There are some, but not all of those cases.
Ever since the income tax was imposed by the Lincoln administration, there has been legal argument over its administration.
When the law was expanded and appeared to include the citizens of the 50 States of the union, the court was beseiged with court cases. The key court cases are listed below, and why the Tax Honesty movement relys on them.
First understand this: To file a tax return or form of any kind, usually requires that a citizen take an oath under penaltes of perjury which can subject them to severe penalties under 26USC7206, which will be discussed in another post.
Therefore we the people have the right to know exactly what we are doing and that it is correct and true to best of our knowedge. This espically in light of the fact that the Court system now allows the burden of proof of liability to be placed on the Citizen rather than on the US treasury collections division.
The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers AND NOT TO NON-TAXPAYERS. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and THEY ARE NEITHER OF THE SUBJECT NOR OF THE OBJECT OF THE REVENUE LAWS."
Stuart v. Chinese Chamber of Commerce, 168 F.2d 709, 712 (9th Cir.,1948);
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236, 238).
HERE the Tax Honesy movement uses this case to show that not everyone is a "taxpayer" which is a legaly defined word.
The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.
- Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, at 205 (1920)
The 16th Amendment does not extend the power of taxation to new or excepted subjects... Neither can the tax be sustained on the person, measured by income. Such a tax would be, by nature, a capitation, rather than an excise.
- Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165
The 16 Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the income tax from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged...
- Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103
The Tax Honesty movement uses these 3 cases to show that the 16th amendment did not change the wording of Article 1 section 8 clause 1, nor any other part of the constitution involving taxation. The IRS claims it did modify A1S8C1.
Congress has taxed income, not compensation.
- Connor v. U.S., 303 F.Supp., 1187 (1969)
The Tax honesty movement claims that our pay is comphensation and not income.
It also uses this as proof that not all money that comes in, is income. This fact is one that the courts have upheld in numerous cases.
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of the citizen.
United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369'
American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474;
Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55"
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153.
Tax Honesty uses this, becase of the conflict of the word Includes as used in the IRC. If the statutes mean what they say, and are not to be made expansive unless otherwise clearly done so, then the Tax Honesty movment is correct when it claims that the avarage american worker is not the employee as defined in Subtitle C, chapter 24 (employment taxe and collection of income tax at the source) at section 3401(c).
Title 26 of the U.S. Code, Sub-Title C, Chapter 24,
Sec. 3401. Definitions
Sub paragraph (c) Employee:
"For purposes of this chapter, the term ''employee'' includes an officer,
employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any
political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or
instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term ''employee''
also includes an officer of a corporation."
Tax Honesty People use this defintion, as proof that citizens are not subject to withholding under chapter 24, because they are not the employee described, and as such the pay they receive is not a wage as defined by §3401(a).
The Income tax is an excise tax:
The 16th Amendment empowers Congress to lay and collect an income tax (not a direct tax) subject to the explicit rules and requirements of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; i.e., the words "income" tax and "excise" tax are synonymous under the 16th Amendment. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
"An income tax is neither a property nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an excise tax. But the legislature may declare it as a privilege and tax as such for state revenue those pursuits and occupations that are not matters of common right, but has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." Sims v. Ahrens, 271 S.W. 720.
"Excises are 'taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue ceratin occupations, and upon corporate privileges.'" Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 7th ed. 680." 31 S. Ct. at 349.
Here the tax honesty movement claims that the avarage american worker is involved in acts of common rights. That is to work for a living to provide for ones self, and that doing so is not an excise taxable activity as it involves no government privlege. Working as an hourly worker for say, McDonalds Corporation making hamburgers, or as a warehouse worker for StealCase Inc., or as a welder/dock worker for Bethlehem Ship Building Companies are not privileges but acts of common right. For the tax honesty movement, privileged occupations would be like working for the government (obtaining a paycheck from the government), working in a federal licenced occupation (such as a lawyer or doctor) or that kind of thing.
Congress cannot define income:
". . . (I)t becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is ot 'income' . . . Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), 40 S. Ct. at 193.
Here the tax honesty movement uses this case to show that congress cannot declare that everything that comes in, is income. That income is a specific thing. And that no one has successfully defined or described in any standard way, what that thing is.
U.S. vs. Malinowski, 347 F.Supp. 347, affirmed on Appeal by the 3rd Circuit
472 F.2d 850 and Certiorari Denied May 7, 1973 (USSC).
"THE EMPLOYER IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ALTER THE (W-4) FORM OR TO DISHONOR THE EMPLOYEE'S CLAIM".
Tax Honesty movement uses that case to justify Filing exempt on a w-4 then raising a stink when the IRS uses an unsigned un jurat letter sent to the company, to change the citizens claim/status. The Citizen had to make his/her claim under penalties of perjury and Tax Honesty believes the IRS has no authority to change that status without a court order.
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ... We cannot condone this shocking conduct by the IRS. Our revenue system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from government in its inforcement and collection activities ....
This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is the "routine" it should be corrected immediately.
[U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
[quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
Tax Honesty uses this case, US V Tweel, to justify their actions when the IRS failes to answer questions sent to them by citizens. However, this has all changed. In 2007, the 2nd district court ruled against Bob Shultz's We the people, in a landmark lawsuit which covered the governments requirement to respond. The court ruled that under the constitution, the US government has no obilgation to respond to any inquires or petitions set forth befor it.
Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739 (1937): "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."
Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 859 (1955): "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575 (1943): "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145, (1959) never overruled: "... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT , NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.
Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920): US Supreme court, never overruled "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)
Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113 (1916): "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d: "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another."[wages]
Blatt Co. v U.S., 305 U.S. 267, 59 S.Ct. 186 (1938): "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."
Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada."Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable." (yet they are now taxing tips as income becasue the IRS gets away with it).
Commissioner of IRS v Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 80 S. Ct. 1190 (1960):
"The exclusion of property acquired by gift from gross income under the federal income tax laws was made in the first income tax statute 4 passed under the authority of the Sixteenth Amendment, and has been a feature of the income tax statutes ever since. The meaning of the term "gift" as applied to particular transfers has always been a matter of contention. 5 Specific and illuminating legislative history on the point does not appear to exist. Analogies and inferences drawn from other revenue provisions, such as the estate and gift taxes, are dubious. See Lockard v. Commissioner, 166 F.2d 409. The meaning of the statutory term has been shaped largely by the decisional law."
Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 21 (1978): "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."
Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902: "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS" ..."
Conner v US, 303 F Supp 1187 Federal District Court, Houston, never overruled. "..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Macomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!!
Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 (1926): "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...."
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916): "The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such..."
Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925): "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920), US Supreme court, never overruled: "...the definition of 'income' approved by this court is: The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets."
Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239 (1946): "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit"
Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643: "Income is realized gain."
Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883). One of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court..
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."
Pollack v. Farmers Loan, 157 U.S. 429, 158 U.S. 601 (1895): The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a 2% tax on PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS. The Supreme Court had, in POLLOCK v. FARMERS LOAN , in 1894, ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the EXACT SAME KIND OF TAX MOST AMERICANS ARE NOW PAYING! [A direct tax without apportionment.] This decision has NEVER been overturned! Both BEFORE and AFTER the sixteenth amendment passed (?), THE COURTS SAID INCOME WAS CORPORATE PROFIT! The Separation of powers doctrine says only CONGRESS can collect a tax!
The Internal revenue code is made up of 7 or more subtitles with the first one being income tax. The chapter is income tax, the 2nd self employment tax, the 3rd tax on nonresident aliens and foriegn corporations. Fact: the first liablity statute found in Subtitle A, (income tax) is found in chapter 3, the tax on Non resident aliens and foriegn corporations. There is no liablity section found it chapters 1 or 2.