posted by SRoyer on July 16, 2023 - 3:26pm

It's is widely known there is no law requiring us to pay income taxes. The current tax system has driven billions of dollars out of this country. Which candidate is going to make this a priority to change? This is one of my biggest concerns for this election. Who will stand up and do the right thing? Who will get congress focused on the real issues concerning America? Congress is concerned whether Barry Bonds is taking steroids or Michael Vick is fighting dogs, I'm really sick of the current situation.

Average: 2.7 (9 votes)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

July 19, 2023

Withholding On The Ropes?

U.S. Unable To Prove It’s Not Voluntary

The United States appears to have bitten off more than it can chew when it sued Bob Schulz and the We The People organizations earlier this year in an effort to shut down "Operation Stop Withholding."

In the lawsuit, the Government accused WTP of operating an unlawful "abusive tax shelter" in violation of IRC Sections 6700 and 6701, citing the organization's efforts to urge individuals to terminate their W-4 wage and salary withholding agreements.

In response to the lawsuit served on Schulz on May 3, 2023, Schulz filed a motion to have the case dismissed on the ground that Operation Stop Withholding is not only fully protected by the First Amendment (including the Petition clause), it is protected because We The People organization is educating People about the withholding laws as they are currently written and which expressly provide that such agreements are voluntary.

The Government's lawsuit has asked the District Court to issue an injunction prohibiting WTP’s efforts to educate Americans about the legal termination of private withholding agreements. WTP's efforts rely on "black letter" law which clearly establishes that Withholding Agreements (W-4s) are voluntary and that a worker can -- at any time -- terminate his W-4 by simply notifying the company that he no longer gives his permission to the company to withhold from his pay.

The Government finds itself in a very tough spot.

On one hand, it is asking the Court to shut the WTP program down, but on the other hand, neither the IRS nor the attorneys at the Department of Justice have been able to dispute or refute the simple truth that the law itself plainly establishes that withholding is voluntary and permission to withhold can be easily withdrawn by workers at their sole discretion.
What follows are a just a few of the legal citations that the Government has been confronted with and has failed to rebut:

26 CFR § 31.3402 (p)-1 "Voluntary Withholding Agreements". (a) An employee who desires to enter into an agreement for withholding.....shall furnish his employer with Form W -4 (or equivalent) for withholding.
Read it for yourself.

Pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.3402(p)-1(b)(2), either a company or a worker may terminate the withholding agreement (or its equivalent) at any time, by furnishing a signed, written notice to the other. Read it for yourself.

Pursuant to 26 USC § 3402(p)(3)(A), 5 USC §5517 and 31 CFR §215.2(n)(1), all ordinary American workers have the right to refuse to consent to enter into a voluntary withholding agreement and can voluntarily refuse to have amounts taken from his/her pay for federal and/or state taxes, social security, other governmental insurance programs or welfare programs.

“Protected Individuals” as per 8 USC §1324a cannot be compelled to submit any specific government documents or to disclose a social security number as a condition of being hired by or maintaining their status as a worker. Most American workers qualify as "Protected Individuals" under the law.

The landmark decision of EEOC v. Information Systems Consulting CA3-92-0169T U.S.D.C. Northern District of Texas Dallas Division, held that companies cannot discriminate against applicants or workers for failure to obtain or disclose a social security number.

No law requires a worker to file a Form W-4 (or its equivalent). In U.S. v. Mobil Oil Co., 82-1 USTC para. 9242, U.S.D.C. ND Tex. Dallas 1981 CA. 3-80-0438-G, the court ruled that an Entity does not even have to send a W-4 Form or other employment forms to the Internal Revenue Service unless served with a judicial court-ordered summons to do so.

Pursuant to IRC §6041(c), a worker is only required to furnish a name and address upon demand of a company for whom he seeks to work. No social security number is required by statute.

Building upon a plethora of false statements, pitiful hyperbole, factual omissions and defective (and vindictive) claims of lawful authority, the Government has attempted to paint WTP as a "promoter" of an illegal tax fraud "scheme" without ever specifically identifying any false speech made by WTP, and without addressing the very laws WTP has relied upon -- and which irrefutably establish that wage and salary withholding is voluntary.

Nowhere in its pleadings does the Government directly confront the voluntary nature of the withholding laws cited by WTP even though withholding is the central issue before the court.

Indeed, beyond the compelling judicial and constitutional drama unfolding as the landmark Right to Petition lawsuit continues its certain path to the Supreme Court, the Government may have done itself great harm by pursing a "6700" lawsuit against WTP.

As a result of accusing WTP of activity expressly protected by the Constitution and the lesser laws of the nation, it has risked widespread exposure in the public domain of the very information it seeks to censor.

It is no miracle that the United States cannot -- by any law -- force average workers to submit to mandatory withholding. To do so would be to require them to withhold monies for taxes, which by the Constitution and U.S. law, CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON ORDINARY AMERICANS.

The fact that one's signature is required to execute a W-4 withholding agreement is simple evidence of this truth that, until recently, has remained well-obscured within the complexity of the tax code.

It is beyond time that our government confront a difficult political question that our organization has asked repeatedly over numerous years:

Do our elected leaders and guardians of the Rule of Law move with deliberation toward an orderly transition of a replacement for our Constitutionally-abusive tax system, or do they risk a chaotic, systemic collapse of the government funding mechanism (or even worse) because of the growing, yet unstoppable, awakening of the public consciousness regarding the truth about our nation's tax laws?

It is indeed not ironic that such a possibility awaits our nation, and may one day come to pass, inadvertently perhaps, because of one IRS prosecution too many.

The truth is out there and it's not going away.

History of the "6700" Lawsuit:

The United States served its Complaint on May 3, 2023, charging Schulz with promoting an abusive tax shelter in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code.

On May 23rd, Schulz and WTP filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted under 6700 and under the First Amendment’s Petition for Redress and Free Speech clauses. Also filed were three Declarations by Schulz.

On June 18th, the United States filed its Response and its Statement of Material Facts.

On July 16th, Schulz and WTP filed their Reply, including six more Declarations by Schulz.

For those not familiar with WTP’s Operation Stop Withholding here are the highlights:

On March 15, 2023, by letter, Schulz Petitioned the Government for a Redress of Grievances relating to the forced withholding and diversion of workers’ pay. The theme of the Petition for Redress was the black letter law showing that withholding was voluntary, that any worker could legally terminate an existing withholding certificate (W-4) by simply notifying the company, in writing, that the worker did not want to continue having his pay withheld, and that a worker did not have to provide the company with a Social Security number.

Enclosed with Schulz’s March 15, 2023 letter was a Blue Folder with documentation supporting the Petition for Redress, and Forms for workers to use to legally terminate withholding.

In the March 15 letter, Schulz notified the United States that he would begin to instruct workers on how to legally terminate withholding unless the United States were to tell him his interpretation of the law was wrong.

Hearing no objection, Schulz embarked on his schedule of 37 meetings around the country, handing out 3500 copies of the Blue Folders (at no cost) to people in attendance at those meetings. The materials comprising the Operation Stop Withholding "Blue Folder" are still available (for free) on the WTP website.

The day before he left on his trip, the IRS sent Schulz a letter saying, in effect, “We have reviewed certain materials and have decided to investigate you for promoting an abusive tax shelter, in violation of Section 6700 of the Internal Revenue Code. You are asked to meet with us and to bring your books and records.”

Thus, under color of an “official” 6700 investigation of Schulz and the WTP organization, the IRS could now get away with almost anything, including harassing Schulz and the organization to death, or at least to the point where we could not continue with our process of Petitioning the Government for Redress of Grievances relating to withholding or anything else.

Schulz told the IRS, in effect, “No answers, No records.” The IRS then served a Summons on Schulz for the books and records. Schulz sued the IRS. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Schulz I, that Schulz did not have to respond to the Summons without a court order and if the IRS wanted the information it would have to bring Schulz to court to get it.

The IRS and DOJ then filed a subsequent motion asking the U.S.Court of Appeals to modify its decision claiming it would make it harder for the Government to collect taxes. In Schulz II, the Court sternly denied the motion again holding that taxpayers enjoy the protection of broad Due Process Rights with regard to all forms of IRS administrative actions.

Within weeks of the decision in Schulz II, the IRS began serving a series of third-party summonses against Schulz, rather than bring Schulz to Court to enforce the original Summons. Each third-party summons has resulted in a new lawsuit by Schulz against the IRS.

In November, 2023 the IRS felt the teeth of the Second Circuit Court of Appeal's decision in Schulz II when it served an administrative Summons on a New York bank demanding Schulz's personal bank records. Read our 11/8/06 web article.

After Schulz filed a lawsuit against the IRS to quash the Summons, on November 6th a federal judge issued an injunctive order enjoining and prohibiting the IRS from enforcing the bank Summons. During pre-trial pleadings, the primary investigator for the IRS was caught perjuring herself to the District Court regarding the alleged basis for issuing the Summons. This case is currently awaiting the disposition of that Court.
Immediately following the March 30, 2023 “V” demonstration outside the White House (video) and its coverage by the Washington Post, the United States filed the "6700" civil injunction lawsuit against Schulz and the WTP organizations.

Forgive my ignorance. What what is this?


By Bob Unruh
© 2023

The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher.

"I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts.

And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front.

(Story continues below)

"These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said.

The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States.

The logo for the new Truth Attack campaign against income taxes

Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Newsbusters explained the substance of his arguments against the federal income tax this way:

Quite simply, he proved that the definition of Income as defined by the Supreme Court is NOT income from our labor, but rather things like interest and profit. You CANNOT tax a person's labor because it is a God-given right that we may work to support ourselves.

If I charge you $500 to fix your toilet, what part of that is profit or capital gain? The answer: You cannot decipher. Therefore, you cannot tax something that is considered an equal exchange on labor. You fix my toilet, I give you $500. It is quite simple.

If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution.

"The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said.

For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so.

The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2023 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2023 and 2023. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said.

But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth.

"There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation."

Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment."

Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him.

He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax.

He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened.

"The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'"

His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth."

He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing."

He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not.

"The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit."

"But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech."

While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional.

"I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word.

He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost.

"Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says.

"The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said.

The fight is over "our FREEDOM from rule by a DISTANT RULER, just as we fought to free ourselves of a distant England over 200 years ago," he said.

I remind U08 delegates that Ron Paul is the only candidate who will end the theft of the fruits of our labor.

The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
First of all it is the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution! Which over rules the effects of Pollack v. Farmer Loan and Trust Co case. That originally said income taxes were partially unconstitutional.
This decision by the Supreme Court was Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad which the court stated the pollack requirement was removed. Two, the Federal income statute does not violate the fifth Amendment's prohibition of the goverment taking property with out due process of law; Three, the Federal income statute does not violate the uniformity clause of Article one, section eight of the US Constitution. Other Supreme Court cases are Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co, Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. In which all have stated that incomes are taxable. The only disagreement in the Federal court system is what constitutes income that can be taxed. That is beyond ones wages we earn at our jobs. Regular income is absolutely taxable, furthermore no Federal Court or Supreme Court ruling refutes this. In the Penn Mutual case, The United States Tax court stated; the sixteenth amendment was not needed to tax the income of US citizens. The real taxable power comes from article one, section eight of the US Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit agreed with the decision of the Tax Court. The only time a Federal court has said taxes were unconstitutional is when the IRS tried to tax a person non-physical personal injury compensatory damages as taxable income. This was Murphy v. The IRS of the United States. All that being said, I believe I have made my case on why taxes are constitutional and the courts that have affirmed and reaffirmed that constitutionality. No jury can override this precedence. Or the fact the impact all these case have on stare decisis in this area. Especially from a lower court.
You do not name the case in which this so called lawyer had a really big win. Doesn't matter anyway, a jury does not over rule the Federal Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court. Just the opposite. All that being said, I do agree that our taxes are to high. Just stating they are constitutional. We need to elect individuals that will adopt a fair tax, or at least taxes at a lower level then we are paying now. Self-educate! Long live the Federal Republic of these United States! All those that reside with in her! Or serve her!

1) The supreme court also ruled the 16th amendment "amended nothing"
2) The income tax DOES violate the 5th amendment protection from witnessing against yourself. We are compelled by the IRS to fill out a tax return and sign it under penalty of purgery. If the information on that return can be used against us, we have witnessed against ourselves. If it cant, we can put anything on it we want. The IRS routinely freezes and confiscates assets without due process,(stating that since the agrieved party can sue to get them back, the 5th has not been violated???????) also violating the5th amendment protection from assets being siezed without due process.
3) Being a "progressive" tax, the income tax is NOT uniform throughout the United States . (saying it doesn't make it so)
4)Nowhere in the internal revenue code is "income" defined. This is not an accident, they KNOW it is unconstitutional.
5) The supreme court HAS defined income as profit. The only profit possible from wages is an inheritance, since no one can determine the cost of earning wages until they are dead.

The IRS routinely determines what religions are valid, violating the 1st amendment.
The IRS taxes firearms transactions, violating the 2nd amendment.
The IRS has not yet quartered troops in our homes (3rd amendment). (Maybe next year)
The IRS has repeatedly kicked open doors to search without a warrant, violating the 4th amendment.
The 5th amendment (see above).
Tax courts are not jury trials, violating the 6th and 7th amendment.
IRS penalties are outrageous, violating the 8th amendment.
The fed gov't in general, including the IRS, violates the 9th amendment.
Since the progressive income tax is not uniform, it is not authorized by the constitution, violating the 10th amendment.

Holy cow, HC,

This is the first post I have run across from you that is worth reading. You night have something here.

This makes for very interesting reading:Tom Cryer acquitted on 2 counts of tax fraud (aka income tax)

This makes for even better viewing:

And, of course, we can't forget: The Lie-Free Zone.

I make a motion to create a plank in our new Unity08 platform that incorporates the legal predicate that the U.S. Constitution does not empower the state to tax an individual's labor.

If you think this wording is sufficient, can I get a second?

ex animo

Also read We The People have the IRS on the ropes. Bob Shultz the head of the organization WE THE PEOPLE had been trying to serve the government with a list of grievacnces, redress of grievances is addressed in the Constitution. When the government refused Shultz started his "stop wihtholding" measure which urged people to stop having taxes witheld from their paychecks. He has beaten the IRS in every court case so far. We need to keep the pressure on the politicians to stop the unconstitutional income tax.

I Third it HC! I'm all for deep-sixing the IRS (esp the Fed Tax Code) and stop the taxing of labor when we should be taxing consumption, value added, and sales. Until the IRS law is changed I would urge all to pay though as those who do not are felons (like many of you all say illegal immigrants are BTW) and $250 billion per year goes uncollected through lack of enforcement. When it is changed I would give blanket amnesty to all those in tax felons who have not paid ($2 Tillion uncollected due to lack of enforcement over the last 10 years) amnesty and move on.

DC - 3rd ward -

Putting the IRS out of business is the real key. The IRS legally has no claim on an individuals earnings from his work. The courts have so far ruled in favor of the We The People case arising from the stop withholding movement, stating that whether or not a potential empployee has to fill out a W-4 or provide his SS# is by law voluntary.

I recently saw a documentary where a jury found a farmer not guilty of income tax evasion because the prosecution could not provide the law requiring him to pay. I read about another case where the IRS and prosecution quickly folded their own prosecution of a so called tax evader when the defendant's lawyer questioned the OMB number on the 1040 form. The reason was that the OMB number question, if answered, would have blown the lid off the whole sham. The charges were dropped "without prejudice" which means the defendant can never be tried again on those charges again.

The bottom line is that the income tax is an illegal and unjust hoax. It cannot stand up to scrutiny and sheer force and intimidation has been the way it has been enforced. Hats off to the We The People organization and all others who are fighting a courageous battle to stop the theft.

My understanding though is that these cases against the IRS /income tax have not been brought to the Supreme Court level right?? So technically it is still the law right?? That is until the Supremes say it is not. Please clarify. I think thev OMB number case was an exception and not the rule correct??

DC - 3rd ward -

Read my post, We the People have the IRS on the Ropes, it cites and lists the laws in quetion.
The OMB number issue goes back to the paper work reduction act that was passed some years ago requiring all gov't forms that are required to be filled out to have a legitimate OMB number. If I remember correctly the 1040 had an OMB number but it was bogus.
I am trying to find a couple of different links to post here that are most relevant to this issue.
This is a key issue in the attempt to take back our government back and whittle it down to the size it's Constitutionally correct size.

I'm quite familiar with the Paperwork Reduction Act and can see where they could win a case on a 1040 numbering technicality (errors happen on many forms at various times). But where does that translate into a broad brush rescinding of Government tax authority and the IRS??

DC - 3rd ward -

Since the IRS is not part of our government they cannot obtain a legal OMB number. I am still researching and will provide as many answers as I can soon. The grandfather of all the questions I believe will go back to the original income tax law that says it is "voluntray and self assessing", meaning that the individual is free to decide whether or not he is going to pay and how much. Another key is that the Supreme Court ruled after the 16th ammendment was lied into existence that it gave no new taxing authority to the government. Another key, and I am researching the verification, is that a US citizen cannot be taxed on his labor, who's labor is a God given right and not encroachable by the state.

More to follow.

The Revolution is not being televised but it is being youtubed!
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and help take our government and our property back!

Has the Supreme Court ever ruled that they (Fed and IRS) are NOT part of the U.S. Government?? Haven't they in fact ruled that it is and that taxes are not voluntary?? The supremes are the final say in all this.

And I'm all for repealing the 16th Amend and enacting a new Amendment that would ban all income taxes (as before the 16th Amend we did have some income taxes as a precedent). This would probably be necessary in order to phase out from income taxes and phase in a sales/value added tax which I am for. I just do not think it should be a Unity priority as this would take away from other more pressing issues.

I'm all for keeping the Fed I'll be honest with you. And the IRS I have no problems with as long as the Supremes say it is an authorized part of the Govt. But the Fed Tax Code is the Prime Beast in my cross-hairs and the mother-milk/mother-lode of the 3,000 plus K-Street Lobbyist Special Interest PACs (most representing you and me BTW) working their ways in Gucci Gulch up there on Cap Hill. They are perpetuators par excellance of the entire Entitlement Mentality that has gripped this nation inthe last 30 years.

DC - 3rd ward -

This message is in Response to HC's orginal post at:IRS loses challenge to prove tax liability. This is BIG!, and to HC's second I second it to my motion:Good one, HC.

The motion: To create a plank in our new Unity08 platform that incorporates the legal predicate that the U.S. Constitution does not empower the state to tax an individual's labor.

Please register your support of, or your opposition to, this motion by appropriately marking the five-stars below the original post.

Thank you for your participation.

ex animo

Having the charges dropped "without prejudice" means the state can bring the charges up again. What the Court is saying is that it is allowing the state to withdraw its charges without suffering any statutory limits on recharging the defendant on the same charge.

ex animo

I have recently wondered why people are so concerned about the constitutional violations of the patriot act, when the IRS has been doing much the same thing for the past 50 years. The only one of the Bill of Rights not violated by the IRS is the third, which they would have trouble violating, since they have no troops.

I am so delighted to see so many people opposed to the IRS, and the income tax, whith almost no dissension.

The income tax is THE PRIMARY SOURCE of evil inherent in our present government. It gives the power to grant favors and to engage in social engineering at an astounding level.

The unconstitutionality of the income tax can be stated very briefly. Currently, the IRS requires you, or your agent, to fill out a tax form to assess yourself for income tax. You are required to sign this form under penalty of purgery. If the information on this form can be used against you in a criminal prosecution, you have been compelled to witness against yourself, and have been compelled to surrender your rights protected in the 5th ammendment.

I hope you have supported this motion by appropriately marking the five stars.

ex animo

To bad I couldn't do 10.

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
Is called the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution. Which allow the congress to establish an income tax. It goes like this, "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". This was done by Congress after the Supreme Court said income taxes were unconstitutional. Since this amendment. The Supreme Court time and again has stated that the taxes were Constitutional due to the adoption of the new Amendment. Not only that The courts time and again have shot down all constitutional challenges to the adoption of said amendment.
Long live the Federal Republic of these United States! All those who reside with in her borders! Or serve her!

The supreme court also ruled that the 16th amendment "amended nothing" (don't have the case in front of me right now). Essentially, all the 16th amendment did was define the income tax as an excise tax, which the Constitution says must be uniform throughout the land. Ergo, not progressive, or mutable in any way. For your edification, congress does not have the power to amend the Constitution.

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
That would be the Penn Mutual Indemnity Case in the US tax court. That Congress has had the power since the inception of Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment removed the Constitutional requirement that any income tax collected be apportioned among the states according to population. The US Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit agreed with the tax court. The Sixteenth Amendment just removed the obstacle of apportionment based on a states population and the areas that could be taxed or considered taxable. Further, no court has struck down the Sixteenth Amendment. Just that it was needed to tax incomes.
Article five of The US Constitution give Congress the Authority to amend the Constitution. This can be done by Congress(2/3rds and quorum)or by a national convention requested by the States(2/3rds of state Legislatures). As of 2023 only the first way has been used since the creation of the Constitution. Furthermore the High Court has had numerous chances to invalidate numerous Congressional Amendments to the Constitution. They have not, as they are all still there(Amendments XI through XXVII). Witn the exception of the eighteenth Amendment which was reapled by the twenty first Amendment. As far as i know no court has ever been able to repeal a valid US Amendment to the Constitution. For the most part anyways. So in essence the Supreme Court believes Congress has that Authority. Either by it action of affirming said Amendment, or not finding the Amendment in violation went brought before the High Court. More disinformation!
Long live the Federal Republic of these United States! All those who reside within her borders! Or serve her!

Thank you for clearing a lot of these issues up. I think we perhaps should start another topic on Taxes that would get those who want to address the issue of taxation from discussing it under this premise heading.

Be that as it may, we now know that under Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution, Congress has had the power to tax its citizens. We also now know that the Sixteenth Amendment removed the obstacle of apportionment based on a state's population and the areas that could be taxed... or considered taxable (my emphasis), I assume both direct and indirect.

Here is my question: We agree, Congress has the power to tax income and labor directly without apportionment, but has Congress actually passed a specific law to that affect, or has, as some here suggest, the IRS and the IRC simply interpreted the law to that end and instigated taxing income and wages without specific authorization to do so from Congress?

ex animo

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
This is where it gets really complicated. Some say in the line in Article one, section eight give Congress the authority to collect taxes. Some say this extends to the organization to collect those taxes. Supposedly this one of the various reasons the Treasury Department with its various offices, with one of those offices being collector of internal revenue. The internal revenue collectors were officers of the United States, who were appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. One collector was to be appointed to each Internal Revenue District, which was designated by the President. The office of Collector of Internal Revenue was a public office. Collectors exercise their sovereign authority of the United States in the enforcement of Internal Revenue laws and the collection of taxes. They could sue or be sued in the name of the United States. In order for Congress to collect taxes pursuant to Article one, section eight, collectors(plural) were required within the several states. All collectors prior to 1952 were fired by the President of the United States. All duties there in were assigned to the personnel with in the Bureau of Internal Revenue which originally was part of the Treasury Department. Goes something like this, 5 USC reorganization plan no. one of 1952, effective March 14th 1952, 17 F.R. 2243, 66 Stat. 823, as amended. June 28, 1955, CH 189, SEC. 12(C)(19), 69 STAT. 182; September 13, 1982, Pub. L. 97-258, Sec 5(b), 96 STAT. 1068, 1085. Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled January 14, 1952, pursuant to the provisions of Reorganization Act of 1949. Approved June 20, 1949(see 5 U.S.C. 901 et seq.). Did you get all that, look up Reorganization Plan of 1952 in your Google search bar. Or IRS not a goverment Agency(really good read). Congress used its authority under Article four, section three(2). Which is the Federal property and Territory clause, to technically manipulate thier constitutional authority and eliminate the need for collectors of Internal Revenue. As a matter of fact, Congress can use whatever organization it wants pursuant to Article 4, section three, on any federal property or territory there in. Congress never created the IRS directly, Congress Used the Treasury Department and its secretary to create the BIR which evolved into the IRS in one form or the other as an independent tax collecting organization. So technically speaking, maybe if their headquarters was in a Territory, or on Federal Property as describe in Article four, section three, clause two. As a constitutionalists myself it a fine line. Also Stare Decisis comes into play a little bit. Not to mention Judicial precedence and public precedence. In Short, Yes! But it is a manifested farce propagated by a Congressional and Treasury Department manipulation of our beloved Constitution. To make matters worse, the IRS is out sourcing tax collection more now then they ever have. I do not think the High Court will ever reach a verdict the would force the IRS out of existence. Even though maybe they should. All that being said, Long live the Great Federal Republic of these United States! All those who dwell with in her! Or serve this Blessed Union!

Yes, we have already established the fact that Congress has the authority to lay taxes and, by extension, create a mechanism to collect taxes. But what I think you have just said is, there really isn't any Congressional authority to federally tax income or wages, which is probably why the Internal Revenue Code doesn't include "wages" in "Gross income".

So I got to ask you this: As a constitutionalists, aren't you just a little concerned that a section of government is operating without Congressional authority? And that Congress and the courts have allowed this to continue? And, moreover, because of this failure, Congress has now given itself a blank check.


ex animo

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
That does concern me greatly! Further, I would state the more and more the courts defend the IRS and the IRS is victorious in at least decisions which do not contradict their so called authority. Creates a position through stare decisis, not to mention judicial precedence which will make it even more difficult to remove this unconstitutional organization through Judicial means. Now there could be a legislative process to remove or invalidate the IRS, but our politicians do not have the courage or constitutional fortitude to do so. As they are already to corrupted by the power the IRS gives these politicians. Or money, they are all bought and paid for. Including allot of the Justices in the Federal judiciary as well as the Higher state courts(State Supreme Courts).
The IRS believes there is a host of constitutional as well as statutory authority establishing that The Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States. You notice they leave out Federal Agency of the United States. According to the IRS, the Supreme Court stated in Donaldson v. the United States, 400 U.S. 517,534(1971), the Supreme Court stated and I quote "We bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out broad responsibilities under the Secretary of the Treasury under section 7801(a) of the 1954 code of Administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Laws." Pursuant to section 7801, The Secretary of the Treasury has the Full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon a legislative grant, The Internal Revenue Service was created. Thus, the Internal Revenue Service is a body established by "positive law" because The IRS was created by Congressional mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there should be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution of applications of the internal revenue laws. Two other important cases are Salman v. The Department of the Treasury(1995) and the other is Young v. the Internal Revenue Service(1984). The first case deals with weather or not the IRS is a goverment agency. The other deals with weather the IRS is considered a Private or goverment agency by Judicial criteria.
As I stated before in my last post because the IRS is located in a territory not a state. Congress may act under Article four,section three, clause two of the Constitution. Which is the Federal Property and Territory Clause, which enables them along with the reorganization act of 1949, the reorganization plan of 1952, Congress used its authority to indirectly create the BIR which over time evolved into the IRS. Through the authority given to the Secretary of the Treasury by the United States Congress. So as I have stated, Technically because the IRS is Headquartered in a Territory, not a state. Article four, section three, clause two allows the congress to manipulate the Constitution and authorize the creation of the IRS, in the beginning through the Treasury Department(BIR). So with that, Stare Decisis, Supreme Court, other Federal Courts, State Supreme Courts and public precedence. I believe it to technically be a legal goverment organization. As I stated earlier its a very fine line. I just believe the courts fall on the side of judicial caution do to the stare decisis and public precedent aspect, as well as how it pertains to article four section three clause two. All that being said, I do believe this manipulation while technically sound, is a disservice to the Constitution as well as Our Founding fathers. It bothers me that Congress in league with a President can gerrymander the Constitution by the use of a territory to create a goverment organization with out going through the Traditional Constitutional process and the fact most of the Americans in this country do not know the truth or care. Together we stand, divided we fall. On this topic we have fallen.
Long live the Great Federal Republic of these United States! All those who dwell with in her! Or serve this beloved Union.

You need to go back and read the entire Article. Congress may PROPOSE amendments, or call a constitutional convention to PROPOSE amendments. In order to take effect, an amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the states. There is some question as to the legitimacy of the ratification of the 16th amendment, now that you bring it up. I repeat my argument that the 16th amendment merely established income tax as an excise tax, which must be uniform throughout the United States, and that wages are not income as defined by the supreme court.

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
It also allows taxes to be collected without apportionment based on states populations. Sixteenth Amendment, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, without regards to any census or enumeration." The Sixteenth Amendment removed the proportionality requirement of Article one, section two, clause three. Also Article one, section 9 clause four. So not only does it redefine the income tax, it also remove the proportionality requirement in the Constitution. Which was the problem in the Pollock v. Farmer Loan and Trust Co. Supreme Court Case. The Sixteenth Amendment over came the issue of apportionment; by the line without apportionment among the several States. So you are partly right on the redefining of the income tax, but it also change the apportionment clause I mention above.
Now as far as your assertion to the legitimacy of the Sixteenth Amendment. The High Court never questioned it, only stated it was not needed to tax. Further according to the United States Government Printing office. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by the proper three-Fourths required by the Constitution by February 3rd, 1913 by the requisite of thirty-six states. Another six states ratified the Amendment by March 7th, 1913. Bringing our total to forty-two states of our beloved Union. Which is totally enough to meet the Constitutional requirement of 3/4ths, and then some!
You keep referring to the Court"wages are not income as defined by the Supreme Court." What case are you referring? Also the source derived was also obliterated by the Sixteenth Amendment with the line "what ever source derived." So the definition in the case you mention, Probably the Pollack Case! No longer apply! As was decided in the in the Supreme Court Case Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. Mr Justice Butler stated, "The Sixteenth Amendment relived from the requirement and obliterated in the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived." "In the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed." "After full consideration, the court declared that income tax may defined as gains derived from capital, from labor, and from both combined, including profits gained from sale or conversion of capital."
So like I said, redefined taxes, apportionment and so on. That is a Supreme Court decision. Not just my opinion! So in short the Sixteenth Amendment did allot more, as I have mentioned! Not in my words but those of a Supreme Court Justice. Case closed!
Long live the Great Federal Republic of these United States! All those that dwell with in her! Or serve our beloved Union!

Before I cite three supreme court decisions, I will try a little common sense.

If you invest $20, and get a $30 return, you would expect to pay income tax on $10, right? Now, you invest your labor and get a $30 return, how much of that $30 is taxable income? You are going to say $30. That answer would give your labor a value of $0. If your labor is worth nothing, why is your boss paying you? In fact, if your employer is not paying you LESS than what your labor is worth, how can he possibly make a profit on it? In effect, what we as wage earners are paying income taxes on are GROSS RECIEPTS. There is no gain in wages, it is an equal exchange.

Southern Pacific v. John Z. Lowe,Jr. 1918

"Certainly the term "income" has no broader meaning in the 1913 Act(income tax) than in that of 1909(corporation excise tax)"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 1921

"there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word(income) must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court."

"After full consideration, the court declared that income tax may be defined as gains derived from capital, from labor, and from both combined, including profits gained from sale or conversion of capital." is quoted in eisner v. macomber and the court went on to say "a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income", which would include the "common sense" demonstration above, i.e., gains derived from labor would be your employer's gains, not yours.

Parenthesis added

Richard S. Poleet Jr.
You would be right, if older cases adjusted, refined or overruled newer Supreme Court cases. Thankfully, it is the other way around. The cases you mention, South Pacific v. John Z. Lowe Jr(1918), Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka(1921) and last but not least Eisner v. Macomber(1920) where the precedence and rule of law in the various areas you mention. That is before new Supreme Court precedence in these areas. The Newer decisions are the Bower v. Kerbaugh-Empire Company(1926) and the Commissioner v. Glenshaw glass company(1955). You seem to pick and choose out of order, the cases that most affirm your arguement. A sort of gerrymandering of Supreme Court decisions if you will. When law 101 tells you that case law must be taken in context, order and by latest precedence as pertains to your arguement. You would be right in your interpretation of these decisions if we were living before the latest decisions I mention. We do not, therefore I suggest you up date your library(Internet) on Supreme Court Case Law. It changes yearly, monthly and daily. One cannot rely on out of date decisions to back up an illegitimate arguement. All that being said, the most relevant case of the definition of income is Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company.,348 U.S. 426(1955). To a degree of lesser precedent by the High Court the case of Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Company.,271 U.S. 170(1926). This case deals with the definition of income, apportionment, what is a direct tax or indirect tax, and how this effects the Corporation tax of 1909(36 Stat. 112). Only lesser, because one must deal with the redefining of income in the Supreme Court case of Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company Case in this decision the Supreme Court laid out the modern understanding of what constitute 'income' to which the Sixteenth Amendment applies, declaring that income taxes can be levied on "accessions of wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayer have dominion". Under this definition, any increase in wealth, whether through wages, benefits, bonuses, sale of stock or property at a profit, bets won, lucky finds, awards of punitive damages in a law suit, qui tam actions are all with in the definition of income, Unless Congress make specific exemptions. Such as certain gifts, bequests, and scholarships for example. This decisions of the definition of income revises or overturns any prior decision as to the modern High Courts definition of what constitutes income. You need to come up with a newer case then 1955 case I already mention. One that redefines income other than what I have already mentioned. These are not my opinions but decision made by the High Court(Supreme Court). I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate! Look forward to your reply! One must always be willing to keep an open mind, and be self learning. Otherwise, one will never learn anything new and always regurgitate the arguments of others. Long live the Federal Republic of these United States! All those who dwell with in her! And those who serve our beloved Union!

I am familiar with this supreme court definition of income, "accession of wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have dominion". The failure of wages to fit this definintion is that there is no "accession of wealth" involved in wages. Wages are an equal exchange of money for labor. No wealth is gained. They are merely the monetization of labor. If you make a red chair, and sell it, take the proceeds and by a blue chair, where is the "accession of wealth"? As currently applied, you are taxed on the sale price of the red chair, while you have in fact gained nothing. following this logic, everytime you cooked a meal at home, you would be liable for taxation on the value of the meal in a resaurant. As I said before, wages are not being taxed as "income" under any definition. They are being taxed as GROSS RECEIPTS, a policy no other entity, or corporation is subject to.

The reason I have not alluded to any more modern cases is because they say essentially the SAME THING. "accession of wealth", by definition, is the same thing as profit. In fact, in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Company, the conflict was over whether profit from a particular source was in fact taxable. Eisner v. Macomber is referred to and disputed only in it's narrow definintion of taxable sources of profit.

What revenue source would all of you who want to abolish the income tax replace it with? Like it or not, the gov't does need money.

I don't have a problem with the IRS or the income tax. I do have a huge problem with the tax code itself, some of the IRS's methods, the bookkeeping burden, and with irrational gov't spending that wastes the money it takes from us.

1) Let's face it, the tax code is written so that the affluent and powerful can legally cheat. We need a progressive tax curve (not flat) with no exemptions and no deductions. The amount of tax you owe should be based solely on income - period. The tax code should not be used to influence behavior or reward those with the best tax cheats (oh sorry: tax lawyers or accountants). Yes, the gov't should not be subsidizing your home purchase or the amount of children you have, the income tax should be just an income tax.

2) I have a strong problem with the IRS being able to assume guilt before innocence. Also the fact that you are required to have unreasonable knowledge of the tax code and are required to keep unreasonable records just to assert your innocence.

3) I am regularly outraged that the Federal gov't is not a better steward of the money we give it. The list is endless but must be topped by a trillion dollars pissed away in Iraq. Then there are quarter billion dollars bridges to nowhere and other pork.

I believe that we should support the government with a portion of our income and it follows that an agency is required to manage that money flow. The IRS is not the problem, but the rules that it is based on are.

"What revenue source would all of you who want to abolish the income tax replace it with? Like it or not, the gov't does need money."

Yes, the gov't needs money, but it could easily get by on half what it takes. The income tax is less than half of gov't revenue. In fact, the income tax is essentially used to service the debt.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”
–Alexander Tyler (in England 400 years ago)

That the records that the IRS has about your income are actually stored by the Social Security Admin., not the IRS. The IRS gets all your W4 and earnings info from SSA.

Jake, I think you are talking around a majority position and a reasonable first step. Ultimately I would like to see no social engineering in revenue collection including progressive rates.

Your form does not seem to address corporate income which seems to me to be catagorically different unless stockholder are apportioned all corporate net income for personal income tax application. And like individuals, corporation could not get a tax benefit from a loss of assets or income.

Bill"for what we are together"

Bill (and others),

Please see my tax plan in more detail at:

Jake's Tax Curve

This is for personal income tax. I'd be interested in your ideas about corporate taxes. I admittedly don't know much about corporate taxes.

Under a flat tax, the rich and poor aren't equally burdened. They are proportionally burdened, depending on the amount of their income.

And as far as corporate taxation is concerned, perhaps a higher flat rate, plus a graduated index, plus allowable deductions, but no lower than their flat rate amount.

However, I still think we should not allow taxation on the income of personal labor.

ex animo

I respectfully have to disagree with you on this.

For the sake of simple math, assume a flat tax of 15%.

For someone making $20,000, that's a $3,000 tax burden. For someone making $100,000, it's $15,000.

I maintain that the $3000 tax could force the $20K person to make life altering decisions based on ability to pay (food vs. medicine, denied educational choices,...)

The tax on the $100K earner might influence which luxury car they choose, but it would not affect the substance of their life.

The burden you show on a person with an income of $20,000 per annum could be very simply dealt with by exemption of the first $20,000 or $30,000( or whatever figure agreed upon)of wages.

I would personally prefer a sales tax, with this tax displayed on every receipt and invoice. If folks were made aware of how much tax they actually paid, the gov't would have to be more responsive. This would also force the gov't to adopt policies promoting economic growth, both national and personal. Accomodation for those with a lower income could be made by exemption of those things neccessary for subsistance, i.e. food, housing, utilities, clothing, medical care, etc. We could put an exempted price limit on those items to keep the more fortunate in line. It would still cost less to enforce than the blatantly unconstitutional tax we have now.

You yourself illustrate what happens: if you allow exemptions, the complications start. Exemptions allow cheating: that's how we got where we are now.

As soon as exemptions are allowed, the ability of Congress to complicate - and rig - the tax code is introduced. My plan has no exemptions, "income accomodation" is built into the function that defines the tax curve. That's precisely why it is an improvement over the flat tax. I think it's a great plan: has the simplicity of a flat tax, yet incorporates progressivity. It also allows fine-tuning, something the flat tax does not (changes affect everyone).

The problem with any progressive tax is that it is unconstitutional, being an excise tax, it must be "uniform throughout the United States". For example, there is an excise tax on tires. It does not matter how many you buy, the tax remains the same.

I fail to see how a fixed, flat, personal exemption could be used to cheat. Maybe you could explain.

The advantage to the sales tax is that it would be paid out of your pocket, not with held from your paycheck. Ask any self-employed person how this effects their view of taxes. I know several former liberal(nearly marxist) people who started voting republican after they went into business for themselves.

P.S. I'm not a republican, I don't think there is a great difference between republican and democrat. They are both greedy for power.

Just so you know: I am not a Democrat: Cheers!

It's exemptions I oppose, period.

I view exemptions as a pandora's box. Once any exemption is allowed for any reason, exemptions become fair game and we eventually get the mess we have now where the tax code is millions of pages with exemptions, clarifications, special rules, loopholes, obscurity.....

If a fixed flat personal - or any - exemption is allowed, Congress will once again find it irresistable to feed the beast and every pet cause (corrupt and legit) will infect the tax code.

Once it is fixed, it should be damn near immutable or we get what we have now.

Again my plan allows income to be exempted mearly by defining the curve so that those near the bottom have Y = 0 as the result of the formula. At the top end it should result in a flat rate. The graduation is between the two, where the effective rate increases gradually with income. This is essentially a mathematical formulation of brackets, but it avoids a feature of brackets that I dislike: the fact that one dollar plus or minus near a boundary changes the impact. My curve would be relatively smooth, not stepped.

Your third point from your post:It's not the IRS

  • "I am regularly outraged that the Federal gov't is not a better steward of the money we give it. The list is endless but must be topped by a trillion dollars pissed away in Iraq. Then there are quarter billion dollars bridges to nowhere and other pork."

actually is the true crux of the matter. Let's face it, the more funds we allow Congress to levy, the more wast and corruption will be generated. I am beginning to think we should actually go back and reexamine the 16th Amendment, which allowed direct unapportioned taxation in the first place. Failing that, I think Unity08 should adopt the motion as stated in my post: The motion has been seconded, unless someone has a better idea.

ex animo

15%? Instituting a flat tax would require all to contribute, churches, newspspers...all income. I see no reason why it should ever be above five percent (5%), that, too, would be incorporated into the amendment.

And, yes, we could have a mimimun income amount of $30,000 per year. However, even government assistance would be callculated as "income". So if someone was receiving food stamps and that raised their income over $30,000 per year, bingo! 5% goes back to the government.

Corporate flat tax rate would be set higher, of course.

ex animo

You can tax a corporation any way you like. Being a creation of the state, they have no rights.

One thing to keep in mind regarding corporate tax. If the corporation pays income tax on profit, then pays out a portion of that profit in divedends, should the shareholder be required to pay income tax on that money again? That's what happens now. Remember, a shareholder can be a pension plan too. Or someone's grandmother. They are not just the board members.

Corporations would be taxed on profit, as income. Shareholders would be taxed on dividends as income. Taxes are paid on pensions when they receive income from them. What is so hard in grasping this simple concept: you tax taxes on "income".

ex animo

there is no reason to tax corporate income directly. The net earnings of a corporation belongs to the stockholders distributed or not and should be apportioned to them for tax purposes.

By the way, the supreme court used the fourteenth amendment as the basis to decide that "corporations" or the same as a person for the purposes of civil law in the late 1800s. Don't like it , it's just the fact.

Bill"for what we are together"

I picked 15% because it is roughly in tune with Forbes' proposal a few years back (1992 was it?). I think he proposed 17%. I could be wrong.

I agree with you 100% that no entity, not even churches, should be exempt. Good luck on that idea!

Corporations should not be able to shelter their taxes as so many do now. Individuals either, now that I think about it.

I don't think the rate should be arbitrary but should include an analysis of spending priorities.

But let's not forget, the rate will have to be set as low as possible. And if the politicians in Washington don't squeal over the rate as being set too low in the amendment, the rate will have been set too high. The rate set in this amendment has got to make'em squeal in Washington.

Secondly, if the rate is set too low and the people want it set higher, they can always pass another amendment. No rate will ever be set in stone. But I think the process of raising the rate should be harder -- a lot harder then a majority vote in Congress.

Of course, we are not talking about "Emergency" situations. An "Exergency" situation would have to be declared by Congress by a two-thirds majority vote.

ex animo

From JWKABLE above: "You can tax a corporation any way you like. Being a creation of the state, they have no rights."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Container Bottom