Re: Income Shmimcome
- From: "Shyster1040" <Shyster1040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:00:13 -0500
"""The (16th) ammendment created no new powers of taxation."
The Supreme Court
It's is now and always has been legal "doublespeak" made to think your
labor can be directly taxed.
Changing the form of a lie doesn't make it true.""
****************************
How very true, and how utterly irrelevant.
Try this on for size, dip-sh*t: The Supreme Court heard the case of
Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), on rehearing,
158 U.S. 601 (1895), prior to the enactment of the 16th Amendment, in
fact, the 16th wasn't even a twinkle in Congress' eye when the Supreme
Court heard that case because the 16th Amendment was enacted solely to
overturn that case - basic cause and effect necessarily implies that the
Supreme Court must have made its decision in Pollock v. Farmers Loan &
Trust without any reference whatsoever, accurate, false, or otherwise, to
the 16th Amendment.
Is that not the case?
So, since the Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. was
interpreting the Constitution completely without any regard for the 16th
Amendment, and since the 16th Amendment neither added to, nor subtracted
from, Congress' power to levy taxes (which is, and always was, plenary),
anything that the Supreme Court held with respect to Congress' power to
tax prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment must necessarily still
be true unless the Supreme Court has itself overruled that part of Pollock
v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co.
Is that not the case?
The Supreme Court, in Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601,
635 (1895), stated as follows (I put it in all caps to improve the chances
that, despite your limited grasp of the English language, you might be
able to read it): "WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ACT ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TAX
ON INCOME DERIVED FROM REAL ESTATE, AND FROM INVESTED PERSONAL PROPERTY,
AND HAVE NOT COMMENTED ON SO MUCH OF IT AS BEARS ON GAINS OR PROFITS FROM
BUSINESS, PRIVILEGES, OR EMPLOYMENTS, IN VIEW OF THE INSTANCES IN WHICH
TAXATION ON BUSINESS, PRIVILEGES, OR EMPLOYMENTS HAS ASSUMED THE GUISE OF
AN EXCISE TAX AND BEEN SUSTAINED AS SUCH."
Now, since the Supreme Court has never overruled that aspect of Pollock v.
Farmers Loan & Trust Co., it NECESSARILY follows that:
(a) wages from the performance of services were, prior to the ratification
of the 16th Amendment, TAXABLE BY CONGRESS; and
(b) since the 16th Amendment neither added to nor subtracted from
Congress' power to tax, wages from the performance of services continue to
be TAXABLE BY CONGRESS.
Therefore, you are (a) wrong, and (b) a simpleton, particularly since this
point is crystal clear to anyone who actually reads the court opinions he
quotes ad nauseam from and more especially because this point has been
repeatedly clarified on this forum. The fact that you continue to ignore
this statement after it has been repeatedly set forth can only mean that
you are intentionally lying to people in order to defraud them.
QED
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Single Person Sole Proprietorship Catch-22?
- Next by Date: Re: Warning to all taxpayers!!!!
- Previous by thread: DPT costs as employee business expense
- Next by thread: Re: Income Shmimcome
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
