PDA

View Full Version : Response from my Congressman




Trassin
10-03-2007, 06:28 AM
A few weeks back I sent an e-mail to Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois. In it I questioned the legality of the Federal Income Tax and asked if it was "not a legal tax than why should I continue to pay it?".

Today I received a response via the U.S. Post Office. Inside the envelope was a letter from Rep. Shimkus and a copy of the CRS Report for Congress: Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax.

Here is what his letter reads:


Dear _________,

Thank you for contacting me. In our face-paced world, I appreciate the fact that you took the time to share your views on the issues that are important to you.

The first federal income tax was imposed under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code.

I have enclosed a Congressional Research Service Report Titled, Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax. I hope this helps you answer any questions you may have regarding the federal income tax.

Thanks again for contacting me. If you should ever have any future questions or comments, please don't hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

John Shimkus
Member of Congress

Discuss

Also, from my reading, the CRS Report does make very strong arguments. Can someone point me in the direction of counter arguments?

Chester Copperpot
10-03-2007, 06:52 AM
A few weeks back I sent an e-mail to Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois. In it I questioned the legality of the Federal Income Tax and asked if it was "not a legal tax than why should I continue to pay it?".

Today I received a response via the U.S. Post Office. Inside the envelope was a letter from Rep. Shimkus and a copy of the CRS Report for Congress: Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax.

Here is what his letter reads:



Discuss

Also, from my reading, the CRS Report does make very strong arguments. Can someone point me in the direction of counter arguments?


The first federal income tax was imposed under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code.

The part I underlined is the key point in the 16th ammendment... THe income be be taxed without apportionment has to be "DERIVED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE"

That means it has to be separated from its source.. A typical persons salary is not derived at all.

This is how the Supreme Court views it:

IF you work 40 hours and get taxed on it.. You are being directly taxes on your labor.

IF you work 40 hours and cause a corporation to make a profit then that company has derived a profit from the labor of its employees.. Just like it could sell an asset and it would derive a profit from the sale.

THis is just an example.

kylejack
10-03-2007, 06:57 AM
A few weeks back I sent an e-mail to Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois. In it I questioned the legality of the Federal Income Tax and asked if it was "not a legal tax than why should I continue to pay it?".

Today I received a response via the U.S. Post Office. Inside the envelope was a letter from Rep. Shimkus and a copy of the CRS Report for Congress: Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax.

Here is what his letter reads:



Discuss

Also, from my reading, the CRS Report does make very strong arguments. Can someone point me in the direction of counter arguments?

Intriguing. Tax protesters lead us to believe that "the government never has an answer". I didn't know that they'd written up a report. I'd like to see it.

Chester Copperpot
10-03-2007, 06:58 AM
Intriguing. Tax protesters lead us to believe that "the government never has an answer". I didn't know that they'd written up a report. I'd like to see it.

They wont ever have an answer pointing out the statute that requires us to pay income tax... They always fight it, or defer it.

Trassin
10-03-2007, 07:10 AM
Intriguing. Tax protesters lead us to believe that "the government never has an answer". I didn't know that they'd written up a report. I'd like to see it.

Here's a link to it:
http://www.taxhistory.com/crs/toc.html

Trassin
10-03-2007, 07:11 AM
This is how the Supreme Court views it:

IF you work 40 hours and get taxed on it.. You are being directly taxes on your labor.

IF you work 40 hours and cause a corporation to make a profit then that company has derived a profit from the labor of its employees.. Just like it could sell an asset and it would derive a profit from the sale.

THis is just an example.
Can you give me the court case this comes for or better yet a link?

Chester Copperpot
10-03-2007, 07:13 AM
Can you give me the court case this comes for or better yet a link?


Start With Brushaber take a few days to digest that one.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=240&page=1 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=240&page=1)

Chester Copperpot
10-03-2007, 07:17 AM
Can you give me the court case this comes for or better yet a link?

Here is also a link to the entire US TaX Code just in case you want to reference anything
http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/

lisajames96
10-03-2007, 07:42 AM
This case was mentioned in Feedom to Fascism also. That's some tough reading though(for me at least). But there is a section that seems plain to me:
EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189)
"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. 'Derived-from- capital'; 'the gain-derived-from-capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being 'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. "

mtmedlin
10-03-2007, 07:48 AM
The first federal income tax was imposed under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified. It empowered Congress to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Internal Revenue Code is today embodied as Title 26 of the United States Code.

The part I underlined is the key point in the 16th ammendment... THe income be be taxed without apportionment has to be "DERIVED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE"

That means it has to be separated from its source.. A typical persons salary is not derived at all.

This is how the Supreme Court views it:

IF you work 40 hours and get taxed on it.. You are being directly taxes on your labor.

IF you work 40 hours and cause a corporation to make a profit then that company has derived a profit from the labor of its employees.. Just like it could sell an asset and it would derive a profit from the sale.

THis is just an example.

Main Entry: de·rive
Pronunciation: di-'rIv, dE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·rived; de·riv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deriver, from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off (water), from de- + rivus stream -- more at RUN
transitive verb
1 a : to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source b : to obtain (a chemical substance) actually or theoretically from a parent substance

the word derived used in Amendment 16 simple means "taken". In your answer you actually reversed the wording. The proper wording is "from whatever source derived" or from whatever source taken. I have read on this board more people who claim that people dont pay any tax and courts clear them but NO reputable news agency reports it, no courts have record of it. The only thing I get is links to third party sources that have pretty severe credibility issues. The 16th amendment is pretty straight forward. Yes, the federal government gave itself permission to take tax's from whatever source and not apportion them amongst the states. The real debate is not whether or not they have the power to do this.... They do, plain, simple, no questions asked. The real question is the 5th amendment argument. The IRS cannot do an audit, until they have an assessment. You have to provide the assessment (tax return). Many believe that since the tax return can be used against you in court that your 5th amendment right to not self incriminate protects yourself from having to issue this document. That is fine, don't do it. The IRS will just subpoena your work records or bank records. The federal government has given them the right to make a best guess essentially and they will make their own assessment. Either way, if you don't pay and they catch you (which is a big if) then they will exact their pound of flesh.

Chester Copperpot
10-03-2007, 07:49 AM
Main Entry: de·rive
Pronunciation: di-'rIv, dE-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·rived; de·riv·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French deriver, from Latin derivare, literally, to draw off (water), from de- + rivus stream -- more at RUN
transitive verb
1 a : to take, receive, or obtain especially from a specified source b : to obtain (a chemical substance) actually or theoretically from a parent substance

the word derived used in Amendment 16 simple means "taken". In your answer you actually reversed the wording. The proper wording is "from whatever source derived" or from whatever source taken. I have read on this board more people who claim that people dont pay any tax and courts clear them but NO reputable news agency reports it, no courts have record of it. The only thing I get is links to third party sources that have pretty severe credibility issues. The 16th amendment is pretty straight forward. Yes, the federal government gave itself permission to take tax's from whatever source and not apportion them amongst the states. The real debate is not whether or not they have the power to do this.... They do, plain, simple, no questions asked. The real question is the 5th amendment argument. The IRS cannot do an audit, until they have an assessment. You have to provide the assessment (tax return). Many believe that since the tax return can be used against you in court that your 5th amendment right to not self incriminate protects yourself from having to issue this document. That is fine, don't do it. The IRS will just subpoena your work records or bank records. The federal government has given them the right to make a best guess essentially and they will make their own assessment. Either way, if you don't pay and they catch you (which is a big if) then they will exact their pound of flesh.


Dont worry so much what the dictionary says.. The definition I gave was what the supreme court decided the definition was.

Pauliana
10-03-2007, 08:06 AM
I look at the Browns and it becomes very clear what I am paying for when I pay my taxes. Much like a drycleaners in Little Italy, I am paying for them to leave me alone. And it is sadly worth every penny.

That's just how I see it. I see the legality argument as largely irrelevant.