Debunked: Pollock vs Farmers Loan, 16th amendment and illegal taxes

MikeC

Closed Account
Pollock vs Farmers Loan Trust Co is a case that "tax protestors" of various ilks like to quote to prove that some or all taxes are illegal.

A 2nd related issue they like to bring up in this regard is the 16th amendment which they claim is illegal because it was not properly ratified.

Pollock is a fairly simple case - the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 made provision for taxation of income from various sources - including rent, interest and dividends. These 3 were held to be direct taxes, and therefore had to be apportioned in accordance with population - Article I, Section 9 Clause 4 of the constitution states:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Content from External Source
This means that direct taxes can only be levied in proportion to population - the Wilson-Gorman Tarrif Act had tried to tax these 3 types of income as indirect taxes without apportionment, but the court said they were direct taxes, and so they were ruled unconstitutional because they were not apportioned - pretty simple really. The ruling did NOT say that income taxes were illegal!

now comes the 16th amendment - one of the shortest amendments:

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.
Content from External Source
This removes the requirement to apportion taxes as required by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 above. And nothing else!

As a result of Amendment 16 direct taxes can now be levied without need for them to be in proportion to populations. Again it's actually quite simple......unless you are a tax protestor!

A bunch of people have tried to show that the 16th Amendment is not legal, was not properly ratified, etc, but that argument is so hackneyed that it is now considered a frivolous argument by the US courts, and the wiki page on Tax Protester arguments about the 16th does a better job of pointing it out than I can.

The 16th Amendment makes no change to what taxes are levied, nor to whether the US can levy taxes in the first place - which power comes from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States
Content from External Source
constitution texts above have been taken from www.constitutionus.com

The Rational Wiki page on Tax Protestors has scathing and possibly amusing (depending on your soh!) commentary about arguments including the 16th Amendment one
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
The ruling did NOT say that income taxes were illegal!

I have an answer to that.

DUH!

Is a direct income tax illegal? No! Is a non apportioned direct income tax STILL legal? NO!
The problem is that the direct income tax is STILL not apportioned.

Apportion means to divide equally among the people. The grace commission audited the IRS and discovered YEARS ago that NOT ONE PENNY of the income tax goes to any service that we expect the government to provide.

Hey mick, for accuracy can you please add another "debunked", to cancel out the "debunked"... or remove "debunked" from the beginning of the title of the thread? Thanks!
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
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.
Content from External Source
This removes the requirement to apportion taxes as required by Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 above. And nothing else!
Never properly ratified.

http://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm
 

SeriouslyDebatable

Active Member
It is common sense dude.

Hey everybody! I have an idea!!! Who wants to ratify this law to take your money, not give any of it back to you, and let us be unaccountable for how it is spent?

HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD AGREE TO SUCH A THING? and you really think the 16th was ratified huh? LOL!

Your argument is silly and childlike.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I have an answer to that.

DUH!

I am sure you think that is actually an answer.

Is a direct income tax illegal? No! Is a non apportioned direct income tax STILL legal? NO!
The problem is that the direct income tax is STILL not apportioned.

no - that was the problem in 1895. It has not been a problem since 1916.

the supposed failure to properly ratify the 16th amendment is so egregiously wrong that it has been declared a frivolous argument by US courts - I gave a link in the OP.

Here's another take on it:

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of the 16th Amendment and Personal Income Tax is a 1985 book by William J. Benson and Martin J. "Red" Beckman which claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, commonly known as the income tax amendment, was never properly ratified. In 2007, and again in 2009, Benson's contentions were ruled to be fraudulent.
Content from External Source
so you are pushing FRAUD - you are proposing and supporting a crime!!

Apportion means to divide equally among the people.

Right up until the 16th amendment.

The grace commission audited the IRS and discovered YEARS ago that NOT ONE PENNY of the income tax goes to any service that we expect the government to provide.

Which has nothing to do with either proportionment or the 16th amendment

Hey mick, for accuracy can you please add another "debunked", to cancel out the "debunked"... or remove "debunked" from the beginning of the title of the thread? Thanks!

Alternatively perhaps ban SD for knowingly and deliberately advocating fraud.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
SD has informed me via email that he's
"using my authority to remove myself from your forums, and will use my influence to discredit them"
Content from External Source
Hence I've extended his ban to permanent
 

Gunguy45

Senior Member.
Well....I'm not sure how much authority he has in this regard....and I doubt his influence will make much difference elsewhere. Ah well....they come and they go.....
 
Top