English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Answer yes or no and add any comment, the best comment wins. Bonus question: do you know all the US ammendments.
Be honest don't research before saying YES. There are some folks offering a million dollars to whoever finds such Income Tax law, if you can also mention who are these guys then it will definetly be a plus.

2006-08-16 15:57:28 · 22 answers · asked by tetraedronico 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

Guys, forgot to mention that the FEDERAL RESERVE is not the same as the Congress.

2006-08-16 16:13:47 · update #1

22 answers

Actually you are not correct. 16th Amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Seems pretty straight forward to me. "taxes on income" .... "income taxes"..... yeah pretty much right there.

Then there's all of Title 26 of the US Codes, dealing with income tax.

Plus that fact that I'm working as part of the defense team on a tax law case in federal court right now, so I have some familiarity with the relevant code sections and several dozen out of the hundreds of cases that have interpreted them.

And no, I can only name probably 16-20 of the Amendments off the top of my head. And I get a little fuzzy with the numbers after the 17th.

2006-08-16 16:04:06 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2 0

Your argument is based on two false premises:

1. That the 16th Amendment does not authorize income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Truth: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid.

2. That federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the 16th Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification.

The Truth: The 16th Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income. The 16th Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified this Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment, so there were enough states ratifying the 16th Amendment even without Ohio. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the 16th Amendment in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.

2006-08-16 16:24:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

No, I don't know that because it's not true. Income tax is in the constitution, they added an amendment about the income tax (Amendment 16). What I think you meant to say is that the 16th amendment might contradict some of the articles of the constitution and therefore the amendment doesn't belong in the constitution.

The other issue is the laws congress has passed under the 16th amendment. Many hold that these laws aren't actually in line with the 16th.

2006-08-16 16:04:38 · answer #3 · answered by Charles D 5 · 1 0

There are many things not covered by the Constitution but taxation is mandated by law. If the constitution were the only working document, why do we need Congress? Each year a budget is planned and taxation is based on the needs of the government and such legislation is voted on. The constitution is the general ideas for the formation of the government, not the marching orders. The Constitution does not mention immigration,nor does it recognize other countries but both things are controlled by the government as is taxation.

2006-08-16 16:08:37 · answer #4 · answered by Frank 6 · 0 1

Too complex of a question. No the authorization for taxes is not spelled out in the constitution, but it is in United States law. All laws were not preconceived by the fouding fathers. Subsequent to their foresight, the United States enacted the income tax, fairly recently, to cover debts the country was obviously going to incure in the early 1900's.

2006-08-16 16:22:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sadly it is in the Constitution. "AMENDMENT XVI

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

2006-08-16 16:13:32 · answer #6 · answered by Christopher W 2 · 0 0

The basis for the federal income tax is the 16th amendment. The 16th amendment was never legally ratified. Therefore the tax is illegally imposed. The federal government has never been given the right to tax the people. It's a farce but those who challenge the tax laws are usually severely punished by the IRS. With research on ratification of the 16th amendment it can be proven it was never ratified.

2006-08-16 16:19:13 · answer #7 · answered by Michael_Pro 2 · 0 2

Did you know that "wages" were not considered "income" when the 16th Amendment was passed, meaning that taxes on wages without apportionment is a fraud committed by the government in violation of the Constitution?

But hey, they have nukes, so the Constitution is now just a quaint old piece of paper.

2006-08-16 16:28:37 · answer #8 · answered by lenny 7 · 0 2

No, not a true statement. People have gone to jail because they believed they didn't have to pay income tax. There is a section in the tax laws that taken out of context sounds like you only have to pay income taxes on foreign income. This is not true.

2006-08-16 16:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I believe you are correct....However, If I remember reading at one time in my life, It seems that back when,,while we were at war, either civil war or perhaps ww1., the President at the time enacted some bill for a tax to (only) help pay for the war..Which meant pay for the men, and for food and supplies as they needed...It wasn't meant to be a permanent tax, but because the war lasted what it did, and life happened, and etc, ,,,It became a permanent thing because they saw what good the monies went for as a government..............And there you have my version
I only want to add that in todays time, Life as we know it couldn't be without taxes>>>>>>>>>>>Hardships and the end to many, many programs would cease without tax money>>>>>>>>>>>It is what keeps our government going and it pays democrats and republican salaries as well as the presidents, etc.........

2006-08-16 16:30:00 · answer #10 · answered by mom of a boy and girl 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers