Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 9

Clarification of Brushaber (continued)
Dear readers: Just as a follow-up, here is an example of the "Alternative A" approach in a case already quoted earlier on this talk page: the Fifth Circuit decision Parker v. Commissioner, where a taxpayer argued unsuccessfully that wages were not taxable:


 * Parker [the taxpayer] maintains that "the IRS and the government in general, including the judiciary, mistakenly interpret the sixteenth amendment as allowing a direct tax on property (wages, salaries, commissions, etc.) without apportionment." As we observed in Lonsdale v. CIR, 661 F. 2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981), the sixteenth amendment was enacted for the express purpose of providing for a direct income tax. The thirty words of this amendment are explicit: "The Congress shall have 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." The Supreme Court promptly determined in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 36 S. Ct. 236, 60 L. Ed. 493 (1916), that the sixteenth amendment provided the needed constitutional muster for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax.

-See Parker citation earlier on this talk page.

In Parker, the United States Court of Appeals is citing Brushaber (where, in dicta, the Alternative B reasoning arguably was the reasoning used), but the Fifth Circuit itself is more or less using the Alternative A formulation. The Parker court is making the critical, and correct, point that its own decision is, however, consistent with the decisions in Brushaber. Although Brushaber and Parker involved slightly different legal issues and therefore slightly different decisions, the decisions in those two cases are consistent in a critical aspect: the Federal income tax was upheld as valid under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment. Yours, Famspear 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't have time to respond in full but I will comment on a few things. I understand your argument concerning the non-binding dicta, and agree this makes much of the text of the brushaber case non-binding. However I believe the actual reason or the points which the decision depends upon, is binding, but i'm no lawyer so it's possible i'm wrong obviously. I believe the reasoning of the court can be said to rely on what congress intended the amendment to do and what they didn't intend it to do. I think this page will make it clear what I mean: http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/16Amend/LegIntent16thAmend.htm

--Pokeraddict 02:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pokeraddict: Well, the web site you referenced (http://famguardian.org) is a well-known purveyor of tax protester materials and, for purposes of Wikipedia, is not considered a reliable source (except, obviously, as a source that provides examples of tax protester arguments).


 * The basic concept is that court's description of "how" it arrives at a decision --whether "correct" or not, and whether the intent of Congress or not -- is non-binding (i.e., dicta). Only the narrow decision itself (or decisions, in the case of multiple holdings) is binding, which means that only the decision itself (what the court actually decided about what the parties actually fought about) is the precedent for which the case stands. Yours, Famspear 16:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear readers: On a side note: In my March 20th lecture above, where I said: "Even correct statements on rules of law that are made by the court in a case are really obiter dicta -- as far as that case is concerned" - I should have said: "Even correct statements on rules of law (other than the holdings in that particular case) that are made by the court in a case are really obiter dicta -- as far as that case is concerned." Obviously, by definition, the holding itself is not dicta, and of course the holding itself is binding (precedent). Yours, Famspear 17:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

You contend that the site I referenced is not considered a realiable enough source to be referenced on wikipedia, that might or might not be true but for our current discussion it is irrelevant as I did not suggest we include any quote from that site on the artice page. I am referencing to that site for the purpose of showing what I believe to be an important part of the court's decision in the Brushaber case, namely that congress rejected to amend the 16th amendment with a phrase that would have made it possible to collect a direct unapportined tax. It is my understanding that this is in fact important to this discussion. I am not sure if you disagree with the statements made on that site or if you are merely pointing out that it is not considered reliable, regardless of whether the statements are true or not.

I agree that any statements in a court decision that are not either 1) the decision itself or 2) the point in the case that determines the ruling(ratio decidendi), are considered obiter dicta, atleast this is my present, limited understanding of the law.

Ratio decidendi is a Latin phrase meaning "the reason (or rationale) for the decision."

The ratio decidendi is:

"[t]he point in a case which determines the judgment"[1] or "the principle which the case establishes."[2] It is a legal phrase which refers to the legal, moral, political, and social principles used by a court to compose the rationale of a particular judgment. Unlike obiter dicta, the principles of judgment for ratio decidendi stand as potentially binding precedent, through the principle of stare decisis.

So it seems, atleast to me that the principle which the Brushaber case set(ie the income tax is an indirect tax and the 16th amendment does not give the authority to issue an unapportined direct tax) is atleast potentially binding.

--Pokeraddict 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pokeraddict: Well, let me ask for clarification by asking two questions:


 * 1. Do you believe that under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, the Congress has the authority to impose an unapportioned tax on income from personal services, such as wages?


 * 2. Do you believe that under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, the Congress has the authority to impose an unapportioned tax on interest income?


 * Yours, Famspear 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not currently contend that Congress has the authority to impose both those kinds of income taxes. This is based on the limited reasearch I have done on the subject.

--Pokeraddict 21:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pokeraddict: OK. Now, the only kind of income tax that has ever been ruled to be a direct tax was the tax on income from property, such as interest income. That was the Pollock case.


 * If I'm understanding you correctly, would all of the following be correct statements?


 * 1. Under Brushaber, either by court decision or by dicta, taxes on income from property (such as interest, dividends and rent) were moved (by the 16th Amendment) from the "direct" category (where they had been put in the year 1895 by Pollock) back into the category of "indirect" (where they had been prior to the Pollock case anyway).


 * 2. All other income taxes are, and have always been, indirect taxes (such as income taxes on personal earnings, etc.).


 * 3. Since all other income taxes have always been "indirect", that leaves essentially no income taxes at all that could now be classified as "direct".


 * 4. The apportionment rule applies only to direct taxes.


 * 5. The uniformity rule applies only to indirect taxes.


 * 6. After 1913, the apportionment rule therefore does not apply to any kind of Federal income tax at all.


 * 7. The uniformity rule applies to all Federal income taxes.


 * Do you agree with all of these statements? Yours, Famspear 22:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-script: Actually, my question could be worded as: Do you agree with any of those seven statements and, if you disagree with any of them, which ones and why? Yours, Famspear 22:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all of those statements.

--Pokeraddict 22:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pokeraddict: OK, since you agree that the apportionment rule does not apply to any kind of Federal income tax at all, I am curious about the following statement you made:


 * I do not currently contend that Congress has the authority to impose both those kinds of income taxes [referring to Famspear's comments about unapportioned taxes on income from personal services such as wages and unapportioned taxes on interest income].


 * My questions would be:


 * 1. Under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, are there any restrictions at all on the power of Congress to tax wages and, if so, what are those restrictions (other than the geographical uniformity rule and the rule that tax bills, etc. must originate in the House of Representatives)?


 * 2. Under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, are there any restrictions at all on the power of Congress to tax interest income and, if so, what are those restrictions (other than the geographical uniformity rule and the rule that tax bills, etc. must originate in the House of Representatives)?

Hi,

I'm not sure why you are curious about my statement that i agreed that congress could impose income taxes from personal services and wages, could you clarify?

Right now I'm really only arguing that income taxes are supposed to be classified as indirect taxes and not direct taxes. I don't think there are any restrictions on the government to impose indirect income taxes other than those previously stated, but i'm not sure. Some tax protesters argue that the intent of the 16th amendment was only to allow congress the right to impose an unapportioned income tax on the employes of the government but I can't really say whether there is any merit to that position.

--Pokeraddict 23:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Pokeraddict: I just was not understanding whether you meant "contend" in the sense of "claim," as in "I do not currently claim that Congress has the authority to impose both those kinds of income taxes" or whether you meant "contend" in the sense of "disagree with the statement that" as in "I do not currently disagree with the statement that Congress has the authority to impose both those kinds of income taxes." I now understand that you mean you agree that Congress can impose income taxes, or at least income taxes on personal services. I just want to avoid accidentally putting "words in your mouth" so to speak that you do not intend.


 * So, that gets us back to my earlier statement that I think we are pretty much in agreement on some major issues. It sounds like we mainly disagree over whether the wording in Brushaber (regarding the Amendment being interpreted to mean that all income taxes are once again in the "indirect category") is part of dicta (with my position being that while the wording is basically a legally correct analysis, it is only one alternative analysis, and that it has effectively been treated as dicta in some later court decisions opting for a slightly different line of reasoning -- that the Amendment simply allows any income tax, even a "direct" tax) or, alternatively a holding in the case (which I believe is your position).


 * Anyway, as I said under either approach you reach the same result. Some courts have not used the "Alternative B" (Brushaber) approach but have instead used the "Alternative A" approach (such as the Fifth Circuit in Parker). Perhaps the article can be modified to point out that the Brushaber case has been treated in varying ways over the years, with citations to a small sample of cases that use the Alternative A analysis and a small sample that use Alternative B (if we can find, say, two or three examples of each). It could be a good way to illustrate my point about the difference between "holdings" and "dicta."


 * However, I'm semi-snowed under with tax season right now (yes, I actually do this stuff for a living), so it may take awhile. Also, a decision would have to be made as to whether the aforementioned proposal should go in this article or, alternatively, in the article on the Brushaber case itself.


 * Your thoughts? Famspear 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry for the confusion created by my use of the word contend. I did, as you inferred, use the word with the intent of expressing that I did not disagree with Congress right to collect those income taxes.

I consider your analyzis on our respective views to be a correct one. I also like your proposal to modify the article to include a description of the different views held by the court's regarding the binding nature of the various aspects of the Brushaber case and an explanation of the basis for their discrepancy. It's my position that this should be added to the article on the 16th amendment and not only the article on the Brushaber case because to exclude it would present an incomplete depiction as to the interpretation of the amendment.

On a side note I think our discussion on the topic has been a productive one and has certainly advanced my understanding on the matter. I will see if I can add to the article in some way to make it more comprehensive, time permitting of course, but could certainly benefit from your help since you are experience in this field.

--Pokeraddict 11:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming of article
Another editor has renamed this article from "Sixteenth" to "16th" under the theory that this conforms to other like articles. I'm confused, as I cannot find a single other article on U.S. constitutional amendments that is worded this way. All I see is "First," "Second,", etc., and not "1st, "2nd" and so on. The archive history for this article has been lost as a result of the change, although I presume there's a way to fix that.

Anyway, I would suggest that the article be changed back to the title "Sixteenth." Any thoughts, anyone? Famspear 22:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, per discussion with the editor who had made the change, I have moved the article and related talk page back to "Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," which is consistent with the other articles on U.S. constitutional amendments. The archive pages appear to be OK. Yours, Famspear 02:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Italics
Q: When the Sixteenth Amendment is referenced in other articles, should it be italicized? I would consider it the title of a document, which generally is italicized but I haven't seen this in our other articles. Morphh  (talk) 1:47, 03 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to this is No, since it is constitutional or legal document (see Manual_of_Style_%28titles%29). Morphh   (talk) 12:42, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

Ratification
The page says that the amendment was ratified after the 36th state ratified it. According to the Constitution 3/4 of the states would have to ratify it making it 37 or 38 states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.155.194.209 (talk • contribs) 16:42, June 8, 2007 (UTC)
 * Alaska and Hawaii weren't yet states, so it's 3/4 of the 48 states, which would be 36. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a question as to the veracity of the ratification. The Kentucky State Legislature voted "No" on the ratification issue; however, somehow, the US Congress passed it without a "Yes" vote from Kentucky. Also, Ohio was not a state (legally) until around 1955 but yet the vote from Ohio seemed also to be accepted. To the best of my knowledge, and according to the very document that this "ratification" changed, a state cannot be made "retroactively". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.236.67.225 (talk) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Article I, section 9, clause 4 of the Constitution states that all direct taxes are required to be apportioned among the state's population. This essentially means that the dollar amount of direct taxes imposed on the taxpayers in any given state is required to bear a relationship to the total dollar amount of direct taxes imposed in the entire nation that is equal to the ratio of that state's population to the total population of the nation." I have no idea what this means. Can anyone help me make it clearer? This means that the taxes imposed by be proportional to the population in the state? If a federal income tax is the same in every state, how does it violate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.219.120 (talk) on 13 June 2007.


 * The keyword there is direct tax. Current law considers income tax an indirect tax, and so it's unaffected by that clause.  And the amendment also explicitly protects income taxes from this clause, by saying they may be collected "without regard to any census or enumeration."  Someguy1221 05:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.223.219.120: Excellent question. The Federal income tax is "the same" in every state only in the sense that it is geographically uniform. That means that it's imposed in all the states. If you live in New York and your income is $50,000, you're taxed the same way as if you live in Montana and your income is $50,000.

However, the APPORTIONMENT rule -- which is what we're talking about here -- could never work for an INCOME tax (and indeed was never intended by the Founding Fathers to apply to an income tax). Here's why.

An income tax is of course based on INCOME (that's an oversimplification, but it will do). Let's assume that the United States consisted of only two states -- New York and Montana. Let's suppose that the population of New York is ten million, and Montana is five million. That's 15 million total. New York has 2/3 of the total population and Montana has 1/3. If the tax is a tax on INCOME, how in the world can you have exactly 2/3 of the TOTAL TAX be collected from residents of New York and 1/3 of the TOTAL TAX be collected from residents of Montana? The only way is for the TOTAL INCOME of all the residents of New York be exactly 2/3 of the total income of the two combined states, and the total income of all the residents of Montana be exactly 1/3 of the total income of the two combined states. THIS WOULD VIRTUALLY NEVER HAPPEN. People earn varying amounts of income in varying combinations in varying states. The mere fact that one state has exactly 2/3 of the population of the country does not mean that exactly 2/3 of the total income is earned by residents of that particular state.

Thus, apportionment of an income tax among the states based on the POPULATION of the state is virtually a logical impossibility.

By contrast, a capitation -- a tax of the same dollar amount on each man, woman and child in the country -- could (at least in theory) be apportioned among the states by population. If you live in Montana, you pay $10. If you live in New York, you pay $10.

Same thing for a property tax, as long as you do not impose the tax on an ad valorem basis (as long as you don't impose the tax based on the value of the property). In other words, if you simply collected the same dollar amount from each and every property owner, it might work out that the dollars collected from each state could be proportional to that state's population.

The term "direct tax" is a technical legal term. It doesn't mean "a tax that's imposed directly on somebody." It means, in this context, a capitation (a head tax) or a property tax imposed on property "by reason of its ownership." By contrast, an income tax is essentially an excise (or "indirect tax"). Yours, Famspear 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-script: That was my long-winded way of explaining that the only kind of tax that can be imposed proportionally to the population of each state is a "population" tax, if you will (a capitation or a property tax not based on value of the property). If you collect exactly the same dollar amount from each individual, then you might have a tax that is proportional by population. By contrast, an income tax could vitually never be imposed proportionally to the population -- unless each and every individual in each and every state had EXACTLY the same amount of income -- something that would essentially never happen. That's why it would be virtually impossible to impose an income tax so that the income tax would be apportioned among the states according to population. Yours, Famspear 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-post script: Well, once I get started, it's hard to stop. I want to add that my explanation above is an oversimplified one. For example, even if every man woman and child in the country had exactly the same gross income each and every year, an apportioned income tax would still be impossible as long as you had deductions, etc. In other words, not only would every man, woman and child have to have the same income, but every man, woman and child would have to have spent exactly the same amount of money every year on deductible expenses - so that the net amount, the "taxable income" amount under Internal Revenue Code section 63, would be EXACTLY the same for every man, woman, and child. Again, this situation would be a virtual impossibility. Yours, Famspear 13:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that clears it up a lot! Thanks. Where did you learn all this stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.223.219.31 (talk) (on 20 June 2007)


 * Dear user at IP 206.223.219.31: You're welcome. I don't want to be too specific right now, but I deal with Federal income taxation as a career, and I have been doing this for, uh, let's just say, a long time. Yours, Famspear 12:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

>The comments "...an income tax could vitually never be imposed proportionally to the population -- unless each and every individual in each and every state had EXACTLY the same amount of income -- something that would essentially never happen. That's why it would be virtually impossible to impose an income tax so that the income tax would be apportioned among the states according to population." and "...an apportioned income tax would still be impossible as long as you had deductions..." seem incorrect to me. I will use the same example as above - New York (2/3) and Montana (1/3). In order to apportion an income tax to those respective states one would need to know the sum income (irrespective of income varying for each state and irrespective of various deductions) of both New York and Montana, from this sum income New York would pay 2/3 and Montana 1/3. So, I think apportionment is possible. However, fairness (each person paying for their proper income) is a different matter, which seems to be an intrisic problem with apportionment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokerjozef (talk • contribs) (23 July 2007)


 * Dear Brokerjozef: I'm not sure I follow you. What is being said is that apportionment of an income tax is a virtual impossibility.


 * I can think of only two ways it could be possible.


 * Obviously, if every man, woman and child in every state had exactly the same amount of income, exactly the same amount of deductions, and exactly the same amount of tax credits, then the tax from the residents of any given state might come out proportional to that state's population.


 * Likewise, if any differences from one person to another in any state just happened to coincidentally work out so that the total dollar amount from each state was still proportional to that state's population, then by definition you could have an apportioned income tax.


 * However, the probability or likelihood of either of those situations ever happening, even for one year, is so minute, so remote, that it's accurate to say it's a virtual impossibility. Apportionment of an income tax is "possible" only in the sense that it is theoretically "possible" that I might arrive at the Moon later today. Yours, Famspear 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

+++Apportionment Example: State "A" - population of 3. State "B" - population of 5.

In state "A" one person makes $1, another $2, and the last makes $4. The first two people do not have any deductions. The last person has a $1 deduction. The way to apportion a tax to state "A" is to make the state pay its respective portion of tax according to its population. The easiest way to do this is to have a flat nationwide tax - say 5%. Anyhow, here is the calculation for state "A" - $1+$2+$3=$6. $6 is the total income for state "A" (deduction subtracted). 5% of $6 is $.30. Each person in state "A" would pay $.30 in taxes.

For state "B" one person makes $2, another $1, another $4 with a $2 deduction, another $5, and another makes $7 with a $2 deduction.

The total income for the state (minus deductions) is $15. 5% of $15 is $.75. Each person in state "B" is apportioned/taxed $.75.

Therefore, it is not necessary to have individuals with equal income; it is also not necessary to have individuals with equal deductions. As for fairness, it is not fair, especially from the perspective of the individual in state "B" who makes $1 and is taxed $.75.

See you on the dark side. Brokerjozef 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To summarize what I think Brokerjozef's saying: If apportionment was required and income tax rates were uniform across the United States, taxes would (almost) never be correctly apportioned. But in order to meet the apportionment requirement, Congress could mandate that income rates vary by state. I.e., states with higher per capita income would have lower rates, and those with lower per capita income would have higher rates. This would result in tax collections in proportion to each state's population. So, theoretically, the tax system could be arranged to produce properly apportioned income—but it would be horrendously complex to implement and would be extremely regressive.


 * (By the way, I don't think your calculations are correct, Brokerjozef. If you ended up with a situation where each person in a state paid an equal amount of tax, that would be a poll tax, not an income tax. What you're describing is a tax on each state's income, which is different from a personal income tax. But I think that your point about an apportioned income tax being theoretically possible is still valid.) — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Without going into too much detail, my sense would be that the more you tried to manipulate the tax law so that the dollar amount of tax from each state would be proportional to that state's population, the less you would have a true income tax. You move toward a tax that is an income tax in name only. The key language is: "The way to apportion a tax to state "A" is to make the state pay its respective portion of tax according to its population." That's not an income tax. As Mateo SA has said, you would have a system that would even more horrendously complex than the one we have now. At any rate, it's a moot point. The theoretical tax system Brokerjozef is describing would probably be considered an excise -- an indirect tax -- and would be unconstitutional on the grounds of lack of geographic uniformity. The apportionment rule would not apply. Yours, Famspear 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Sixteenth Amendment today
Moved this entry from the article for discussion:
 * Presidential candidate Ron Paul has called for the sixteenth amendment to be repealed as part of his campaign for president.

This has the same issue as the IRS entry being discussed. I think there are a couple of bills in congress that call for the repeal of the 16th (HJR 16 - off the top of my head). Ron Paul is a mid-level candidate in the 2008 primary election. Why is this significant enough to include in this article? Morphh  (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Ron Paul's desire to get rid of the Amendment is pretty tangential. I don't have a strong position pro or con, though, on whether it should be in the article. I would not object to its removal. I did see an interview with Ron Paul (from the internet, on Fox News, I think) the other day, where Mr. Paul pretty much fumbled and mumbled around, talking with the reporter about tax issues, and Mr. Paul did specifically mention that he wanted to get the Sixteenth Amendment repealed. The fact is that (in my view) it will probably never happen, but I guess that is a separate issue.


 * The following commentary is for readers who do not follow the Federal tax articles here in Wikipedia and who aren't familiar with the Amendment. People who want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment are really saying that they want to repeal the Federal income tax by making it "unconstitutional." Unfortunately, to do that you would have to do more than merely repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. You would have to amend the Constitution to say "Congress shall have no power to impose an income tax" or words to that effect. The rhetoric about the Sixteenth Amendment is based on the mistaken idea that the Amendment itself "created" the Congressional power to tax incomes. That power actually comes from Article I of the Constitution.


 * I guess I would say remove the reference to Ron Paul's view, unless someone can come up with some reason why it's important. Yours, Famspear 17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, I should say, "keep it removed," since it's already been removed. Famspear 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Famspear, I'm told that the term used to describe the repeal with the added verbage to forbid income taxation is refered to as an "agressive repeal". I think HJR 14 had a call for an agressive repeal but I'm not sure if it was reintroduced this congress. Morphh   (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we expanded the section to describe bills in Congress to repeal the 16th, I think it would be notable to include mention of Ron Paul. But I'm not sure an entry on Paul all by himself is worth noting.  Morphh   (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would be notable even to describe bills in Congress to repeal the amendment (whether in the form of an aggressive repeal or not) unless there's some reasonable chance of having it pass the Congress and then be ratified by the required 38 states. I suspect that the vast majority of bills and resolutions in Congress never make it out of committee consideration, much less actually be approved by the Congress.

I'll see if I can dig up anything on the status of these proposals in Congress. Yours, Famspear 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * HRJ 16 110th Congress
 * HRJ 23 110th Congress (was HRJ 14 109th)


 * Note that HRJ 23 does, in fact, envision an "aggressive" repeal of the income tax. In addition to repealing the 16th Amendment, it proposes that "Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts".  Most people would agree, of course, that HRJ 23 hasn't got an icecube's chance in an oven of making it out of committee.  Richwales 18:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Richwales: You work fast! Thanks! Famspear 18:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Old tax protester rhetoric from a new user: "Drive the Nation"
A new user named "Drive the Nation" has repeatedly inserted the following material:


 * According to various sources, new evidence and rigorous research has laid down the framework for proving that the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is Unconstitutional, and therefore, illegal.


 * Bill Benson is one of the most influential 16th Amendment historical researchers who has extensively investigated the ratification process of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In his findings he concluded that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently claimed to be ratified, as the required amount of States never ratified, or never legally ratified the Amendment under Constitutional law. Bill Benson started his research in January, 1984. He investigated and traced paperwork and legal documents from all of the 48 State Legislatures in the "ratification" of the 16th Amendment. He surprisingly found that there were many errors and false claims of State ratification when no such legal authorization existed.


 * 


 * Bill Benson writes in his book "The Law That Never Was":


 * The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.
 * The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the sovereign States.


 * This is the Amendment that allegedly entitled the Federal Agent (government) in the federal territory of Washington, D.C. and their private collection company, the IRS, to collect "income tax" as falsely declared to be ratified in February 1913.


 * After an exhaustive year long search of legislative records in 48 sovereign states (Alaska & Hawaii were not admitted into the Union until after 1913). The only record of the 16th Amendment having been confirmed was a proclamation made by the Secretary of State Philander Knox on February 25, 1913, wherein he simply declared it to be "ineffect", but never stating it was lawfully ratified.


 * Bill Benson has also proclaimed in his book The Law That Never Was Vol. 1 & Vol. 2- that he obtained damaging documents and proof, through the national archives and public records, that can charge hundreds of state officials with Obstruction of Justice over the past 70 years. He was arrested for not paying income taxes, but once released, he still refused to pay income taxes- and fought the IRS using his book as his defense- and to this day, they don't arrest him.


 * 
 * 


 * Article One Section 2: Clause 3 & Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution permits the Federal Government to collect an apportioned tax from the people- and since the 16th Amendment permits a direct tax without apportionment, it is still considered Unconstitutional by people today. Other sources indicate that even "if" the 16th Amendment was legally and properly ratified by 3/4 of the States, that there are only 3 ways the Federal Government would be permitted to tax: 1. Import Tax 2. Export Tax 3. Excise Tax (sales tax).


 * Though other sources claim that the necessary amount of States ratified the 16th Amendment, after reviewing the evidence and documentation of these claims, it has been proven otherwise.


 * 
 * 

[end of material from "Drive the Nation"]

Dear Drive the Nation: You may want to discuss this material below. Yours, Famspear 14:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Drive the Nation: As previously explained, this material goes, if anywhere, at the article for The Law that Never Was or at Tax protester constitutional arguments. There is nothing "new" in this material. Further, the material includes objectionable language that would have to be removed anyway.

The three basic tenets of Wikipedia are Verifiability, Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and No Original Research.

Regarding NPOV, let's look at this statement: "Though other sources claim that the necessary amount of States ratified the 16th Amendment, after reviewing the evidence and documentation of these claims, it has been proven otherwise." The statement is blatantly false. Not only has no one ever "proved" that the necessary number of States did not ratify the amendment, but every single court that has considered the issue has rejected arguments that the Amendment is not a valid part of the Constitution. Every single court. Just as importantly, the statement lacks a neutral point of view. It is not for Wikipedia to say, in a Wikipedia article, that "it has been proven otherwise."

As clearly documented in the article on "The Law that Never Was," Bill Benson himself was unable to prevail on his own arguments using his own book when he himself had tax problems. Despite all his "research," he went to prison for tax crimes.

Now let's look at this statement: "He was arrested for not paying income taxes, but once released, he still refused to pay income taxes- and fought the IRS using his book as his defense- and to this day, they don't arrest him." Again, this is blatantly false. Now, on Benson's web site, he continues his activities by misleading people into thinking that he wrote his book AFTER he went to prison for tax crimes, and that his use of his book has somehow kept him out of prison -- when in fact he wrote the book BEFORE he ever was indicted.

Benson's theory that the Sixteenth Amendment is not a valid part of the Constitution has been rejected over and over by every single court that has considered his book and his argument. Your material leaves the false impression that Benson and his theories are something new.

And the material you insert falsely implies that Benson discovered errors in the ratification process. He did not discover anything. He merely re-discovered what the Secretary of State discovered in analyzing the ratification process. The paperwork in the process of various constitutional amendments contains clerical errors. Benson made the false argument that clerical errors (punctuation, etc.) in the paperwork somehow invalidated the Amendment. The Secretary of State considered all those points and concluded otherwise. And despite arguments that Kentucky or some other state did not "really" ratify the amendment, there is not one single reported court case of anyone in any of the states ever challenging the ratification in 1913 or at any other time -- until Benson magically "discovered" his theory in the mid 1980s, when a person born in February of 1913 would have been over sixty years old. And the courts have ruled that Benson's arguments are without legal merit.

Please read the articles on Tax protester constitutional arguments and The Law that Never Was very carefully, and stop engaging in edit warring over this material. Yours, Famspear 14:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: This material obviously includes several other serious problems with Verifiability, NPOV, Original Research, and blatant falsity, all of which can be discussed below, if desired. Famspear 14:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: I want to make a correction on something I said. The "Ohio was not really a state" argument was a separate challenge to the Sixteenth Amendment. That challenge came around the time of or slightly before Benson's challenge. That argument has also been covered in Tax protester constitutional arguments. Again, the basic point is that these challenges did not come until the 1970s or 1980s -- and they were soundly rejected. Yours, Famspear 14:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)