Is this true?

Question

the federal income tax is unconstitutional because its a direct unaportiond tax all direct taxes have to be aportioned to be legal base on the constitution secondly the required number of states in order to ratifiy the amendment to allow the income tax was never meet and this has even been sited on modern court cases

Answer 1

It would be unconstitutional before the 16th amendment and if it was a direct tax in a Constitutional sense. However, an income tax in a Constitutional sense is INDIRECT. Economists define an income tax as a direct tax, but courts have ALWAYS held that an income tax is an indirect tax. The ONLY time an income tax law was ruled unconstitutional was in the 1895 Pollock vs Farmer's Loan. In that decision, the court decided that a tax on income from property or income from personal property (rental income) was a direct tax. In the decision the court discussed the ability of the court to declare part of a law unconstitutional while letting the rest of the law stand if the constitutional and unconstitutional sections were sufficiently independent of each other. Unfortunately, the law was written in such a way that a tax on incomes other than rental income was not separate from the tax on rental income. Therefore the court had to rule the entire law unconstitutional.
In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the court stated, "...the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of INDIRECT taxation to which it inherently belonged,..."

Even if an income tax is considered a direct tax, the 16th amendment removes the requirement that it be apportioned. The argument that it was not properly ratified has been struck down in court time and time again. There has not been a single court case that has EVER stated that the 16th amendment is not valid.

In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court states, "Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the “enrolled bill rule.” If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas’. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary’ decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox’ decision is now beyond review."

In Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 295 (1998) the court stated, "Despite plaintiff’ and numerous other tax protesters’ contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, courts have long recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’ ratification and validity."

I have provided verifiable quotes from court cases along with proper citations. You have only claimed your contention of modern court cases. If you want someone to accept your claim, you need to provide actual references.

Answer 2

Totally false.

First off, the 16th Amendment provides for the levy of income taxes without apportionment.

Second, the 16th Amendment received MORE ratification votes than needed for the number of states in the union at the time it was ratified.

The legality of the income tax has been cited in THOUSANDS of modern court cases. Any fool who says otherwise is a liar, clueless, or an idiot. Hopefully YOU are none of the above.

Answer 3

Prior to the 16th Amendment being passed, this would have been true.

The 16th Amendment eliminated the apportionment clause of the constitution making the income tax that we have today perfectly legal.

Certain tax protesters believe the 16th was not properly ratified. They are incorrect.

Answer 4

All Federal Taxes must be aportioned to ratify amendmented tax where needed and not questioned secondly.

Answer 5

Duplicating my response to another other poster of this ridiculous question:

You need to post this in a category for spitting into the wind. The world is not like you and others on the fruitcake fringe would like it to be.

Answer 6

If you have a social security# you are required to pay income tax! Too late not to have one now!!!