The United States Supreme Court hold which the income taxation action was unconstitutional and ruled in preference of Pollock in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, aff. reh., 158 U.S. 601 (1895). The preference which income taxation is unconstitutional has never been overturned
The Supreme Court (the top justice in the U.S.) spoken which an income taxation was unconstitutional in 1854 and this has NEVER been overturned.
in 1916 the Supreme Court ruled which “the 16th Amendment does not give the (federal) supervision any brand new taxation powers. Cited from a book of the New York times Jan 25th, 1916
Related posts:
- IS THIS TRUE ? ……NO TAX…ON WAGES ?
- WAS INCOME TAX FOUND TO BE UNCONSITUTIONAL ? YES WHEN DID IT CHANGE?
- MAKE-UP OF OHIO SUPREME COURT TO CHANGE
- JUST WONDERING IF PEOPLE KNOW A SIMPLE LITTLE FACT ABOUT THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX…?
- DOES NYDEPT OF ED TAKE FEDERAL AND STATE INCOME TAX REFUNDS FOR OUTSTANDNG STUDENT LOANS?
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
I have always heard that income tax is voluntary, but once you start paying you can’t go backwards. I don’t know if it’s true, I just assumed that it isn’t. We weren’t told anything to the contrary in our tax class either, or payroll. Maybe you’re on to something!
You can object this from prison.
See the Internal Revenue act of 1954.
They put Al (Scarface) Capone in prison for federal income tax evasion,
not for murder.
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.
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.
Here we go again… this argument is posted every few days (yawn).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I am sort of new to all of this as I have just started my research. It appears first that everyone is deciding to come up with their own definition of income and what the “constitution meant”. Income was meant to be from gain for the most part and when a person exchanges their labor for money there is no gain, they gave up time at the very least and were compensated. But regardless of all that I have found the following that shows that some state courts have agreed with the Supreme Court decision “the one prior to the 16th amendment” as you argue but these cases are LONG after showing it still stands. Plus the supreme court stated the 16th amendment did not give any new taxing authority to the government, meaning if they didn’t have it prior they don’t have it after. This statement was in 1916 after its radification. I have included what I found. Again, I am still researching this and pay my taxes. I am not out looking for a free lunch which is what those that think the tax is legal like to believe. Those for the tax are rude and beligerant to those that feel it’s not legal. For pete’s sake we are just trying to determine what is legal and what isn’t without being bullied by those that say we owe. If you feel personal income tax is legal by all means keep doing what you are doing and paying the IRS. If it’s not legal there are those that want to get to the bottomof it. I actually just want my country to actually uphold the constitution and our rights and don’t want to be paying a prively owned business “Federal Reserve” with my hard earned money. See below what I have found so far.
Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court:
“There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law.”
Oliver v. Halstead, [1955]
196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858
and:
“Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.”
Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews,
345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 [1946]
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
All this is pointless.
The US Government is illegal like all the rest of them.* But mankind at large won’t be self-governing and behave decently, so must be ruled with an iron fist. The iron fist is worn and given effect by humans who must be supported. So, taxes. Tribute. Pay up, slave, or else. For your health (prisons are unhealthy places) of course.
Government’s authority proceeds from the barrel of a gun. That gun must be held by someone willing to use it. And someone must organize the gunmen for their mutual benefit.
If everyone would simply behave themselves decently we wouldn’t have to live like this.
Never gonna happen.