Re: Tax Tangle

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay P Rutledge on July 29, 1997 at 02:30:44:

In Reply to: Re: Tax Tangle posted by Common Right Group at San Diego county on July 22, 1997 at 20:59:16:

: : Some of the judicial decisions on the income tax hold it is an excise tax and some hold it is a direct tax. If it is an excise tax, then it is like the tax on gas, alcohol, tobacco, etc. Citizenship status is not relevant. If it is a direct tax, then citizenship status would make a difference because the 16th amendment would reach you through the 14th.
: : It is my humble opinion that the reason no argument works is that if you take the excise position, the IRS undercuts you with the direct tax argument and if you take the direct tax position, the IRS undercuts you with the excise tax argument. They have the best of all worlds: citations against either side of the tax tangle. And until a higher court decides one way or the other on the excise/direct question, they will continue to have both sides of the argument to enforce while you have only one side as a defence.
: : What the code actually makes you liable for under both the direct/excise applications of it is another subject matter as is the question of whether or not IRS agents are federal government agents and under oath and the consequences for enforcement if they are not.
: Jay,
: Interesting notes. Please do yourself a huge favor. Get and read a copy of Otto Skinner's book entitled *THE BIGGEST TAX LOOPHOLE OF ALL*. Like Paul and his "advertising" of certain computers, we are not advertising per se, just passing on information on what we believe to be good and powerful. But first, let us digress just a moment to something we discovered on our own. Title 4 USC 72 tells the good folks of gevernment that if their office is attached to the seat of gov't, they need to stay in the District of Columbia unles an express provision of law allows them out of that cage. We have (no exaggeration) seen fed [IRS] agents turn white and literally run when confronted with that quoted law. We memorized it and can use it without thinking. No absolute promises, but we have had positive results.
: As to the busines of direct taxes, the Pollock court in 1897 brough up the direct tax angle nad the 16th amendment prevents the "income tax" from being treated as anything other than an indirect tax which is based on activities (excises), not income which (income) is only the measure of taxation. It's the activity that is the subject matter of taxation.
: Direct taxes must be apportioned among the several states.
: Indirect taxes must be uniform throughout.
: The IRS position, and frivolous statement, that the 16th Amendment authorized any new type of tax has no merit in light of virtually every court case in captivity, beginning with Brushaber. The IRS also likes to say Brushaber oveturned Pollock. If so, then howcumzit Shepard's still shows the Pollock decision on the active list? First, the Pollock court told the gov't that if they didn't like the decision, they could gat a constitutional amendment. They did, and the 16th simply eliminated the principle on which the Pollock decision was based, that a tax on incomes was a direct tax.
: There is an interesting word everyone needs to understand. The word is "contumacy." Please look it up in Balck's Law dictionary for yourself, but in a nutshell, it means to be in violation of a court order. That means that when the IRS or any lower court goes against the supreme Court of the united States, they are in contumacy and grounds for a Writ of Error exists.
: We didn't intend to write a book here, but we're pushing it. Hope this is helpful in some way. Again, get the book by Skinner. Otto's address is: P.O. Box 6609, San Pedro, California. [ 90734 ]
: The price tag is 39.95 plus 5.00 shipping and handling, for a total of 44.95. This is very reasonable for over 350 pages of solid meat. He includes a bunch of "test" questions in the back of the book that can be used by anyone serious enough to want to make sure they understand the principles presented ante.
: May our Creator bless everyone that is involved in this scrap, that truth and justice may prevail.

Not to beat a horse, but the direct/indirect question is not as clear to lower court federal judges as it is to the writer above. For extensive documentation on this and its possible implications for you see:
You will also find a lot of other material worth considering in that vicinity. I have seen the Skinner book recommended elsewhere by others whose opinion I also respect. Personally, I see insufficient payback for the time involved in taking on the tax tangle on your own and encourage folks to consider fellowshipping with Save-A-Patriot at or 1-888-686-3690 or 3691.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Supreme Law Firm Discussion Forum ] [ FAQ ]