Federal Income Tax not required by law

[kuuipo1207]

So I was checking my myspace and someone had posted a bulletin stating that "if cared about [my] future," I would watch the video she was talking about. Well I watched the video and decided to do some brief researching on it. I actually came across another video that relates on the same level to it.

If you are a US citizen reading this: Did you know that there is no law anywhere in the Constitution which states that you are "required" to pay the Federal Income Tax? That's right. No law. Paying the Federal Income Tax is not mandatory. Did you know that the Federal Income Tax is actually unconstitutional and a violation of our rights as American citizens?? AND did you know that the amendment about the Federal Income Tax was not legally and constitutionally ratified by enough states (meaning not enough states voted to pass the amendment into legislation). The links to the videos I watched are below, but make sure you have some time to watch them. They're both about 2 hours long, but very informative...especially Aaron Russo's video. (With the 2nd video, I don't really understand what part 1 has to do with 2 & 3, but well, you'll understand what I mean when you watch it). Please, if you find this interesting and want to make a change, spread the news. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER...this is why the "No Child Left Behind" program is so wonderful and beneficial to politicians....the less people know, the more politicians can control. If you don't believe it, do some research and come to your own conclusions. Either way, at least you would be learning something for yourself instead of what someone else says is so.

Anyways, just wanted to share these cause they really do make you think. And as time has shown anything is possible, so why not this?

Aaron Russo's Freedom to Fascism--
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

Zeitgeist, The Movie---
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...81422995115331

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

IV. Constitutional Amendment Claims A. Contention: Federal income taxes constitute a "taking" of property without due process of law, violating the Fifth Amendment. Some assert that the collection of federal income taxes constitutes a "taking" of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Thus, any attempt by the Internal Revenue Service to collect federal income taxes owed by a taxpayer is unconstitutional. The Law: The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that a person shall not be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 24 (1916), that "it is . . . well settled that [the Fifth Amendment] is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring upon the one hand a taxing power, and taking the same power away on the other by limitations of the due process clause." Further, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the summary administrative procedures contained in the Internal Revenue Code against due process challenges, on the basis that a post-collection remedy (e.g., a tax refund suit) exists and is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of constitutional due process. Phillips v. Commissioner, 283 U.S. 589, 595-97 (1931). The Internal Revenue Code provides methods to ensure due process to taxpayers: (1) The "refund method," set forth in section 7422(e) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346(a), where a taxpayer must pay the full amount of the tax and then sue in a federal district court or in the United States Court of Federal Claims for a refund; and (2) The "deficiency method," set forth in section 6213(a), where a taxpayer may, without paying the contested tax, petition the United States Tax Court to redetermine a tax deficiency asserted by the IRS. Courts have found that both methods provide constitutional due process. In recent years, Congress passed new laws providing further protection for taxpayers' due process rights in collection matters. In the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, § 3401, 112 Stat. 685, 746, Congress enacted new sections 6320 (pertaining to liens) and 6330 (pertaining to levies) establishing collection due process rights for taxpayers, effective for collection actions after January 19, 1999. Generally, the IRS must provide taxpayers notice and an opportunity for an administrative appeals hearing upon the filing of a notice of federal tax lien (section 6320) and prior to levy (section 6330). Taxpayers also have the right to seek judicial review of the IRS's determination in these due process proceedings. I.R.C. § 6330(d). These reviews can extend to the merits of the underlying tax liability, if the taxpayer has not previously received the opportunity for review of the merits, e.g., did not receive a notice of deficiency. I.R.C. § 6330(c)(2)(B). However, the Tax Court has indicated that it will impose sanctions pursuant to section 6673 against taxpayers who seek judicial relief based upon frivolous or groundless positions. Relevant Case Law: Flora v. United States, 362 U.S. 145, 175 (1960) - The court held that a taxpayer must pay the full tax assessment before being able to file a refund suit in district court, noting that a person has the right to appeal an assessment to the Tax Court "without paying a cent." Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830 (2 d Cir. 1990) - The court rejected a due process claim where the taxpayer chose not to avail himself of the opportunity to appeal a deficiency notice to the Tax Court. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000) - The court rejected the taxpayer's attempt to use the judicial review process as a forum to contest the underlying tax liability, since the taxpayer had an opportunity to dispute that liability after receiving the statutory notice of deficiency. Pierson v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 576, 581 (2000) - The court considered imposing sanctions against the taxpayer, but decided against doing so, stating, "we regard this case as fair warning to those taxpayers who, in the future, institute or maintain a lien or levy action primarily for delay or whose position in such a proceeding is frivolous or groundless." Davis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-87, 81 T.C.M. (CCH) 1503 (2001) - The court imposed a $4,000 penalty for frivolous and groundless arguments, after warning that the taxpayer could be penalized for presenting them.

Continued.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

B. Contention: Taxpayers do not have to file returns or provide financial information because of the protection against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment. Some argue that taxpayers may refuse to file federal income tax returns, or may submit tax returns on which they refuse to provide any financial information, because they believe that their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination will be violated. The Law: There is no constitutional right to refuse to file an income tax return on the ground that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927), the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the taxpayer "could not draw a conjurer's circle around the whole matter by his own declaration that to write any word upon the government blank would bring him into danger of the law." The failure to comply with the filing and reporting requirements of the federal tax laws will not be excused based upon blanket assertions of the constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Relevant Case Law: United States v. Schiff, 612 F.2d 73, 83 (2 d Cir. 1979) - The court said that "the Fifth Amendment privilege does not immunize all witnesses from testifying. Only those who assert as to each particular question that the answer to that question would tend to incriminate them are protected . . . [T]he questions in the income tax return are neutral on their face . . . [h]ence privilege may not be claimed against all disclosure on an income tax return." United States v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248, 252 (10 th Cir. 1979) - Noting that the Supreme Court had established "that the self-incrimination privilege can be employed to protect the taxpayer from revealing the information as to an illegal source of income, but does not protect him from disclosing the amount of his income," the court said Brown made "an illegal effort to stretch the Fifth Amendment to include a taxpayer who wishes to avoid filing a return." United States v. Neff, 615 F.2d 1235, 1241 (9 th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 925 (1980) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, noting that the taxpayer "did not show that his response to the tax form questions would have been self-incriminating. He cannot, therefore, prevail on his Fifth Amendment claim." United States v. Daly, 481 F.2d 28, 30 (8 th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1064 (1973) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's Fifth Amendment claim because of his "error in . . . his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses." Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5 th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1153 (1995) - The court affirmed tax assessments and penalties for failure to file returns, failure to pay taxes, and filing a frivolous return. The court also imposed sanctions for pursuing a frivolous case. The taxpayers had failed to provide any information on their tax return about income and expenses, instead claiming a Fifth Amendment privilege on each line calling for financial information. C. Contention: Compelled compliance with the federal income tax laws is a form of servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. This argument asserts that the compelled compliance with federal tax laws is a form of servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Law: The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits slavery within the United States, as well as the imposition of involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime of which a person shall have been duly convicted. In Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954), the Court of Appeals stated that "if the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment." Courts have consistently found arguments that taxation constitutes a form of involuntary servitude to be frivolous. Relevant Case Law: Porth v. Brodrick, 214 F.2d 925, 926 (10 th Cir. 1954) - The court described the taxpayer's Thirteenth and Sixteenth Amendment claims as "clearly unsubstantial and without merit," as well as "far-fetched and frivolous." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 983 (8 th Cir. 1983) - The court affirmed Drefke's failure to file conviction, rejecting his claim that the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited his imprisonment because that amendment "is inapplicable where involuntary servitude is imposed as punishment for a crime." Ginter v. Southern, 611 F.2d 1226 (8 th Cir. 1979) - The court rejected the taxpayer's claim that the Internal Revenue Code results in involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. Kasey v. Commissioner, 457 F.2d 369 (9 th Cir. 1972) - The court rejected as without merit the argument that the requirements to keep records and to prepare and file tax returns violated the Kaseys' Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and amount to involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

tbc..

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax laws are unconstitutional. This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue. The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. Amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax. Relevant Case Law: Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) - The court stated, "We find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company . . . and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure." The court imposed sanctions on them for having advanced a "patently frivolous" position. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) - Stating that "the Secretary of State's certification under authority of Congress that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts," the court upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement. Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) - The court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as "totally without merit" and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. "Every court that has considered this argument has rejected it," the court observed. United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) - The court affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified. E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens. Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws. The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation." Relevant Case Law: In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) - The court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayer's frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) - The court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district court's frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneys' fees to the government "because [the taxpayers'] legal position was patently frivolous." The appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing "frivolous arguments in bad faith." Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) - The court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.

It's an ongoing argument,but one the Supreme Court has addressed many times.

 

[Shimmer]

link
Legalities aside, so much by way of precedent has been set that refusing to pay taxes is a sure bet to eventually landing in jail.

 

[giz2000]

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to pay them...but in this one, we do...

 

[kuuipo1207]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer link Legalities aside, so much by way of precedent has been set that refusing to pay taxes is a sure bet to eventually landing in jail.

Well, yeah I'm not saying to not pay them. lol But I mean, we as citizens can make a change and eventually not have be threatened by an organization that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

 

[aziajs]

Someone told me this. I didn't know the facts so I didn't argue with him but he's so full of bullshit most of the time I just dismissed it. Ummm...yeah...I'm still paying my taxes because I have seen too many people go to jail for tax evasion. The U.S. government is nothing to fuck with where money is concerned.

 

[kuuipo1207]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aziajs Someone told me this. I didn't know the facts so I didn't argue with him but he's so full of bullshit most of the time I just dismissed it. Ummm...yeah...I'm still paying my taxes because I have seen too many people go to jail for tax evasion. The U.S. government is nothing to fuck with where money is concerned.

Yeah, but it's supposed to be a government by the people, for the people...not to rob the people.

 

[Dark_Phoenix]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuuipo1207 Well, yeah I'm not saying to not pay them. lol But I mean, we as citizens can make a change and eventually not have be threatened by an organization that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

And then the IRS, FBI, CIA, Veterans Affairs, and other federal agencies and services should not exist. The country takes a loose interpretation of the constitution, not a strict one

Anyways... in my opinion, the rights not reserved in the constitution are supposed to be reserved for the states (tenth amendment, right?). Seems a little f'd up that the Federal gov is taking charge of so many agencies. I'm not a Libertarian, or a radical republican... but I just think government needs to go back to the states, back to the smaller entities who know how to reach the people better and distribute funding more appropriately.

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuuipo1207 Well, yeah I'm not saying to not pay them. lol But I mean, we as citizens can make a change and eventually not have be threatened by an organization that shouldn't even exist in the first place.

You'd be surprised how many people WOULDN'T vote for those changes when they realized they lose their:

earned income credit
child tax credit
welfare
EBT (Food Stamps)
TANF
Attorney General Child Support collections (they'd still get child support but the office wouldn't assist in the collection)
Medicaid for low-income children
Medicaid for low-income pregnant mothers
WIC
Child Care Management Services
Section 8 (HUD)
Pell Grant and other forms of Federal College Funding

etc.

Consider this:
A single mother with custody of four children with four different fathers (happens all the time, it's not uncommon) is according to state law owed up to 25% of the non-custodial parent's income, per child. (Base this on the presumption that the fathers have no other children, and as I said, each child is fathered by a different male.)

Say that each father makes the average of 30K a year...she is getting 30K of non-taxed income a year based on the presumption that each man is paying his child support on time. Thirty thousand dollars. Tax Free.
In addition to this, she's working a job at Old Navy making 17K a year. Seventeen thousand dollars a year with four children puts her eligible for WIC (provided any of the children are under 5 years of age), Food Stamps (though perhaps not full benefits), Medicaid if the fathers aren't providing insurance, college tuition assistance if she chooses to go, housing assistance, and daycare assistance. Her kids also receive free or reduced price lunches at school, and qualify for reduce price school supplies in the packages the school hands out every year to qualifying children.

Additionally, at the beginning of the next year, she gets to file taxes as head of household, and claim four dependents, get the earned income credit AND child tax credits due her and actually receive almost as much in a 'refund' as she earned at her job at Old Navy for the filing year.

I ask you, is this woman, and other women like her, going to vote for a referendum or a candidate that will take away these benefits? If she's smart, she won't. Why should she? She stands to lose a lot and gain nothing.

 

[kaliraksha]

There are definitely some problems with taxes, especially in the case that Shim mentioned (oh god, talk about loop holes)- but in general I like what paying taxes enable us to have- education, safety- police/fire, paved streets. I think the best thing we can do is vote and find a representative that reflects your wants and needs.

 

[Shimmer]

Indeed. Paying taxes sucks when the taxes aren't used for what we as constituents necessarily WANT them to be used for, but for the *most part* we benefit from them.

 

[kuuipo1207]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaliraksha There are definitely some problems with taxes, especially in the case that Shim mentioned (oh god, talk about loop holes)- but in general I like what paying taxes enable us to have- education, safety- police/fire, paved streets. I think the best thing we can do is vote and find a representative that reflects your wants and needs.

Actually, your taxes aren't going towards education, safety (police/fire) or paved streets. Maybe the state income tax, but not the federal. Your federal taxes are going towards paying the national debt that the government owes to the Federal Reserve, which is a privately owned bank. The Federal Reserve is not owned and regulated by the government. By the time your taxes should go toward the things you "think" it's paying for, there's nothing left. Seriously, watch Aaron Russo's video. He goes in and asks IRS commissioners about tax dollars and the "law" mandating that US citizens are required to pay taxes. None of them can provide the law. Also, as tax paying citizens, you are given the right to know, in writing, with charts/graphs or anything else needed as proof to know exactly where your tax money is being apportioned to. While the IRS uses force and fear to demand that it is our "patriotic duty as an American" to pay our taxes, they feel that it is not their patriotic duty to supply the citizens with the proof that our tax dollars are going to the things we "assume" they should be going to. Also, look up the "North Atlantic Union". It's something else to think about that ties in with this whole thing, and that it could possibly happen.
I'm probably sounding "un-American" but believe me, I am one of the most Patriotic people I know. My husband proudly serves in the Army and I support him now and always will. But the fact is that the federal government has taken advantage of the open interpretation of the constitution. I apologize if this offends anyone ahead of time, but in my opinion the president in office today is nothing more than a modernized Hitler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer I ask you, is this woman, and other women like her, going to vote for a referendum or a candidate that will take away these benefits? If she's smart, she won't. Why should she? She stands to lose a lot and gain nothing.

This is true. But should we stand by and let our tax dollars be used to support someone who abuses the system?

 

[Shimmer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuuipo1207 This is true. But should we stand by and let our tax dollars be used to support someone who abuses the system?

How is it abuse?
It's illegal to tax income twice, so the money paid to the female has already been taxed, it's a debt owed to her by the father of the child(ren).
She's working a job, one that's flexible for the fact that she has four small children, and she's taking opportunity to use the programs (assuming she's using the college opportunities etc.) to better herself.
Is it really abuse? Is actually using the programs for their intended purpose really abuse?

 

[kuuipo1207]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer You'd be surprised how many people WOULDN'T vote for those changes when they realized they lose their: earned income credit child tax credit welfare EBT (Food Stamps) TANF Attorney General Child Support collections (they'd still get child support but the office wouldn't assist in the collection) Medicaid for low-income children Medicaid for low-income pregnant mothers WIC Child Care Management Services Section 8 (HUD) Pell Grant and other forms of Federal College Funding

Earned Income Tax Credit: The definition of the EITCaccording to Wikipedia.com: "The United States federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a refundable tax credit that reduces or eliminates the taxes that low-income working people pay (such as payroll taxes) and also frequently operates as a wage subsidy for low-income workers."
---If the federal income tax is illegal and we shouldn't be required by law to pay it, there wouldn't be any need for a tax credit, due to the fact that everyone would receive their full pay.

Child Tax Credit: Why should I have to give up extra money to pay for someone else's choice to have a child. The child is not mine. Why should I assume responisiblity for this child by dontaing my paycheck to the IRS which will "supposedly" pay the family for having kids? And honestly, if it were not required for people to pay income taxes, once again, there would be no need for a child tax credit since the wages of the parents' would not be taken from them in the first place.

The same can be said from everything else. The Declaration of Independence states "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we are all created equal, why am I responsible for someone else's success. Granted it may sound selfish, but isn't that the bottom line to everyone's "pursuit of happiness"? To make themselves happy? Many people have been born into poverty and have made their way out of it due to their own perseverance and their own "pursuit". Andrew Carnegie is the perfect example. He was born in Scotland, to a poor improverished family, but by the time he died, he became a well known philanthropist throughout his success in the steel industry and his shrewd business decisions.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Shimmer How is it abuse? It's illegal to tax income twice, so the money paid to the female has already been taxed, it's a debt owed to her by the father of the child(ren). She's working a job, one that's flexible for the fact that she has four small children, and she's taking opportunity to use the programs (assuming she's using the college opportunities etc.) to better herself. Is it really abuse? Is actually using the programs for their intended purpose really abuse?

Taxing income twice, is illegal, but in the first place, the federal income tax is illegal-bottom line. The Constitution states that direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union". [See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.]. The Federal Income Tax, however, is a direct, unapportioned tax, and therefore violates the very document that US citizens live by.
The fact that she is working a job and trying to better herself is not up for debate. It is something be admired. But by using money "from" the federal government, she is indirectly (and more than likely, unknowingly) feeding the idea that most Americans honestly believe that their money is going towards programs such as education and safety. If the taxes are going towards education, then why are our schools' standards falling far below those of other countries around the world?
I'm not debating the fact that people should not better themselves and that the government should have some part in it. I just hink it's time people open their eyes to know the truth about the money and about their future. If they value anything that this country stands for or if they value anything that the Constitution claims to protect, then they'll read their Constitution and understand how it relates to them. They'll also try to understand their right to vote and the fact that the government was put into place for them, not for the politicians who want nothing but power.

 

[Shimmer]

See now you've gone completely from you didn't know it was true or not to a wholly different stance saying that it IS in fact illegal.
In response to the first part, people in the situation I mentioned would make MORE MONEY BACK, regardless of whether they actually had a decent income or not, by having the income tax in place. That's a four to six to eight thousand dollar boon at the first of the year.

Regarding the second part of your post, that is the purpose of Amendments to the constitution.
The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. Amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment. There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

 

[kuuipo1207]

Alright I give. After doing some thinking (and more research, since I only learned about this whole "no law on federal income tax stuff), I utilize Stafford loans for my education which supposedly comes from taxes. But what is the whole deal with apportion and unapportioned? In the Aaron Russo's video, when he asks the former IRS Commissioner to state the law which mandates that paying the income tax is required, how come he doesn't come up with a direct law, and point out where it says the tax can be unapportioned and direct?
My other question is this (which doesn't really pertain to the IRS): Why does the federal reserve exist? Why is it that the government gave this institution the power to create money when the government has the power to do that itself?

 

[Shimmer]

Probably checks and balances, would be my (wholly uneducated) guess.

 

[*Stargazer*]

LMAO. Am I the only one that hears the black helicopters?