done just that, over and over, I would point out that Wikipedia editors are not here as "proponents of the income tax." Neither are we here for the purpose of proving to you or persuading you that there "actually is a (Federal income tax) law." The obligations to file Federal income tax returns and pay income taxes are imposed by U.S. Federal law, and are easily verifiable by referring to the Internal Revenue Code, the regulations, and the case law, regardless of what you or I or anyone else says. We are here to edit Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Interal Revenue Code is pointless unless it has basis in law; which it doesn't.
Read up on the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916) case.
thanks
fusionhalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear new user: The Brushaber case has been analyzed to death here in Wikipedia. The Court in that case upheld the federal income tax. The statement that the Internal Revenue Code has no basis in law is called "tax protester rhetoric. It's frivolous nonsense, and I mean legally frivolous. Presenting that argument on a U.S. federal income tax return may now cost you up to $5,000 a pop. Presenting that argument in a court of law may cost you up to $25,000 in fines. Famspear ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Back to the fearmongering tactics used by the IRS. All I ask is for you to present to me a law that says I have to abide by that Internal Revenue Code. Am I allowed to make my own Internal Revenue Code? How does that work?-FusionHalo
Tax protester arguments → Tax protester 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 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Tax Protester Arguments is NNPOV. The individuals who dare to stand up against the legal cult are tax freedom advocates. They're not protesting. They're standing up against a system of slavery that was instituted to replace the previous institution of slavery in this nation. They're not doing this by "protesting." They're doing this by refusing to participate in the "voluntary" gift of their legitimate property to an abusive state. 206.124.31.24 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear IP 206.124.31.24: We don't need to assume, and we do not assume, that the general audience is "illiterate." Indeed, with respect to tax law and tax protesters, a literate, well-read audience is more likely to be aware that "tax protester" is a legal term. A literate audience will also realize that "tax freedom advocates" is simply a term dreamed up by a tax protester somewhere to try to avoid the use of the "tax protester" term. The problem for tax protesters is that this tactic wouldn't get them anywhere. If everyone started saying "tax freedom advocates," then eventually that term would acquire the same negative connotations that now adhere to the term "tax protester" -- which itself originally did not have negative connotations. As long as tax protesters do the things they do and say the things they say, they will continue to cause people to look at tax protesters in negative ways that result in negative connotations for the term "tax protester." And the reason it's a legal term is not that a "legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate". Sorry, but the inclusion of accurate material in encyclopedia articles about legal matters does not convert Wikipedia into a "soapbox" or "media outlet" for the legal profession. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title of the article to reflect the fact that these arguments are made not only by tax protesters, but also by tax resisters and people who pay taxes despite a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary. There may even be more of these sorts of arguments made these groups than by tax protesters. Mpublius 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The following material has been moved from the article to this talk page:
First, Wikipedia cannot take the position that "claims of misapplication have merit." We need neutral point of view here. Second, the reference to "lists of foreign income" is a reference to the "861 argument," which has been uniformly ruled by the courts to have no legal merit, and which is already addressed in the article on Tax protester statutory arguments. Third, this verbiage is unverified, unsourced. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The following material, which was inserted at the end of a quotation in the article, is being moved here:
This language is non-neutral point of view. Also, the article itself already contains at least one link related America: Freedom to Fascism. See the bottom of the article. Yours, Famspear 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see that editor Morphh reverted the material. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user deleted the reference to the fact that some conspiracy theorists promote tax protester arguments, on the ground that the reference was "irrelevant." I re-inserted the reference.
I'm not following the logic of the deletion. Irrelevant in what sense?
Some individuals who are "conspiracy theorists" do indeed push tax protester arguments. Not only that, but these people basically argue that the imposition of Federal income taxes in the United States is an illicit, malevolent "conspiracy" that has continued for over ninety years -- even specifically using the word "conspiracy." For example, see Irwin Schiff, one of the most prominent of tax protesters. If you read lots of tax protester literature, you may find that the putative "conspiracy" aspect is a very important focus for many (not necessarily all) people who push tax protester arguments.
I don't have a strong sense that the reference to the "conspiracy theorists" absolutely has to be in the article -- I just don't see the logic of deleting it on the grounds of relevancy. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Post-script: See also Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Post-post script: Perhaps what the anonymous user was implying was that "conspiracy" theorist is relevant only in the later section that specifically talks about conspiracy (??). If that's the case, then I think the proper argument would be not that the mention of conspiracy theorists in the earlier section is "irrelevant" -- but instead that the mention is "tangential" or "immaterial". On that basis, I guess I would not have a strong objection to removing the reference from the earlier section, as the anonymous user did. Yours, Famspear 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear editor Averykins/Avery: OK, and based on our discussion, I have reverted the article back to your version. Thanks, Famspear 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A new user changed the introduction to read as follows:
I reverted the material for the obvious reasons. No sourcing, lacks neutral point of view. Also, the statement that "[i]nvariably, the federal government is unable to prove any such [Federal income tax] liability nor do they [the government] even make an attempt to do so" is blatantly and hilariously false. After many years of reported tax protester cases, not one single tax protester theory has ever been upheld by a single Federal court.
As clearly documented in the various Wikipedia articles on tax protester arguments, no one ever even brought a tax protester argument to court in a reported case until after World War II, over 150 years after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, over 80 years after the first Federal income tax in the 1860s, and over 30 years after the inception of the modern income tax in 1913. Tax protester cases did not really start in earnest until 1975, which was 186 years after the Constitution was ratified -- and 62 years after the enactment of the modern income tax in 1913. Famspear 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how this section does not violate the copyright policy? The entire section contains a big copy paste of copyrighted text and nothing else. How is this not a violation of copyright? I would prefer to discuss this first before taking any action. JS747 ( talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not refering to US copyright law. Some of the reasons why I questioned this are as follows. I was referring to the copyright policies and guidelines of wikipedia which state in part:
It appears to me the this contribution does not meet either of these criteria.
The contribution appears to fail to meet this criteria above as well.
It also appears to fail to meet this criteria as well.
It also appears to violate this criteria
And this one too. There were a couple of others as well but I'm having trouble finding them and I have to go out right now. I'll get back to them later. JS747 ( talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this section until it can be brought into compliance with wikipedia guidelines I stated above. I have no problem having this information itself included. The format by which it was included it what I have a problem with. 100% of the section was a literal copy-paste from another website. That alone is a violation of WP standards JS747 ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're close to submitting Tax protester constitutional arguments for Featured Article status. Please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... — Micahbrwn ( talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit that was reverted: Yes, even willful failure to timely pay a U.S. federal tax is a separate federal criminal offense. It's a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the statute under which the offender is convicted: 26 USC 7202 (felony), or 26 USC 7203 (misdemeanor). There are very few prosecutions for this, though.
Willful failure to timely pay is a separate crime from (1) willful failure to timely file a return, (2) separate from willful filing of a false tax return, and (3) separate from attempted tax evasion (also known as simply "tax evasion"). Yours, Famspear ( talk) 00:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Simishag: Here is the text as worded before you made your first edit to the article:
Here is your first edit:
Thus, the distinction you made in your first edit was between failure to pay and various separate problems such as (1) failure to file a return, (2) filing a false return, (3) concealing income, etc. I’m arguing that the first edit was misleading; a reader might erroneously conclude, from the context of the three listed items, that “persons may not be jailed simply for failing to pay taxes.”
My point is that “simple failure to pay” is indeed a criminal offense – provided that the person failed to pay at all (or at least failed to pay by the deadline) and the failure was willful.
As you correctly recognized from reading my comments, you do also have the element of “willfulness” and the element of “timeliness” to consider. But that’s not the distinction your first edit was making – which was why I reverted it.
You recognized the distinction between section 7202 (such as willful failure to timely pay by people like employers withholding taxes) and section 7203 (such as willful failure to timely pay federal income tax by individual taxpayers). But the distinction between those two is not material to the problem I identified regarding the first edit. I made the reference to both code sections because both deal with criminal penalties for failure to pay (and in fact 7202 is more serious -- it's a felony).
I note that you have now changed the article to read as follows:
I like your revised material better – although I would quibble about the reference to “this argument.” Here's why.
The tax protester argument is certainly false, as your text states – but not for the specific reason you are giving (at least the way I am thinking about it). Although genuine inability to pay is not in and of itself a crime, that’s not the reason the protester argument is false.
The fact that mere inability to pay is not a crime is not the fact that makes the tax protester’s argument false. (Also, the protesters are not arguing that “mere inability” to pay” is a crime.)
The reason the protester argument is false is that the protester argument irrationally attempts to equate an immoral (and illegal) act – namely extortion – with a legal act called governmental imposition of an income tax. The mere fact that taxation is by definition by force (which it is, of course) does not in and of itself make taxation illegal or immoral. Indeed, if the tax protesters were right, then virtually all criminal laws would be immoral, by definition.
Your thoughts? Famspear ( talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there actually are some foreign analogs to the U.S. tax protester movement. In Australia, for example, it has been asserted that " the Australian constitution is invalid" based on rather sketchy interpretation of English common law and the various documents establishing Australian independence. The conclusion they reach is, of course, that all acts by the Australian parliament (including assessment of taxes, but also covering regulation of contracts and many other areas) are invalid. The argument is specifically made here that "the first Commonwealth Income Tax Act was passed in 1936 and amended in 1942 to take over all income tax from the States. By the time these tax laws were passed the Constitution had been null and void for 17 year and any domestic law dependent on it is "ultra vires" i.e. without legal force". bd2412 T 05:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hang back. Happy Holidays! Famspear ( talk) 06:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the page was reverted from an edit I made regarding the 1916 Supreme Court Case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)?
Thanks
(still new to using wiki so maybe I'm missing something? Sorry if I'm not doing things right but I figure discussing is better than just undoing the revert)
fusionhalo —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FusionHalo (
talk •
contribs)
04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no interpretation involved by an individual, regarding the 16th amendment giving no new rights of taxation to congress was the Supreme Courts interpretation. A direct quote from the official transcript:
"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. 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: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No my point is that the Amendment was unnecessary because it gave Congress no new powers to tax. It only ever had its previous powers of taxation granted to it from the constitution, which required taxes be uniform (of which the income tax is not).
After having read the article you gave me a link to... it is the article that was "interpreted" as per the authors design and agenda... there were no direct quotes in there whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear FusionHalo: The statement that the Amendment was unnecessary "because it gave Congress no new powers to tax" is illogical. All Amendments have a purpose, and are "necessary" to achieve that purpose. The purpose of the Amendment was, as everyone who studies tax law knows, to overrule the effect of the Pollock decision. And, from a legal standpoint, the Amendment was "necessary" if that purpose was to be achieved (unless the Supreme Court itself were to reverse Pollock). That's the way it works. Famspear ( talk) 14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright guys thanks for all your feedback.
I took the case to a private investigator who was a friend of my fathers'. He replied tonight after having read the Brushaber case. He's agreed with the fact that the case did grant Congress the right to tax without apportionment.
So now that its clear that Congress has the right to make such an Income Tax, does anyone know where I can find the law that makes it so? --FusionHalo 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that Paraplegicemu has asserted in a recent edit summary that "a judge in several cited cases has mentioned that it was not properly ratified" ("it" presumably being the Sixteenth Amendment). This is, of course, a rather ridiculous lie, ridiculous because it is so blatantly false that nobody could be expected to be taken seriously after uttering it. Whoever told Paraplegicemu this is either a scam artist successfully peddling lies to the gullible, or a moron incapable of reading a legal case properly. bd2412 T 05:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have cited the actual court transcript of the comment made by Judge James C. Fox, here: [1] And is discussed ad nauseum here: http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/income-tax-james-c-fox http://www.ram-v-irs.com/blog_wp/irs/2009/sullivan-v-usa-and-the-16th-amendment/ http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/sullivan-versus-uinited-states
Who the hell are you to call me a moron? I am neither of the things you assert me to be, and the fact that you are accusing me as such shows your narrow mindedness. It is obvious that this article is skewed to inherently make it seem like tax protester arguments are ludicrous, and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that you pay taxes and may be upset about the fact that the law used to justify it may not even be "properly ratified" as you so tastefully put it is the only reason you would react in this way. This is a wikipedia article about arguments which are reasons people assert they don't have to pay their taxes. You are the very thing that keeps wikipedia back and discourages people from making edits. I know your response will be something along the line of "I don't want you to make edits, so it is okay," but let it be known that a Circuit judge has made a comment in one of this decisions that the sixteenth amendment was NOT properly ratified in his research, and the fact that it has been around for such a long time and enforced so many times has made that a moot point because it is enforced as if it was really ratified, and the sources I referenced have mentioned that, and you most likely did not even read them. One of the sources even was against the "tax protester arguments," and I was trying to present two points of view that asserted the same thing. You, my friend, are the moron. I will continue to not pay my taxes and use public services that you are under the ruse your income taxes pay for. Paraplegicemu ( talk) 05:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither Judge Fox nor any other judge has ever ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. Every single court that has decided the issue has rejected the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. No exceptions. Famspear ( talk) 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if someone's asked this already, but: I see that we have, besides this article, five lengthy articles about the various arguments used by tax protesters in the United States. Has anyone considered that by covering these arguments in so much depth, we are effectively giving undue weight to fringe theories? As I understand it, no serious American lawyer disputes the fact that the federal government has the right to collect income taxes from its citizens; all these arguments are completely spurious and none have ever stood up in court. Why, then, do we need to give them so much attention? I fear that the sheer amount of information there is on Wikipedia about tax protester arguments may suggest to some readers that they have some kind of legal validity, and may even induce them to try using them themselves. Even if they are all spurious, are we being irresponsible by giving people the 'legal ammunition' they can use to fight the federal government? Robofish ( talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that some non-U.S. material has been removed from the article. I really don't see why we couldn't include discussion of comparable behavior in other countries. bd2412 T 12:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Constitutional Record points to a changing of the delegated power of "enumerated" "consensual" "apportioned" taxation (Article 1 Section 2 paragraph 3 and Section 9 paragraph 4) limited to collecting taxes under the [welfare clause] for two things only, [national debt] and [national defense] as defined in the [Virginia Ratifying Convention] 6-16-1788, and original [Constitution], into a unenumerated un-consensual taxation (Amendment 16) and is an arrogation of power; arrogating power beyond the scope of the very limited delegated powers is expressly prohibited in that Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788. [6]; Arrogating such powers, being outside the delegated powers, therefore cannot be ratified "by any means" as presented by [Edmund Pendleton] and others within the [Constitutional Conventions] of 1788. Review this limitation of powers also in the [Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions] 1789, also on Constitution.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:9CE0:562:2FFC:37DD:5D76 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution limits collecting taxes under the welfare clause to "national debt" and "national defense" matters. And the "constitution dot org" web site, while containing some legitimate material, also contains some tax protester nonsense. This talk page is not the proper place for posting this kind of stuff. Famspear ( talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is.
Regarding the Welfare Clause and Limit of Power and Taxation to only TWO THINGS; Debt and Defense: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:A100:7C41:3E50:EA53:D2A7 ( talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Go take a course on constitutional law. Famspear ( talk) 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the actual text:
You're reading it as though it were to say: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises in order to pay the Debts and in order to provide for the common Defence of the United States [ . . . ]" or: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises for the purpose of paying the Debts and for the purpose of providing for the common Defence of the United States [ . . . ] That is not what the actual text says, and that is not what the text means. Famspear ( talk) 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
What the federal courts have ruled is that the Congress has the power to tax for the purposes (1) of paying debts, (2) of providing for defense, and (3) of promoting the general welfare. The Congress also has power under this provision to SPEND (to authorize the appropriation of funds from the Treasury and the spending of those funds) for the purposes (A) of paying debts, (B) of providing for defense, and (C) of promoting the general welfare. What the Congress does NOT have the power to do is to regulate for the purpose of promoting the general welfare. The regulatory powers of Congress are more limited, and are listed in more detail in Article I of the Constitution.
But, I digress. I am straying from the purpose of this talk page: to discuss ways to improve this article. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to post at my talk page. Famspear ( talk) 02:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. While there was no consensus to move the main Tax protester article to a US-specific title, it seems there's consensus *against* moving this article at present. Future developments here as regards the name will probably depend on what happens with Tax protester. Cúchullain t/ c 13:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Tax protester arguments →
United States tax protester arguments – tax protesters are not solely a U.S. phenomenon. This article, by its very intro, is rstricted to the U.S.; taxation arguments are necessarily different due to different laws and heritage in different places in the world. The current title fails
WP:AT in not properly describing the scope and content of the article; it is not
wP:PRECISE enough. There is
WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS in assuming that the world is the United States. --
67.70.32.190 (
talk)
05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.It appears to be true that "tax protestor arguments" started in the US, but the change would leave nowhere to discuss Canadians using US Constitutional arguments. Furthermore, some of the arguments "based" on common law are as relevant to Canada and to the UK as they are to the US (that is, not at all). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, what you would end up with are teeny-tiny articles on the "tax protester" phenomenon in countries other than the United States. To give you an idea of the imbalance, here is a link to the Tax Protester FAQ by attorney Daniel B. Evans: [5]. Try creating a PDF of that web page. It runs to hundreds of pages.
And, check out the massive number of tax protester articles in Wikipedia:
Tax protester constitutional arguments
Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments
Tax protester statutory arguments
Tax protester administrative arguments
Tax protester conspiracy arguments
Tax protester history in the United States
The Law that Never Was (William J. Benson)
Anson Chi (subject is a tax protester, but that's not the primary thrust of the article)
Kent Hovind (not exclusively about tax protesting)
Embassy of Heaven (not exclusively about tax protesting)
Robert L. Schulz and We the People Foundation
This is virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon, at least as far as has been documented. Some day, perhaps articles for Canada or the United Kingdom might be justified, but I don't think we're there yet. Good luck finding anything close to this volume of material with respect to non-USA countries. Famspear ( talk) 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The name changing has gone back and forth so many times over the past nine years or so that I have lost track. If we were to change the titles of some or all of the tax protester articles to include the words "United States," then based on past history, someone is going to come along -- in a year or two or three -- and just start a new discussion on why the titles need to be changed back. I would argue that there is really no net benefit to this. Famspear ( talk) 02:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"This is virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon..." -- No, it isn't. The "freeman" or "detax" movement exists in Canada, and has received some mainstream media coverage: CBC National Post Times-Colonist The British Columbia Law Society has issued "practice tips here. Here is the main "detax" site. It is enough of a problem that the Canada Revenue Agency has issued a warning about tax protester schemes here. Ground Zero | t 16:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear AjaxSmack: No, you are citing a Canadian exception. I'm well aware of the exceptions. I didn't say it was exclusively a USA-phenomenon. I said it was virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon, which is a correct statement. I've been following this on almost a daily basis for over 16 years. If the occurrences in Canada and the UK grow to a certain level, then it won't be virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon any more. Famspear ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Material in this article was split out from the overly-long Tax protester article. The edit history of this material is contained with that article. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: An anonymous user has inserted the following tax protester rhetoric into the article, which has been removed for the reasons stated below:
This is the usual false information from tax protesters. Aside from violating the rules on Verifiability and Neutral Point of View, the materials are objectionable as follows.
The material repeats the usual false tax protester rhetoric about the “IRS's inability to produce the law, in writing, that requires every individual citizen to pay the income tax.” The IRS has cited the applicable statutes over and over, and some of the statutes are even listed in the IRS instructions for Form 1040. See Tax protester statutory arguments.
The statement that “the IRS repeatedly refuses to show the law, even though the Freedom of Information act guarantees this” is patently false. The Freedom of Information Act does not guarantee that the IRS must show tax protesters or anyone else “the law” that imposes the income tax, etc. And not only has the IRS cited the laws on innumerable occasions, the law is publicly available at local libraries, on government web sites, on the Cornell University Law School web site, etc., etc.
The verbiage about Senator Daniel Inouye and his “letter” is completely unsourced, violating Wikipedia rules on Verifiability. Further, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has never performed any research showing or concluding that there is no provision requiring an individual to pay income tax. Indeed, just the opposite. CRS has even published materials about the application of the Federal income tax laws.
The verbiage about direct and indirect taxes is the same old tax protester rhetoric. Please read Tax protester constitutional arguments and articles on Brushaber and Pollock and the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The statement “Time and time again the Supreme Court has found there to be no constitutional basis for this tax” is absolutely false. Since 1913, neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that there is no constitutional basis for the Federal income tax. Indeed, every tax protester argument on this point that has been presented to the Federal courts has been rejected.
Regarding the supposed statement by The New York Times, on January 25, 1916, saying, "In substance, the court holds that the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the Federal Government to levy a new tax” – The Times may well have said that, as the courts have said that over and over. That is a correct statement of the law. The problem is that the tax protesters have ignored the rulings in those cases as well as the rest of the text of those cases. The reason the Sixteenth Amendment did not empower the government to levy a new tax (specifically an income tax) is that the Congress has always had that power to levy income taxes. Go back and read the actual texts of the cited court cases – not some verbiage from a tax protester. Sorry. Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Please review this article. Try to avoid opinion, limit yourselves only to facts and, for once, open your eyes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fca neo ( talk • contribs) .
Dear fellow user Fca neo: Please review this article and try to limit your comments regarding neutral point of view to something that actually points out or discusses neutral point of view. Vague references to "facts" and "opinion," without more, are less helpful than provision of specific examples. Also, the enigmatic statement "open your eyes" itself seems to evoke a non-neutral point of view.
The material in this and related articles has been extensively studied by many Wikipedia editors for many months, and is actually (in my opinion) in very good shape, both from a technical legal standpoint and from the standpoint of the Wikipedia concepts of Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. You may want to consider reviewing those rules.
Also, you may want to consider signing your talk page (discussion page) posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~, which will automatically add your signature. Thanks, yours, Famspear 12:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
"These are predomantly [sic] US based arguments that will not stand in most courts in other countries."
I removed it not because it is incorrect; indeed, I would agree it is basically correct. The reason I removed it is that it is arguably original research, or at least unsourced (unverifiable), or both, AND because (at least in my opinion) it's a bit off topic. Yes, the article is about tax protester arguments that are predominantly U.S. based, and that's because the article is about arguments about U.S. law. I don't even know if other countries have the phenomenon of tax protesters in the same way that the U.S. does. And the statement that the arguments will not stand in most courts in other countries, while probably correct, at least arguably misses the point that tax protester arguments never stand in U.S. courts either. Indeed, the arguments are so frivolous that this is essentially why the treatment of this kind of material has been limited in Wikipedia to articles specifically about tax protesters, etc. Yours, Famspear 16:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The following commentary has been moved from the article to here:
More explanation later. Yours, Famspear 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Post-script: Dear anonymous user at IP 75.72.81.229: The arguments in the above commentary, (which was posted by IP 75.72.81.229), have been covered over and over here in Wikipedia. Please read all talk (discussion) pages.
The statement that "the IRS does not assign liability for not paying the income tax" is nonsensical. The legal obligation for filing tax returns and paying the related taxes is imposed by statute, not by the IRS. The IRS is simply the government agency charged with enforcing the statute.
Regarding the IRS Tax Code, there is no such thing as a tax that is not "mandatory." There is no such thing as a "table of taxes you are liable for" -- taxes are not listed that way in the statute.
The whole voluntary - not voluntary argument has already been covered and explained.
And, for the gazillionth time, please read the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to:
All this is covered in much more depth at:
Tax protester constitutional arguments
Tax protester statutory arguments
Tax protester conspiracy arguments
Please read all these articles in full. Then, if you have any questions, post your questions on the talk (discussion) page for the applicable article. Thanks, Famspear 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the comments by IP 75.72.81.229 challenging "any proponant [sic] of the income tax to clearly list the LAW here to prove that there is actually a LAW" -- aside from the fact that Wikipedia editors have done just that, over and over, I would point out that Wikipedia editors are not here as "proponents of the income tax." Neither are we here for the purpose of proving to you or persuading you that there "actually is a (Federal income tax) law." The obligations to file Federal income tax returns and pay income taxes are imposed by U.S. Federal law, and are easily verifiable by referring to the Internal Revenue Code, the regulations, and the case law, regardless of what you or I or anyone else says. We are here to edit Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 19:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: Interal Revenue Code is pointless unless it has basis in law; which it doesn't.
Read up on the Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916) case.
thanks
fusionhalo —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear new user: The Brushaber case has been analyzed to death here in Wikipedia. The Court in that case upheld the federal income tax. The statement that the Internal Revenue Code has no basis in law is called "tax protester rhetoric. It's frivolous nonsense, and I mean legally frivolous. Presenting that argument on a U.S. federal income tax return may now cost you up to $5,000 a pop. Presenting that argument in a court of law may cost you up to $25,000 in fines. Famspear ( talk) 03:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Back to the fearmongering tactics used by the IRS. All I ask is for you to present to me a law that says I have to abide by that Internal Revenue Code. Am I allowed to make my own Internal Revenue Code? How does that work?-FusionHalo
Tax protester arguments → Tax protester 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 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Tax Protester Arguments is NNPOV. The individuals who dare to stand up against the legal cult are tax freedom advocates. They're not protesting. They're standing up against a system of slavery that was instituted to replace the previous institution of slavery in this nation. They're not doing this by "protesting." They're doing this by refusing to participate in the "voluntary" gift of their legitimate property to an abusive state. 206.124.31.24 18:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear IP 206.124.31.24: We don't need to assume, and we do not assume, that the general audience is "illiterate." Indeed, with respect to tax law and tax protesters, a literate, well-read audience is more likely to be aware that "tax protester" is a legal term. A literate audience will also realize that "tax freedom advocates" is simply a term dreamed up by a tax protester somewhere to try to avoid the use of the "tax protester" term. The problem for tax protesters is that this tactic wouldn't get them anywhere. If everyone started saying "tax freedom advocates," then eventually that term would acquire the same negative connotations that now adhere to the term "tax protester" -- which itself originally did not have negative connotations. As long as tax protesters do the things they do and say the things they say, they will continue to cause people to look at tax protesters in negative ways that result in negative connotations for the term "tax protester." And the reason it's a legal term is not that a "legal cult--backed by the same folks who think slavery is okay--thinks it is legitimate". Sorry, but the inclusion of accurate material in encyclopedia articles about legal matters does not convert Wikipedia into a "soapbox" or "media outlet" for the legal profession. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 19:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed the title of the article to reflect the fact that these arguments are made not only by tax protesters, but also by tax resisters and people who pay taxes despite a refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the judiciary. There may even be more of these sorts of arguments made these groups than by tax protesters. Mpublius 17:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The following material has been moved from the article to this talk page:
First, Wikipedia cannot take the position that "claims of misapplication have merit." We need neutral point of view here. Second, the reference to "lists of foreign income" is a reference to the "861 argument," which has been uniformly ruled by the courts to have no legal merit, and which is already addressed in the article on Tax protester statutory arguments. Third, this verbiage is unverified, unsourced. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The following material, which was inserted at the end of a quotation in the article, is being moved here:
This language is non-neutral point of view. Also, the article itself already contains at least one link related America: Freedom to Fascism. See the bottom of the article. Yours, Famspear 21:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see that editor Morphh reverted the material. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous user deleted the reference to the fact that some conspiracy theorists promote tax protester arguments, on the ground that the reference was "irrelevant." I re-inserted the reference.
I'm not following the logic of the deletion. Irrelevant in what sense?
Some individuals who are "conspiracy theorists" do indeed push tax protester arguments. Not only that, but these people basically argue that the imposition of Federal income taxes in the United States is an illicit, malevolent "conspiracy" that has continued for over ninety years -- even specifically using the word "conspiracy." For example, see Irwin Schiff, one of the most prominent of tax protesters. If you read lots of tax protester literature, you may find that the putative "conspiracy" aspect is a very important focus for many (not necessarily all) people who push tax protester arguments.
I don't have a strong sense that the reference to the "conspiracy theorists" absolutely has to be in the article -- I just don't see the logic of deleting it on the grounds of relevancy. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Post-script: See also Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 22:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Post-post script: Perhaps what the anonymous user was implying was that "conspiracy" theorist is relevant only in the later section that specifically talks about conspiracy (??). If that's the case, then I think the proper argument would be not that the mention of conspiracy theorists in the earlier section is "irrelevant" -- but instead that the mention is "tangential" or "immaterial". On that basis, I guess I would not have a strong objection to removing the reference from the earlier section, as the anonymous user did. Yours, Famspear 22:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear editor Averykins/Avery: OK, and based on our discussion, I have reverted the article back to your version. Thanks, Famspear 23:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
A new user changed the introduction to read as follows:
I reverted the material for the obvious reasons. No sourcing, lacks neutral point of view. Also, the statement that "[i]nvariably, the federal government is unable to prove any such [Federal income tax] liability nor do they [the government] even make an attempt to do so" is blatantly and hilariously false. After many years of reported tax protester cases, not one single tax protester theory has ever been upheld by a single Federal court.
As clearly documented in the various Wikipedia articles on tax protester arguments, no one ever even brought a tax protester argument to court in a reported case until after World War II, over 150 years after the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, over 80 years after the first Federal income tax in the 1860s, and over 30 years after the inception of the modern income tax in 1913. Tax protester cases did not really start in earnest until 1975, which was 186 years after the Constitution was ratified -- and 62 years after the enactment of the modern income tax in 1913. Famspear 20:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me how this section does not violate the copyright policy? The entire section contains a big copy paste of copyrighted text and nothing else. How is this not a violation of copyright? I would prefer to discuss this first before taking any action. JS747 ( talk) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I was not refering to US copyright law. Some of the reasons why I questioned this are as follows. I was referring to the copyright policies and guidelines of wikipedia which state in part:
It appears to me the this contribution does not meet either of these criteria.
The contribution appears to fail to meet this criteria above as well.
It also appears to fail to meet this criteria as well.
It also appears to violate this criteria
And this one too. There were a couple of others as well but I'm having trouble finding them and I have to go out right now. I'll get back to them later. JS747 ( talk) 00:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted this section until it can be brought into compliance with wikipedia guidelines I stated above. I have no problem having this information itself included. The format by which it was included it what I have a problem with. 100% of the section was a literal copy-paste from another website. That alone is a violation of WP standards JS747 ( talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we're close to submitting Tax protester constitutional arguments for Featured Article status. Please help in the peer-review of this article to get it ready for submission. Thanks Morphh (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a note that the USDOJ has begun to refer to those who do not believe there is a legal requirement to pay income tax as tax resisters, as "protesters" seem to imply they have a legal right to not pay taxes (something like that, anyway)? I'm not saying it warrants a page-move, but... — Micahbrwn ( talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding a recent edit that was reverted: Yes, even willful failure to timely pay a U.S. federal tax is a separate federal criminal offense. It's a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the statute under which the offender is convicted: 26 USC 7202 (felony), or 26 USC 7203 (misdemeanor). There are very few prosecutions for this, though.
Willful failure to timely pay is a separate crime from (1) willful failure to timely file a return, (2) separate from willful filing of a false tax return, and (3) separate from attempted tax evasion (also known as simply "tax evasion"). Yours, Famspear ( talk) 00:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Simishag: Here is the text as worded before you made your first edit to the article:
Here is your first edit:
Thus, the distinction you made in your first edit was between failure to pay and various separate problems such as (1) failure to file a return, (2) filing a false return, (3) concealing income, etc. I’m arguing that the first edit was misleading; a reader might erroneously conclude, from the context of the three listed items, that “persons may not be jailed simply for failing to pay taxes.”
My point is that “simple failure to pay” is indeed a criminal offense – provided that the person failed to pay at all (or at least failed to pay by the deadline) and the failure was willful.
As you correctly recognized from reading my comments, you do also have the element of “willfulness” and the element of “timeliness” to consider. But that’s not the distinction your first edit was making – which was why I reverted it.
You recognized the distinction between section 7202 (such as willful failure to timely pay by people like employers withholding taxes) and section 7203 (such as willful failure to timely pay federal income tax by individual taxpayers). But the distinction between those two is not material to the problem I identified regarding the first edit. I made the reference to both code sections because both deal with criminal penalties for failure to pay (and in fact 7202 is more serious -- it's a felony).
I note that you have now changed the article to read as follows:
I like your revised material better – although I would quibble about the reference to “this argument.” Here's why.
The tax protester argument is certainly false, as your text states – but not for the specific reason you are giving (at least the way I am thinking about it). Although genuine inability to pay is not in and of itself a crime, that’s not the reason the protester argument is false.
The fact that mere inability to pay is not a crime is not the fact that makes the tax protester’s argument false. (Also, the protesters are not arguing that “mere inability” to pay” is a crime.)
The reason the protester argument is false is that the protester argument irrationally attempts to equate an immoral (and illegal) act – namely extortion – with a legal act called governmental imposition of an income tax. The mere fact that taxation is by definition by force (which it is, of course) does not in and of itself make taxation illegal or immoral. Indeed, if the tax protesters were right, then virtually all criminal laws would be immoral, by definition.
Your thoughts? Famspear ( talk) 19:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I think there actually are some foreign analogs to the U.S. tax protester movement. In Australia, for example, it has been asserted that " the Australian constitution is invalid" based on rather sketchy interpretation of English common law and the various documents establishing Australian independence. The conclusion they reach is, of course, that all acts by the Australian parliament (including assessment of taxes, but also covering regulation of contracts and many other areas) are invalid. The argument is specifically made here that "the first Commonwealth Income Tax Act was passed in 1936 and amended in 1942 to take over all income tax from the States. By the time these tax laws were passed the Constitution had been null and void for 17 year and any domestic law dependent on it is "ultra vires" i.e. without legal force". bd2412 T 05:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll hang back. Happy Holidays! Famspear ( talk) 06:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know why the page was reverted from an edit I made regarding the 1916 Supreme Court Case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)?
Thanks
(still new to using wiki so maybe I'm missing something? Sorry if I'm not doing things right but I figure discussing is better than just undoing the revert)
fusionhalo —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FusionHalo (
talk •
contribs)
04:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
There was no interpretation involved by an individual, regarding the 16th amendment giving no new rights of taxation to congress was the Supreme Courts interpretation. A direct quote from the official transcript:
"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. 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: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. (d) As the power conferred by the Amendment is new and prospective, the attempt in the statute to make its provisions retroactively apply is void because, so far as the retroactive period is concerned, it is governed by the pre-existing constitutional requirement as to apportionment." —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No my point is that the Amendment was unnecessary because it gave Congress no new powers to tax. It only ever had its previous powers of taxation granted to it from the constitution, which required taxes be uniform (of which the income tax is not).
After having read the article you gave me a link to... it is the article that was "interpreted" as per the authors design and agenda... there were no direct quotes in there whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FusionHalo ( talk • contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Dear FusionHalo: The statement that the Amendment was unnecessary "because it gave Congress no new powers to tax" is illogical. All Amendments have a purpose, and are "necessary" to achieve that purpose. The purpose of the Amendment was, as everyone who studies tax law knows, to overrule the effect of the Pollock decision. And, from a legal standpoint, the Amendment was "necessary" if that purpose was to be achieved (unless the Supreme Court itself were to reverse Pollock). That's the way it works. Famspear ( talk) 14:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright guys thanks for all your feedback.
I took the case to a private investigator who was a friend of my fathers'. He replied tonight after having read the Brushaber case. He's agreed with the fact that the case did grant Congress the right to tax without apportionment.
So now that its clear that Congress has the right to make such an Income Tax, does anyone know where I can find the law that makes it so? --FusionHalo 08:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I note that Paraplegicemu has asserted in a recent edit summary that "a judge in several cited cases has mentioned that it was not properly ratified" ("it" presumably being the Sixteenth Amendment). This is, of course, a rather ridiculous lie, ridiculous because it is so blatantly false that nobody could be expected to be taken seriously after uttering it. Whoever told Paraplegicemu this is either a scam artist successfully peddling lies to the gullible, or a moron incapable of reading a legal case properly. bd2412 T 05:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have cited the actual court transcript of the comment made by Judge James C. Fox, here: [1] And is discussed ad nauseum here: http://webskeptic.wikidot.com/income-tax-james-c-fox http://www.ram-v-irs.com/blog_wp/irs/2009/sullivan-v-usa-and-the-16th-amendment/ http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/sullivan-versus-uinited-states
Who the hell are you to call me a moron? I am neither of the things you assert me to be, and the fact that you are accusing me as such shows your narrow mindedness. It is obvious that this article is skewed to inherently make it seem like tax protester arguments are ludicrous, and that defeats the purpose of Wikipedia as a whole. The fact that you pay taxes and may be upset about the fact that the law used to justify it may not even be "properly ratified" as you so tastefully put it is the only reason you would react in this way. This is a wikipedia article about arguments which are reasons people assert they don't have to pay their taxes. You are the very thing that keeps wikipedia back and discourages people from making edits. I know your response will be something along the line of "I don't want you to make edits, so it is okay," but let it be known that a Circuit judge has made a comment in one of this decisions that the sixteenth amendment was NOT properly ratified in his research, and the fact that it has been around for such a long time and enforced so many times has made that a moot point because it is enforced as if it was really ratified, and the sources I referenced have mentioned that, and you most likely did not even read them. One of the sources even was against the "tax protester arguments," and I was trying to present two points of view that asserted the same thing. You, my friend, are the moron. I will continue to not pay my taxes and use public services that you are under the ruse your income taxes pay for. Paraplegicemu ( talk) 05:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither Judge Fox nor any other judge has ever ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. Every single court that has decided the issue has rejected the argument that the Sixteenth Amendment was not properly ratified. No exceptions. Famspear ( talk) 03:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me if someone's asked this already, but: I see that we have, besides this article, five lengthy articles about the various arguments used by tax protesters in the United States. Has anyone considered that by covering these arguments in so much depth, we are effectively giving undue weight to fringe theories? As I understand it, no serious American lawyer disputes the fact that the federal government has the right to collect income taxes from its citizens; all these arguments are completely spurious and none have ever stood up in court. Why, then, do we need to give them so much attention? I fear that the sheer amount of information there is on Wikipedia about tax protester arguments may suggest to some readers that they have some kind of legal validity, and may even induce them to try using them themselves. Even if they are all spurious, are we being irresponsible by giving people the 'legal ammunition' they can use to fight the federal government? Robofish ( talk) 12:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that some non-U.S. material has been removed from the article. I really don't see why we couldn't include discussion of comparable behavior in other countries. bd2412 T 12:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The scope, topic, and naming of Tax protester is under discussion, see Talk:Tax protester -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 06:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Constitutional Record points to a changing of the delegated power of "enumerated" "consensual" "apportioned" taxation (Article 1 Section 2 paragraph 3 and Section 9 paragraph 4) limited to collecting taxes under the [welfare clause] for two things only, [national debt] and [national defense] as defined in the [Virginia Ratifying Convention] 6-16-1788, and original [Constitution], into a unenumerated un-consensual taxation (Amendment 16) and is an arrogation of power; arrogating power beyond the scope of the very limited delegated powers is expressly prohibited in that Virginia Ratifying Convention 6-16-1788. [6]; Arrogating such powers, being outside the delegated powers, therefore cannot be ratified "by any means" as presented by [Edmund Pendleton] and others within the [Constitutional Conventions] of 1788. Review this limitation of powers also in the [Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions] 1789, also on Constitution.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:9CE0:562:2FFC:37DD:5D76 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution limits collecting taxes under the welfare clause to "national debt" and "national defense" matters. And the "constitution dot org" web site, while containing some legitimate material, also contains some tax protester nonsense. This talk page is not the proper place for posting this kind of stuff. Famspear ( talk) 11:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is.
Regarding the Welfare Clause and Limit of Power and Taxation to only TWO THINGS; Debt and Defense: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2940:A100:7C41:3E50:EA53:D2A7 ( talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No. Go take a course on constitutional law. Famspear ( talk) 01:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the actual text:
You're reading it as though it were to say: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises in order to pay the Debts and in order to provide for the common Defence of the United States [ . . . ]" or: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises for the purpose of paying the Debts and for the purpose of providing for the common Defence of the United States [ . . . ] That is not what the actual text says, and that is not what the text means. Famspear ( talk) 01:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
What the federal courts have ruled is that the Congress has the power to tax for the purposes (1) of paying debts, (2) of providing for defense, and (3) of promoting the general welfare. The Congress also has power under this provision to SPEND (to authorize the appropriation of funds from the Treasury and the spending of those funds) for the purposes (A) of paying debts, (B) of providing for defense, and (C) of promoting the general welfare. What the Congress does NOT have the power to do is to regulate for the purpose of promoting the general welfare. The regulatory powers of Congress are more limited, and are listed in more detail in Article I of the Constitution.
But, I digress. I am straying from the purpose of this talk page: to discuss ways to improve this article. If you want to continue this discussion, feel free to post at my talk page. Famspear ( talk) 02:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. While there was no consensus to move the main Tax protester article to a US-specific title, it seems there's consensus *against* moving this article at present. Future developments here as regards the name will probably depend on what happens with Tax protester. Cúchullain t/ c 13:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Tax protester arguments →
United States tax protester arguments – tax protesters are not solely a U.S. phenomenon. This article, by its very intro, is rstricted to the U.S.; taxation arguments are necessarily different due to different laws and heritage in different places in the world. The current title fails
WP:AT in not properly describing the scope and content of the article; it is not
wP:PRECISE enough. There is
WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS in assuming that the world is the United States. --
67.70.32.190 (
talk)
05:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.It appears to be true that "tax protestor arguments" started in the US, but the change would leave nowhere to discuss Canadians using US Constitutional arguments. Furthermore, some of the arguments "based" on common law are as relevant to Canada and to the UK as they are to the US (that is, not at all). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, what you would end up with are teeny-tiny articles on the "tax protester" phenomenon in countries other than the United States. To give you an idea of the imbalance, here is a link to the Tax Protester FAQ by attorney Daniel B. Evans: [5]. Try creating a PDF of that web page. It runs to hundreds of pages.
And, check out the massive number of tax protester articles in Wikipedia:
Tax protester constitutional arguments
Tax protester Sixteenth Amendment arguments
Tax protester statutory arguments
Tax protester administrative arguments
Tax protester conspiracy arguments
Tax protester history in the United States
The Law that Never Was (William J. Benson)
Anson Chi (subject is a tax protester, but that's not the primary thrust of the article)
Kent Hovind (not exclusively about tax protesting)
Embassy of Heaven (not exclusively about tax protesting)
Robert L. Schulz and We the People Foundation
This is virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon, at least as far as has been documented. Some day, perhaps articles for Canada or the United Kingdom might be justified, but I don't think we're there yet. Good luck finding anything close to this volume of material with respect to non-USA countries. Famspear ( talk) 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The name changing has gone back and forth so many times over the past nine years or so that I have lost track. If we were to change the titles of some or all of the tax protester articles to include the words "United States," then based on past history, someone is going to come along -- in a year or two or three -- and just start a new discussion on why the titles need to be changed back. I would argue that there is really no net benefit to this. Famspear ( talk) 02:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
"This is virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon..." -- No, it isn't. The "freeman" or "detax" movement exists in Canada, and has received some mainstream media coverage: CBC National Post Times-Colonist The British Columbia Law Society has issued "practice tips here. Here is the main "detax" site. It is enough of a problem that the Canada Revenue Agency has issued a warning about tax protester schemes here. Ground Zero | t 16:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear AjaxSmack: No, you are citing a Canadian exception. I'm well aware of the exceptions. I didn't say it was exclusively a USA-phenomenon. I said it was virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon, which is a correct statement. I've been following this on almost a daily basis for over 16 years. If the occurrences in Canada and the UK grow to a certain level, then it won't be virtually exclusively a USA-phenomenon any more. Famspear ( talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)