Where in U.S. Federal or State law does it have that it is mandatory for me to pay income tax on my wages?

Question

The United States Supreme Court held that the income tax act was unconstitutional and ruled in favor of Pollock in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The decision that income tax is unconstitutional has never been overturned

The Supreme Court (the highest court in the U.S.) declared that an income tax was unconstitutional in 1854 and this has NEVER been overturned.

in 1916 the Supreme Court ruled that "the 16th Amendment does not give the (federal) government any new taxation powers. Cited from a edition of the New York times January 25th, 1916

Answer 1

There is a law concerning income taxes. It is codified in Title 26 U.S.C.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html

The rest of your question is so inaccurate, that it makes it difficult to answer, but I will give explanations.

1. As usual, the 1895 Pollock decision is completely misunderstood. The Pollock decision concerned a tax on income from property. In other words, rental income. The court decided that a tax on income from property was similar to a tax on the property itself. Since property taxes are considered in a Constitutional sense as direct taxes, the tax on income from property was ruled unconstitutional. The way the tax law at the time was written, it did not separate a tax on income from other sources from the tax on income from property. There was no way for the court to rule only a portion of the law unconstitutional, so the entire law had to be stricken.

2. I bet you didn't actually read the Pollock decision either.
"The first question to be considered is whether a tax on the rents or income of real estate is a direct tax within the meaning of the constitution...it may be admitted that, although this definition of direct taxes is prima facie correct, and to be applied in the consideration of the question before us, yet the constitution may bear a different meaning, and that such different meaning must be recognized."
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895).

In other words, the court basically said that a tax on income from rental property was a direct tax but then admitted that they might have the constitutional intent wrong.

In any event, the argument is all academic, because the 16th Amendment plainly states that Congress can impose taxes on incomes without apportionment, so it is constitutional to require individuals to pay a tax directly on their incomes, regardless of what the Constitution previously said.

3. There are many instances where a court can rule a law unconstitutional, but the legislature can rewrite the law and reenact it as a new law to eliminate the constitutional issues. There are many examples of this throughout U.S. history.

4. In Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586 (1880), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of an income tax against an individual, William H. Springer, finding that the income tax was a constitutional “duty or excise” and not a “direct tax.”

5. Do you have a cite for the 1854 case you claim? Or are you simply regurgitating some nonsense you read on a website? BTW, the first income tax law was enacted in 1861.

6. Yes, the Supreme Court did state that the 16th amendment gave Congress "no new power" of taxation, but that quote is taken out of context. Tax protesters ignore what the Supreme Court said in the rest of THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE. Here is the actual complete quote from the decision.
"...by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of 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..."
STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

So, do you have any other idiotic tax protestor arguments you wish to have refuted?

Answer 2

Yeah, right.

Any "1854" decision (and Pollack and others) was superseded by the 16th Amendment. No need to overturn it, it's moot now. Has been since 1913. Not aware of any 1854 decision regarding income taxes, which weren't first imposed until 1861 so that would be a stretch. Got a citation on that one? No? Didn't think so!

Title 26 of the US Code is the law that implements the current income tax system. Just because you don't believe that it is doesn't change that fact, sadly for you. Some folks still swear that the earth is flat or the center of the universe. That doesn't make it true though.

Each state has their own laws. It's a states' rights issue and the Federal government has no say in state taxes.

FYI, Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution gives the government the right to levy taxes and that INCLUDES income taxes. Always has.

The court decisions from the 19th century were based on challenges to the way that income taxes were treated. The anti-tax groups successfully claimed that income taxes were direct levies and therefore subject to apportionment among the several states. That was administratively impossible in those days, though would be simple in today's computerized society.

Along comes the 16th Amendment which states quite simply that the government may levy income taxes WITHOUT apportionment among the several states. With the ratification of the 16th Amendment, all prior court rulings became moot. The law had been changed and income taxes as we know them today became fully legal. PERIOD.

Answer 3

While it is true that the 16th amendment doesn't give any new powers, it was ratified and is now part of the constitution. What the 16th amendment did more than anything was clarify the taxing authority given to congress by article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

Do you think that it is some conspiracy that there is no instance of anyone being found not guilty in tax court for using the argument that my wages aren't subject to tax?

Don't listen to the tax kooks, be a real American. Don't just take advantage of all that this great country has given to you, pay your fair share.

Answer 4

Title 26 United States Code is the authority for income taxes based upon the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution. Your argument is fruitless and a waste of time.

Answer 5

16th ammendment of the constitution says:
"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."

The pollock case was one year before the amendment was passed. Thus, at the time of pollock it was unconstitutional, the amendment made it constitutional.

Edit: You're right, it doesn't give them any new powers, but makes all the old ones constitutional.

Answer 6

With all the people that have gone to jail for failure to pay taxes since 1913, you would think the Supreme Court would have picked up on your nutty ideas.

Answer 7

See the Internal Revenue act of 1954.

Answer 8

They put Al (Scarface) Capone in prison for federal income tax evasion,
not for murder.

Answer 9

Congress wasn't supposed to make any laws establishing a national religion either, but they did so with the urging of F.D.R. to establish taxes for common welfare and forced tithing to the poor.

So people who believe in fatalistic religions (where those who are meant to suffer and even die are doing so because it is God's will) are being forced to participate in the Judeo-Christian concept of tithing. So much for separation of church and state.

And even if it's shrouded as "humanism", it is still a religious belief forced upon all.

This is why taxation was originally voluntary and ONLY for common infrastructure and defense. The moment they made it for social engineering, they established religion.

Answer 10

Here we go again... this argument is posted every few days (yawn).