Is the Federal Income Tax unconstitutional?

Question

(unportioned tax) (16th amendment:states that a sufficient number of states never ratified the amendment)

35% of a persons yearly [4 months of the year] income is taken away to pay interest of money being produced by the federal reserve bank

this tax should not exist

so there is no law that requires anyone to pay this tax

Answer 1

No, the Federal Income tax is not unconstitutional. In fact, an income tax on wages has ALWAYS been constitutional. The single case, Pollock vs. Farmers Loan and Trust Co. 158 U.S. 601, concerned a tax on income from property, in other words, rental income. In the Pollock decision, the court quotes from an earlier decision, Springer vs. U.S., "Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." The court continues with "While this language is broad enough to cover the interest as well as the professional earnings, the case would have been more significant as a precedent if the distinction had been brought out in the report and commented on in arriving at judgment, for a tax on professional receipts might be treated as an excise or duty, and therefore indirect, when a tax on the income of personalty might be held to be direct." What the court is basically saying is that a tax on Springer's income as a lawyer is an excise or duty tax and therefore is indirect.

The issue of the 16th amendment has already been decided numerous times. First, many of the claims that it wasn't properly ratified are false. Second, when you look at those claims, you'll find that they are based upon shaky information. For example, one claim about the Tennessee legislature must wait until after the next election of the legislature before ratifying amendments is a misunderstanding of the Tennessee Constitution as it was written in 1909. The requirement to wait until after an election refers to changes to the Tennessee Constitution and nothing else. The ratification by Tennessee was proper. There are also claims that the states must return the exact spelling. There were other amendments before and after that also had similar spelling and capitalization errors. All of those are considered properly ratified, so that argument is also moot. Here is a court case for you.

In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court said,
[BEGIN QUOTE]
“Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and--taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems--advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

“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.”
[END QUOTE]

Your statement about the Federal Reserve bank is also erroneous. First, the numbers do not uphold that contention. In 2006, the IRS collected $1.04 trillion in individual income taxes. The average federal debt in 2006 was $8.4 trillion. In order for all of the individual income taxes to go to pay interest on the debt, the interest rate would have to be close to 12%. It isn't anywhere near that. The interest rate is close to 5%. In fact, the U.S. paid about $406 billion in interest in 2006.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=203&Topic2id=20&Topic3id=21
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Second, the Federal Reserve returns excess income to the U.S. Treasury. This can clearly be seen in the INDEPENDENTLY AUDITED financial statements of the Federal Reserve.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/rptcongress/annual06/pdf/audits.pdf
Page 21 has the audit report. Page 23 shows the $36.5 billion the Federal Reserve collected on the $784 billion of U.S. debt that it holds. Farther down the page under "Distribution of net income", you can see the $29.05 billion payment to the U.S. Treasury.

You say, "this tax should not exist". Unfortunately, an income tax is one of the best ways for a government to collect money for operations. Tariffs don't work because they increase the cost of goods from other countries. Tariffs also restrict trade from the U.S. because other countries will place tariffs on our products in retaliation. There are many other arguments against other forms of taxation. I don't have the space to cover them all here.

There is a law requiring people to pay an income tax. It is Title 26, U.S.C. That is the prima facie law or codification of the many tax acts passed by Congress and signed into law by a President. Our current tax laws get their basic structure from the Internal Revenue Act of 1954. Various tax acts in following years modified that law. The most extensive modification was covered by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. You can read the various tax acts passed by Congress by finding them in the U.S. Statutes at Large. The U.S. Statutes at Large can be found in Federal Depository Libraries. There are probably several in your state. You can read Title 26 U.S.C. online at several different places. Here is just one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Finally, if you are interested, the following website refutes many tax protester arguments.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Answer 2

Go ahead and try it. Be ready for asset seizure and possible jail time. This type of nonsense is a guarantee lost situation for you. You can not have an amendment without the majority of states ratifying it. Americans are lucky that they do not have to pay more like some Europeans have to do.

Answer 3

Here we go again......

Another Tax Protester......

Title 26 - Internal Revenue Code (look it up)

From the Constitution: "...Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes and excises......"

This one line makes the Income Tax "constitutional". The 16th, allowing for a unaportioned income tax, was properly ratified.

Show me an example where your theory has worked in court and someone got out of paying their taxes? You can't because there isn't any.

Answer 4

Your question is merely too long. although, i will upload my very own little bit of bewilderment. i've got confidence it quite is prohibited to tax the Social protection earnings of retired people. The contributions that workers make to the Social protection administration are made with after-tax money. subsequently they have been taxed already. once you obtain the money decrease back it quite is taxed returned. Double taxation is unconstitutional.

Answer 5

It was passed by 2/3 congress, 3/4 states that's legal at the time 48 states existed 36 voted yes then 6 more did bringing it to 42/48 more than 3/4.

Answer 6

You need a large dose of mental laxatives for relief from the delusions of the fruitcake fringe. If you conclusions were anywhere near correct they would have become evident before the end of World War I.