By
Michael LeMieux
April 23, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
We have just survived another tax year and paid homage to the almighty government beast we affectionately call the IRS. To some, a minority I would think, this is a time of feeling a part of the grand scheme that we call “American life”. To others it is a maddening, burdensome time filled with dread and anger of having taken from them the fruits of their labor.
So just what is this “fruit of our labor” and to whom does it belong? Why and what is this thing call income tax that I should give so much of what I make away?
We earn a living by exchanging property, that of our time and talent, for equal property, money or some other item of value. For instance; if you made a footstool and your neighbor liked it, and he offered you $100 dollars for your footstool. You think that’s a fair trade for your time and talents, and you make the trade. Where is the gain or income? There is essentially no difference between this and agreeing to trade your time and talents with a company in your hometown. It is an exchange of property for an agreed upon value. The company wants your time and talents; and you, in “exchange,” agree to receive a sufficient monetary amount, as an equitable trade.
The constitution, corroborated by the Supreme Court, guarantees that a persons’ “unalienable rights” cannot be violated or infringed upon, with the exception of a tax on property that is direct and apportioned among the many states. One of the greatest rights we have is the ability to contract for our labor. Our labor is our property; and as of this writing’ Congress has not imposed a direct tax on our labor, nor would it be constitutional. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states: "No State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." In my opinion, taxing the contract of labor is a definite impairment.
If you think it is just us old folk sitting around the kitchen table who are concerned with the overstepping of taxation, read what Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) said: "Strictly speaking, it probably is not necessary for the federal government to tax anyone directly – it could simply print the money it needs. However, that would be too bold a stroke, for it would then be obvious to all what kind of counterfeiting operation the government is running. The present system combining taxation and inflation is akin to watering the milk: too much water and the people catch on."
Congressional house records do not carry the weight of law, but they are useful to establish legal finding in respect to a congressional position. House Congressional Record from March 27, 1943, pages 2579-2580 states: “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” (Written by F. Morse Hubbard, former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department).
If income is not what is being taxed, but only the basis for determining the amount of tax, and it is an excise tax, which is synonymous with a privilege tax, what then is the privilege that is being taxed? Is it a privilege now to have a job and earn a living? Is this a breathing tax for the privilege of being alive? Or maybe it’s a citizen tax for the privilege of just being an American.
The Second Plank of the Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, states: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” It seems the farther we move away from the enlightened guidance of our founders, the closer we get to a new world order where the masses are controlled by the elite few. They called America the New World, a world of hope and freedom. From that freedom will we announce to the world a “New World” Order where none will dare to make afraid or oppress the weak, to be controlled by the elite who will ensure peace upon all the land.
I would like to make note of the, apparent, confusion within the law, as it pertains to taxation. The ruling comes from the Supreme Court case of GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917), in which the court ruled: "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen."
In practice this decision is followed a lot less than it should be; but in all fairness, I don’t know how many cases actually cite this as part of their taxation defense. I would invite any how may doubt the confusion inherent in our tax code to look up Ms. Nina Olson’s testimony to Congress in January of 2009 where she stated that the number one problem facing taxpayers was a tax code so complex that Americans spend $193 billion per year just trying to figure out how much they owe.
Advertisement
Using the logic from the Gould case we would have to assume that they would owe nothing due to the inherent complexity of the tax code. Now in order to really know if you are in compliance with the tax code you would have to read the code and make sure. Okay sure, we could trust some tax software, but in the end you are responsible for everything that goes on that tax form and you are responsible to ensure which taxes you are liable for and which ones you are not. And just to make it easier on you; for the next year if you just read 200 pages a day, every day, 7 days a week, by this time next year you would have read the tax code (71,684 pages). But in all fairness you would find very quickly most of it does not apply to you.
The point of all this is to get you thinking about what is going on in our country. When we split with King George we were fighting over taxes that ranged from 3-7 percent. Today, depending on how involved you are, you could be taxed as high as 40 – 50 percent; including state and local taxes, and the way things are going it is heading even higher.
For the first 150 years of our countries existence as a Constitutional Republic there was no “personal” income tax. Income was a term, and still is, that equates to the business and not to individuals.
Congress passed the Income Tax Act of 1894, and it assessed taxes on “rents or income of real estate.” In 1895 the Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional, as it was not significantly different from a tax on the property itself. Therefore, it was a direct tax requiring apportionment among the several States.
In 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment which states: “The Congress shall have the 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.”
To complicate things a bit more, we need to determine exactly what income the 16th Amendment is really talking about. We know that prior to this rents or income of real estate was said to be direct taxes and must be apportioned; but is that all the 16th Amendment was concerned with?
The court ruled in Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575 (1943), that “The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
We must try to determine what the 16th Amendment means by “income”. The IRS claims the 16th Amendment is the constitutional grant of income tax authority, so identification of the income gives us the basis to understand WHO is made liable to pay the income tax. Since the only income that can be taxed directly without apportionment is the 16th Amendment income, let’s examine what the law says.
In Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936), the court ruled: "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Aha! This says there is a separation of incomes between corporate and individual. They cannot be lumped together because the individual has a right to property (your income is your property). The corporation owes its existence to the state, and therefore, is taxable.
Now we know that direct tax can only apply to property/income, if apportioned among the states, other than 16th Amendment Income. We also now know that there is a difference between ordinary income and 16th Amendment income, as the courts have pointed out. And we also know, as the last court case shows, ordinary income/property cannot be taxed as an excise.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Even with the explanation of the courts the matter of our nation’s taxation is at best confusing and at worst criminal; by applying taxes against those to whom it was never meant to be applied. But having been in place for almost a hundred years I don’t think their going to admit it; at least not voluntarily.
More to follow…
� 2010 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He served
in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard) and trained
in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified paratrooper.
He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in the National Guard,
as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member. He served tours
to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple Heart for injuries
received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com
