SUPPORTING BRIEF #2: INCOME TAX, AS IMPOSED UPON LABOR, IS VOID FORVAGUENESS AND DEVOID OF ANY VOLUNTARY NATURE, Page 5
*********************************************************************
Here we can see that the term "income" not only has the essential feature of "gains" and "profits", but the Court went further to show that "income" is the "gains" and "profits" that are derived from their sources. The sources being capital and labor. It does not say that capital and labor are "income", but that capital and labor are the sources of "income". Note too that the Court indicated that this was the understanding of the People in common speech at the time. This was in 1919. Today, however, most Americans believe that the money they receive for their labor is "taxable income". How did this change in thinking take place? The answer is simple. People have always referred to the compensation they receive for their labor as "income". In fact, if we examine the Revenue Act of 1926, we can see that Congress defined the term "earned income".
Sec. 209. (a) For the purposes of this section--
(1) The term "earned income" means wages, salaries, professional fees, and other amounts received as compensation for personal services actually rendered, but does not include that part of the compensation derived by the taxpayer for personal services rendered by him to a corporation which represents a distribution of earnings or profits rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered. In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income producing factors, a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 20 per centum of his share of the net profits of such trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.
Note the difference between the definitions of the terms "income" and "earned income". The term "income" has gains and profits associated with it. The term "earned income" does not. It is therefore clear that these terms represent two different types of income. The question is simply this: Are all types of incomes subject to federal taxation? The answer to this is no. A direct tax upon earned income (labor) is a tax levied directly on property. This would have to be subject to the rule of apportionment to be consistent with the Constitution. However, another problem arises when the government levies a direct tax upon earned income (labor), namely, it is a tax levied upon the most basic attribute of economic liberty, that being, the citizen's right to labor. So now we have the question as to whether or not a tax can be levied upon earned income (labor) at all.
The Court in Eisner also stated:
"The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189, at page 192.
No where in the I.R. Code or the decisions of the Supreme Court can this researcher find that earned income (labor) falls within the scope of federal taxation. The income tax laws have been perverted into something that was never intended by Congress in 1913, that being, using the income tax laws to deprive the people of the fruits of their labor.
Is it not clear that the word "income" means a "gain" or "profit" from persons doing business in a corporate or quasi-corporate capacity? This must be the reason why no clear and concise definition of the word is in the IR Code. If there was, then the people would eventually see that their labor does not fall within the scope of the IR Code and begin dropping out of the system.
Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi. Truth fears nothing but concealment. 9 Co. 20.
Veritas nimium altercando amittitur. By too much altercation the truth is lost. Hob. 344.
Non accipi debent verba in demonstrationem falsam, quæ conpetunt in limitationem veram. Words ought not to be accepted to import a false description, which may have effect by way of true limitation. Bacon, Max. Reg. 13; 2 Pars. Con. 62; Broom, Max. 642; Leake, Con. 191; 3 B. & Ad. 459; 4 Exch. 604; 3 Taunt. 147.
The "income tax" imposed upon labor is therefore void for vagueness and unconstitutional. There being no clear and concise definition of the term "income" in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 USC) that clearly shows that compensation for labor comes within the scope of "taxable income", it is impossible for the people to know whether or not the IR Code imposes a legal duty on them. The law does not compel impossibilities.
Lex non cogit ad impossibilia. The law requires nothing impossible. Broom, Max. 242; Co. Litt. 231 b; Hob. 96; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 851; 17 N.H. 411; 55 id.211; 136 Mo. 227.
Deceptis non decipientibus, jura subveniunt. The law helps persons who are deceived, not those deceiving. Trayner, Max. 149.
Quod dubitas, ne feceris. When you doubt about a thing, do not do it. 1 Hale, P.C. 310; Broom, Max. 326, n.
Misera est servitus, ubi jus est vagum aut incertum. It is a miserable slavery where the law is vague or uncertain. 4 Inst. 246; 9 Johns. 427; 11 Pet. 286; Broom, Max. 150.
An interesting analogy can be drawn as to why the IRS makes no effort to explain the voluntary nature of the income tax as imposed upon compensation for labor. J.H. Hammond, Governor of South Carolina and a slaveholder stated the following in Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments (Augusta, Ga.: Pritcherd, Abbott & Loomis, 1860) on page 649:
"You well seem aware, however, that laws have been recently passed in all these States, making it penal to teach slaves to read. Do you know what occasioned their passage, and renders their stringent enforcement necessary? I can tell you. It was the abolition agitation. If the slave is not allowed to read his Bible, the sin rests upon the abolitionists; for they stand prepared to furnish him with a key to it, which would make it, not a book of hope, and love, and peace, but of despair, hatred and blood; which would convert the reader, not into a Christian, but a demon. To preserve him from such a horrid destiny, it is a sacred duty which we owe to our slaves, not less than to ourselves, to interpose the most decisive means. If the Catholics deem it wrong to trust the Bible to the hands of ignorance, shall we be excommunicated we will not give it, and with the corrupt and fatal commentaries of the abolitionist, to our slaves? Allow our slaves to read your writings, stimulating them to cut our throats? Can you believe us to be such unspeakable fools?"
To make laws against teaching people to read today would be unthinkable. However, it is clear that the IRS hides the voluntary nature of the income tax from the public. The reason for this is not difficult to deduce just using plain common sense. If the IRS would publish, say, in their instruction booklets the reason why income tax is voluntary when imposed upon compensation for labor, they would be telling the public that filing and paying the tax is a form of servitude; and that servitude, according to the Constitution, must be voluntary lest the 13th Amendment be violated. If they did this they would be cutting their own throats. Many people would then realize that they are in a condition of servitude with the Federal Government and begin dropping out of the system. Do we think them to be such unspeakable fools?
Let us now go back to the Cheek v. U.S. case. The question therefore arises: If a direct tax upon labor is clearly unconstitutional, then why did the trial against Cheek even go forward? Also, if the income tax is based on voluntary assessment and payment, not upon distraint, why did the case go forward? Why did the Court not just take judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Cheek objected to having a tax directly imposed on his wages (labor) and rule on its constitutionality? In the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, we read the following words:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 180.
The record of the Cheek case shows that the District Court just summarily proceeded forward against him and the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of a tax being directly imposed upon his labor.
"If, then, the courts are to regard the constitution, and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
"Those, then, who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law." Marbury v. Madison, supra, 178
After all, do not all officers of government in the executive, legislative and judicial have to take an oath to support the Constitution as a condition of holding their office?
"Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as instruments, and the knowing instruments, for what the swear to support!
"The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: 'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and the laws of the United States'.
"Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government- if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
"If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime." Marbury v. Madison, supra, 180.
Sublata veneratione magistratuum, respublica ruit. The commonwealth perishes, if respect for magistrates be taken away. Jenk. Cent. 48.
The "income tax" is clearly devoid of any voluntary nature. This can be seen by the way the tax is presented to the people and the way the courts view the individual who opposes a tax being levied directly upon labor. The Cheek case is but another example of how the independence of the federal judiciary has been damaged by federal judges having to file and pay income tax on their salaries in violation of Article III, § 1.
If it be held that Congress can abandon the congressional intent behind the laws it passes at any point in the time, then all laws can be made tyrannical and oppressive upon the people.
Respectfully submitted this 29th day of December, 1997.
Adrian C. Banks,
Pro Se