Dale Eastman wrote:
> Richard Macdonald wrote:
> An Indirect (excise) tax can be laid and collected without
> apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any
>
> Yep. Congress already has the power to levy excise taxes.
>
> In other words, the purpose of the 16th. Amendment was to bar the
> courts from doing what the Pollock court did.
>
>
> of the 16th. Amendment was to keep th
> real estate.
>
> > indisputably arises, first, that all the contentions which we have
> > previously noticed concerning the assumed limitations to be implied
> > from the language of the Amendment as to the nature and character
> > of the income taxes which it authorizes find no support in the text
> > and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose which the
> > Amendment was adopted to accomplish.
>
> The one contention that I direct attention to is this one:
>
> "(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of
> direct tax without apportionment..."
>
> And as the court just said: "find[s] no support in the text."
> Thus, I spell it out. No direct tax without apportionment.
>
> > Second, that the contention
> > that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although
> > it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not
> > subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to
> > taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great
> > classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the
> > beginning, is also wholly without foundation
>
> Stated a second time. There are no direct taxes that may be laid
> without being subject to the rule of apportionment.
> Again, No direct tax without apportionment.
>
> > since the command of
> > the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to
> > apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the
> > taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the
> > application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case
> > by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of
> > excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and
> > were placed under the other or direct class.
>
> Pollock court looked at the burden the tax placed on the property
> because to tax the income was to tax the property it derives from. The
> > This must be unless it
> > can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the
> > Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of
> > income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying
> > the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of
> > the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in
> > which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the
> > Constitution.
>
> In English, Looking to the source of the income can not be used to
> remove an excise (privilege) tax out of the indirect and into the
> direct category.
>
> > Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment
> > demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary
> > shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the
> > limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.
>
> "It was drawn with the object of MAINTAINING the LIMITATIONS of the
> Constitution and HARMONIZING their operation."
>
> > We
> > say this because it is to be observed that although from the date
> > of the Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in
> > that case, it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the
> > constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied directly on real
> > estate because of its ownership, the Amendment contains nothing
> > repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case that the
> > word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also
> > taxes levied directly on personal property because of its
> > ownership,
>
> From Hylton on, the only direct taxes were thought to be taxes on
> real estate. The amendment does not change or challenge the Pollock
> court's ruling that "the word 'direct' had a broader significance."
>
> The word 'direct' also embraces taxes levied directly on personal
> property.
>
> > and therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes
> > such wider significance a part of the Constitution,
>
> Pollock AND the 16th. Amendment EXPANDED direct taxes to taxes on
> personal property.
>
> > -a condition
> > which clearly demonstrates that the purpose was not to change the
> > existing interpretation except to the extent necessary to
> > accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the
> > resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in
> > of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of
> > direct taxes.
>
> And again, this court tells us the purpose of the amendment is to bar
> the courts from taking an excise (privilege) tax out of the indirect
> category and placing it in the direct.
>
> > [240 U.S. 1, 20] We come, then, to ascertain the
> > merits of the many contentions made in the light of the
> > Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within its
> > terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly
> > interpreted. We first dispose of two propositions assailing the
> > validity of the statute on the one hand because of its repugnancy
> > to the Constitution in other respects, and especially because its
> > enactment was not authorized by the 16th Amendment. -- BRUSHABER v.
> > UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
> >
> > Any arguments based on Pollock are just as vallid as any arguments
> > based on Dred Scott, as both cases have been reversed.
>
> Please cite the case that reverses Pollock or admit there is none.
>
> As pointed out in Brushaber, the 16th Amendment did not create a
> category of direct taxation not subject to apportionment. Thus, any
> tax that is direct is required to be apportioned. Nothing changes
> that Constitutional rule.
>
> Your statement from above:
> > The Polock Decision was made redundant by the 16th Amendment
> > eliminating the basis for the decision and Brushaber:
>
> You are correct that the 16th "eliminating the basis
> for the decision" in Pollock.
We don't care about your stupid tax scams dale!
www.quatlosers.com internet tax scams
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
> Anybody answering this post consents to having their replies posted on
> my website.
> (Not that I need your consent since you post to public domain.)
Received on Wed Aug 09 2006 - 17:56:18 PDT