Is the US income tax truly constitutional?

Question

Or is it a ploy by the IRS and Federal reserve to America "in check" Apparently interpretations by the supreme court connote that the 16th amendment does not truly ratify the income tax
Which is right?

Answer 1

You are confusing the guidelines the Constitution sets for the format of the country and the guidelines for HOW the laws should be applied to Laws in themselves. The laws passed by Congress are laws. So long as they do not conflict with the guidelines set in the Constitution, they are legal.

Equating tax laws to the Constitution is the same as saying speeding laws are illegal because States never wrote them in their original bylaws and State Constitutions.

Answer 2

I can't believe how many anti-tax nuts are out today. It may be hard, but try to use logic. Of course income tax is legal. Don't take my word for it, check with the Supreme Court and nearly a century of history. Occasionally crackpots get acquitted in criminal cases because the prosecution screws up but the percentage of wins in Tax Court is zero. They all end up owing. The chance of losing in Tax Court is better than 100% because the court will add an extra penalty for wasting their time.

Answer 3

This "loop hole" has been used many times and has always failed!

How do you suppose the the government would function without taxes?

Believe me it would not be better, it would be down right scary, a dictator would take over, marshal law would be the norm, we would be thrown out of our homes, our jobs would be worthless cause the dollar would have no value, just a rant about taxes.

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.

Answer 4

Federal income tax required a amendment to the constitution in order to make it legal. It was established in 1913. The original income tax legislation only effected incomes over $4,000.00 a year.

Answer 5

It is a misconception that income taxes are unconstitutional. People who make these claims (tax protestors) misinterpret the Constitution, Supreme Court decisions and take quotes out of context. In order to be clear, I'll give a brief history of income tax in the U.S. and I'll also cover the court decisions that are typically mis-quoted by tax protestors.

In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, it states, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect TAXES, Duties, Imposts and Excises,..."

In Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, it states, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

This is where tax protestors begin to go wrong. Tax protestors and many people believe that income taxes are direct taxes. Economists do define income taxes as direct taxes, however, the founding fathers and the Supreme Court have ALWAYS held that an income tax on wages is an INDIRECT tax and has always been Constitutional.

The first income tax in the U.S. was passed in 1861 to help pay for the Civil War. The tax law was allowed to lapse in 1872. 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.”

The next mistake tax protestors make is claiming the Supreme Court proclaimed an income tax on wages as unconstitutional in an 1895 decision. This is not entirely correct. In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 558 (1895), the court stated, "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. Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes. Nevertheless, 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."

The Pollock decision discussed the constitutionality of a tax on income from property, in other words, rental income. The court discussed a definition of direct tax and then at the end of the quote stated that while the definition they were discussing was technically correct, they questioned whether the Constitution had a different meaning. What the court determined was that rental income was the same as placing a tax on the property. The court determined that taxes on property were direct taxes and therefore the tax on income from property was a direct tax. Since the income tax law at the time did not specify sources of income, the court could not separate an income tax on wages from the income tax on rental income. Therefore, the court had no choice but to declare the law unconstitutional.

Because of the 1895 Pollock decision and the decreasing feasibility of funding the government by excise taxes, Congress passed an amendment to the Constitution in 1909 and it was ratified by the States in 1913. The 16th amendment states, "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 16th amendment basically means that IF income taxes are considered DIRECT, that the apportionment requirement is no longer required. This is where tax protestors make another mistake. They point to a Supreme Court decision in 1916 where they claim the court said the 16th amendment gave Congress "no new power" to tax. This is somewhat correct, but tax protestors ignore what the Supreme Court says in THE EXACT SAME SENTENCE. Here is a more 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..."

As can clearly be seen the court states that income taxes belong in the category of "INDIRECT taxation".

Some tax protestors claim the 16th amendment was never properly ratified. This is another erroneous claim. The following decision dispels that myth rather clearly. In U.S. v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986), the court stated, "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...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."

What the above decision basically says is that the 16th amendment is a valid part of the Constitution no matter what anybody claims at this point. Since the 16th amendment is a part of the Constitution, the only way to remove it is to have another amendment ratified to repeal it.

Finally, there is a law concerning income taxes. It is codified in the U.S. Code as Title 26. You can read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
The reading is a little dry, but it is all there.

Other tax protestor arguments about the income tax are refuted at http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Good luck,

Answer 6

Requiring us to work without pay in preparing our tax returns and keeping records is a taking of our property without due process, Thus the income tax as administered is unconstitutional, it violates the 5th amendment. The government should prepare our tax bills at the government's expense as States do with property taxes. And not only do we work without pay but can go to jail if we don't prepare the return correctly. That also violates the13th amendment.

Answer 7

Yes. There is a tired argument by tax protestors that the Amendment was never ratified, but it's never held up in court.

Answer 8

I'm not sure where you got your information, but it is incorrect.

The 16th Ammmendment was specifically passed in order to make an income tax constitutional. thee isn't any "court interpretation" involved.

Answer 9

Technically it is unconstitutional, but, since there are loopholes, it will never be repealed unless congress approves a new tax system. Just thank heavens for the cracked roads, crumbling bridges, and entirely unnecessary foreign conflicts you are paying for!

Answer 10

It really does not matter. Pay your taxes or pay the consequences. Simple civics 101.