Talk:Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Misleading Summary?

I notice that the summary statement of the current article on the Sixteenth Amendment states that "Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, authorizing income taxes in their present form, was ratified on February 3, 1913." Isn't this slightly misleading? To me, it makes it sound like the 16th Amendment explicitly authorized an income tax, but it doesn't seem like the Amendment itself did anything of the sort. Perhaps something along the lines of "Amendment XVI (the Sixteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which clarified apportionment issues with respect to income tax, was ratified on February 3, 1913."? What I'm getting at is probably better explained here http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#nonewpower - more or less, it was not an authorization of new power, but a refinement of existing tax power. I am no lawyer, and I can barely figure out my 1040's anyways; could someone clarify, please? Jnoring —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:04, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Dear Jnoring: You are correct in your understanding, but I believe you are missing the key words: "in their present form." The rest of the article explains what those words mean. However, maybe we can work on this some more. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 01:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jnoring: OK, I've deleted the language referring to authorizing the income tax in its present form. That language is technically correct, but I think you're reading it as "creating the power of the income tax." It's splitting hairs, but I would argue that this is two different things. Nevertheless, let's see how the article flies without the language. I think if you read the article in full, you may agree that the article is describing the main point -- that the amendment simply removed the need to consider whether a given income tax was required to be apportioned among the states according to population. Yours, Famspear 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Famspear--thanks for the review. I have read the article, and I agree that the 16th is "authorizing income taxes in their present form." However, what I don't like about the wording is that it is easily misrepresented/misunderstood, and a cursory glance leads one to believe that the 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to levy an income tax (which, from my understanding, they already had this authority prior to the 16th). Case in point: look at the article on the political positions of Ron Paul, with respect to the 16th amendment. The "in its present form" was lost, and the resulting sentence ends up being "As Congressman, (Ron Paul) has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment which authorized the income tax," which is (in my opinion) misleading and probably derived from the summary of the previous article. Jnoring 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Even some courts have said or at least implied that the Amendment itself "created" the power to impose income taxes. The legal reality is, of course, that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes -- and did tax incomes many times before the Amendment. Even in the Pollock case, where the 1894 income tax was ruled unconstitutional, the Supreme Court noted that the Congress did have the power to impose an income tax.

Had the Amendment been worded more precisely, it could have been something like this:

The Congressional power granted under Article I to impose taxes may, with respect to taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, be exercised without regard to any provision of Article I otherwise requiring apportionment of taxes, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

In other words -- Pollock is overruled. Yours, Famspear 02:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree on all points; I don't feel that it's unreasonable to say that the 16th Amendment made income taxes logistically feasible (which, to some degree, implies "creation"). What I object to is any sentence that even vaguely conveys the idea that the Congress didn't previously have the legal authority to create an income tax.

On an unrelated note, is there any way to provide a practical example of the taxation issues? I notice that in the above talk page there is an example involving two states with varying populations and incomes which really helped me understand what the issue was from the perspective of Congress in 1894. Jnoring 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding a practical example, let me give it some thought. (Things are kinda hectic in the real world for me right now.) Yours, Famspear 18:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I borrowed your example from above (New York/Montana) in a recent blog posting I wrote about Ron Paul. I'd love a critique http://goldfishforthought.blogspot.com/2007/08/liberty-amendment.html, since you seem to be the most knowledgeable person I know on the subject. I understand if you're incredibly busy, don't have time, etc. Thanks for your contributions to Wiki and your hard work; I really appreciate it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jnoring (talk • contribs) 02:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Dear Jnoring: Thanks! I only skimmed the posting, but it looks good to me. On the 10th Amendment thing, I'm very foggy, as it's been so long (since law school, a hundred years ago, I think) since I even thought about the 10th Amendment. On the substance of the material, I'd say you did a great job.

When talking about Pollock, the Sixteenth Amendment, and cases like Brushaber it's very difficult to get the precise language just right so that people can understand what is a fairly complex topic. No matter how many times I explain it in writing about it, I have to think pretty hard about how to say it without confusing people even further. I think you did a pretty good job! Yours, Famspear 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad to see the misleading language in the Ron Paul article has been changed. But I'm not surprised to see this sort of doubletalk from the "constitutionalist" Ron Paul. This is the same guy who claims that the Constitution is "replete with references to God"[1] and that the First Amendment says "Congress shall write no law."[2] — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wealthy" or "politcally connected"?

I changed "wealthy" to "politically connected" because the 16th Amendment was designed to tax people who became wealthy by high protective tariffs, which tax the average working person. There was no resentment at the time for people who became wealthy and were not protected by tariffs. It is important in this article to provide a background for why the Amendment was perceived to be needed. The Pollock case alone does not tell the whole story. Mpublius 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no cite provided for that statement, not even the unsourced Taft quote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Mateo SA remove the source that Mpublius had added for that statement. Mateo SA stated in the summary that it was an unreliable source. I haven't read the source, but why is it unreliable? Morphh ^(talk) 23:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the Congressional Record, even if accurately quoted, is not a WP:RS, as any member of Congress can add statements. It's likely that Taft could have requested its removal if inaccurate, but we just don't know. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe I can confirm, at least from my memory, some concern as expressed by editor Arthur Rubin's comment about the Congressional Record. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, as I recall at least members of Congress can alter statements they've made on the floor of the House or Senate, for publication in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record has been criticised for that reason. I don't know how that affects the President Taft statement issue, but there is at least some reliability concern that should be addressed. Maybe I can dig up some information on this (?) Famspear 01:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

MPublius had linked to a PDF document—purporting to be an excerpt from the Congressional Record—that was hosted on the website Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry (specifically, the link to the PDF document was http://www.sedm.org/Exhibits/EX0029.pdf). Regardless of whether the Congressional Record is or is not a reliable source, the "Sovereign Education and Defense Ministry" is most definitely not. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 01:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm afraid editor Mateo SA may be right. For example, the www.sedm.org web site contains the following hilarious statement:

This website has been reviewed for accuracy and approved as truthful, factual (for THEM, and not for US), and accurate by the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the Federal Judiciary, and is one of very few freedom websites of its kind which can claim that important distinction.[3]

The above statement is preposterous, and is false on its face. Neither the Department of Justice, nor the Internal Revenue Service, nor the Federal Judiciary reviews and "approves" web sites for accuracy. The statement is accompanied by the seals of the Department of Justice, the IRS, and what appears to be the Great Seal of the United States -- apparently intended by the operator of the web site to give the false impression that the information in the web site enjoys some sort of blessing from the government. The quoted statement alone casts serious doubt on the reliability of material from the web site. Famspear 02:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's another preposterous statement from that web site, an exerpt from a formal "Member Agreement" statement that a "member" must espouse to join the "organization":

Since 1939, the Internal Revenue Code has been repealed (see 53 Stat. 1, Section 4) and is not now enacted into positive law. This is confirmed by examining the legislative notes under 1 U.S.C. §204. [ . . . ] Consequently, Subtitle A of the I.R.C. is nothing but a repealed "code" and not an enacted positive law. It is the “bible” for a state-sponsored religious cult. Therefore, it is an official, state-sponsored religion based on usually false "presumption" which is observed only by those who voluntarily consent to join it and be bound by it.[4]

Duhhh, I hate to be the one to break the news, but making that frivolous and completely false argument on a Federal tax return after March 15, 2007 will subject the filer to the possibility of a $5,000 civil penalty, under Internal Revenue Code section 6702. Famspear 02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is some more comedy from this web site, from a page entitled "Why This Website and Our Activities Are Not Subject to Federal or State Jurisdiction":

We are God's "defense counsel", His "Attorney General", His "Department of Justice", His "Department of State", and His "Ambassador" on earth just as Jesus was, and we believe that doing so is the only way to achieve true sovereignty. In that sense:

We are fiduciaries of God, who is a "nontaxpayer", and therefore we are "nontaxpayers". Our legal status takes on the character of the sovereign who we represent, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b). Therefore, we become "foreign diplomats" of our Lord, Lawgiver, and King.[5]

The web site, which claims to be for an organization called the "Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry," contains mountains of this kind of tripe. Somebody actually tried to use this web site as an authoritative, reliable source for an encyclopedia article on a legal topic? Famspear 02:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I just spent a half hour entertaining myself by reading through the crazy ideas on that website. I agree that it has no place being referenced in a legal article. --CapitalR 03:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I checked it out. The "Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry" is actually another (ahem-clearing my throat) "activity" of Mr. Christopher M. Hansen. For those Wikipedia editors who are not tax law geeks like me (i.e., for those who are normal people), and who don't know who Hansen is, check this out from the U.S. Department of Justice web site, which shows a Federal court order identifying SEDM as one of Hansen's "tax-fraud schemes" (that's the court's wording, not mine): [6]. See also [7] I have seen some talk in another forum questioning why Hansen apparently has not yet complied with the court order shutting down his activity, but that's another story. Yours, Famspear 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to pass judgement on the entire SEDM web site. The site contains an accurate transcription of Taft's address to Congress and that's sufficient for it to be a good source. Mpublius 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Mpublius, that is incorrect. The mere fact that a Wikipedia editor feels the information is accurate does not make the citations sufficient to be a good source. Read the rules on Verifiability and Reliable Sources. If your "rule" were the "rule," then anyone could cite anything simply by arging that the "site contains and accurate "transcription and that's sufficient."

And yes, we are here to pass judgment on the entire SEDM web site. Wikipedia editors must make decisions on whether a particular web site is reliable. Hansen's web site has been specifically ruled to be part of a tax fraud scheme. Famspear 18:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"un-apportioned"?

"Around noon on Monday, September 17th, a Las Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion, willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes. ...The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay >> direct, un-apportioned taxes << on the fruits of their labor." - Las Vegas businessman Robert Kahre: 161 Federal Tax Charges, 0 Convictions (17Sep2007) http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-09-30.htm CAN someone please explain here in the "TALK" section in Simple English what it means for a tax to be "direct, apportioned" and therefore why Kahre was correct in claiming personal income taxes to be "direct UNAPPORTIONED"? Thanks! 199.214.27.209 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Not relevant to this article, but the truth is that income tax was declared not subject to apportionment by the 16th Amendment. Whether it is a direct or indirect tax is a separate, and probably moot, legal question. (And there's no evidence that he doesn't owe the tax. Ignoring tax protester sites such as http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org, the "word on the street" is that the IRS hadn't explained exactly what the "legal tender" provisions of the code meant, and so couldn't convince the jury that Kahre intended to violate the tax code.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP199.214.27.209: Neither the Kahre court nor any other court has ever upheld the laughable argument that "there is no law that requires average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on the fruits of their labor." Kahre was a criminal tax case. My understanding is that the defendants were acquitted by a jury verdict. That means (essentially, by definition) that the court rejected the defendants' arguments. Had the court upheld their arguments, there probably could have been no jury verdict, as the court would normally have thrown the case out before it got to the jury.

Sorry, but an explanation of what it means for a tax to be "direct, apportioned" probably cannot be made in "simple English." The explanation can be made in complex English, because it's an extremely complex legal point. I'll briefly summarize.

The argument that personal income taxes are "direct unapportioned taxes" is both correct -- and incorrect! It's both, because the law is so complex and is interpreted in more than one way, as courts use different analysis methods to arrive at the same result. You may want to read this and related articles in more depth.

However, the real issue is whether the personal income tax is constitutional (or "legally valid"). The answer is that the U.S. Federal income tax on individuals (and corporations, etc., etc.) is constitutional. This is so even though the tax is "unapportioned," and even if the income tax in question is "direct." In other words, as editor Arthur Rubin stated, the question of whether a Federal income tax is direct or indirect is legally irrelevant with respect to the Article I "apportionment" requirement. Congress has the power to tax incomes from whatever source without having to apportion the tax -- regardless of whether the tax in question would be considered "direct" or "indirect." That's the whole point of the "whatever source derived" language in the Sixteenth Amendment.

Further, even if the Sixteenth Amendment had never been ratified, Congress has always had the power to tax the personal service incomes of individuals, whether called wages, salaries, or whatever -- without having to apportion the tax. Every single applicable Federal court case (including the Pollock court case) is consistent on that point -- without a single exception in over 218 years. Frustrating? Yes. Confusing? Yes. Highly technical? Yes.

This talk page is probably not the place to get into all the niceties, many of which are already covered in this and other tax articles. Yours, Famspear 18:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP199.214.27.209: For some more background, see the discussion of the "Alternative A" and "Alternative B" interpretations of the Sixteenth Amendment, in the section called Clarification of Brushaber earlier on this talk page. Essentially, the "from whatever source derived" language, the "without apportionment" language, and the "without regard to any census or enumeration" language of the Amendment make the "direct" and "indirect" labels legally irrelevant with respect to apportionment for U.S. Federal income taxes. Result: No Federal income tax is required to be apportioned, even if that tax ever was (or still is) considered "direct" or "indirect" or "red" or "blue" or "left" or "right." There simply is no apportionment requirement for Federal income taxes. Yours, Famspear 19:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP199.214.27.209: I would like to point out that the web site to which you linked (for wethepeople.org) is itself a notorious tax protester web site shut down in late August, pursuant to a Federal court order. As a result of a court judgment in a tax fraud lawsuit against the "We the People Foundation," the court issued an injunction permanently barring the "Foundation" and its founder from: (1) advising or instructing persons or entities that they are not required to file federal tax returns or pay federal taxes; (2) selling or furnishing any materials purporting to enable individuals to discontinue or stop withholding or paying federal taxes; (3) instructing, advising or assisting anyone to stop withholding or stop paying federal employment or income taxes; and (4) obstructing or advising anyone to obstruct IRS examinations, collections, or other IRS proceedings. The court also ordered that the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, etc., of every person who received tax protester materials from the web site be turned over to the government.

While the "We the People" organization appeals that order, the web site is up and running again. Things are not going well for "We the People" and its founder, and things might get a lot worse. Also, think about what the IRS is going to do with all those names and addresses if the order is upheld on appeal!

Be careful about the materials on which you place reliance when citing in Wikipedia -- in either articles or talk pages. Famspear 21:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC on source of Taft address to Congress

President Taft's address to Congress appears in two places on the web. The first is from a 1910 book containing all of Taft's speeches and could be an excellent source, but the book is 750 pages long and is digititized to 38 MB, which is too large for readers without a very fast connection. The second is 3 pages long, and contains only the address to Congress from the Congressional Record proposing the income tax amendment, and is found on the web site of someone convicted of a tax crime. Both sources show identical information.

Which source should be used (or both)? Mpublius 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The reliable one (the 38 MB version), only. The tax crime in question may include fraud, which reflects back to the reliablility of the site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there is no conceivable valid reason to deviate from Wikipedia policy about using only reliable sources -- especially where the UNreliable web site in this case (Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, or SEDM) in question has been determined, by a Federal court ruling, to be part of a fraud scheme, AND especially where there actually is a reliable source for the information. A no brainer. Famspear 22:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any reason to be believe the that the short easy to download one is unreliable? As far as I can see, it is identical to the long one. Mpublius 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It's from a tax protester web site, which clearly has (other) false information on it, and is subject to a court order to remove (possibly the same) false information. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The SEDM ("short") version is not identical to the Google (long) version. The SEDM version copies from a point later in the speech the sentence that begins "Again, it is clear that, by the enactment of the proposed law..." and inserts it before the sentence that begins "The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power...".

The SEDM version also differs in where paragraphs are broken. And it adds editorial emphasis in a few places, apparently to support the ludicrous tax protester argument that Taft was recommending an amendment that would give the federal government the power to impose an income tax on the federal government.

Finally, you do not need to download the entire document from the Google version to read the document. Even when MPublius first put up this RFC, you could jump directly to the relevant page by copying the search text "june 16 1909 'income tax'" from the search box at the top of the page and pasting it into the "Search in this book" field on the lower right hand area of the page, then clicking on the link for "Page 166" that appears. But I've since updated the link on Wikipedia so that, when you follow it, you are taken directly to the page where Taft's speech begins. And that page is a PNG image, which is smaller in size and viewable by more browsers than the PDF version on the SEDM site. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer to this discussion, use the reliable source only not the tax fraud one. If someone has to go to the library to read it, that's fine. --Rocksanddirt 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that a partisan website is not preferred for primary historical sources. Sometimes source documents stored on-line by notable advocacy organizations are used, even though they aren't preferred. But this situation seems to involve something beyond a simple advocacy organization. I agree that given that the organization is the object of federal court injunctions for fraud, and there are arguments it had made editorial changes to the speech test, it definitely shouldn't be used, even if there was no alternative on-line source available at all. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

it is rather simple to decide. go read the congressional journal at your local repository. or ask your local government historian for a copy of the letter. I have found no site showing it that has in anyway modified it. He says quite plainly a tax on the National Government. I have a notorized copy of it. 69.245.136.69 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP69.245.136.69: No, the document does not say anything about a "tax on the National Government." And you probably do not have a "notorized" (i.e., notarized) copy of the Taft document. You might have a PHOTOCOPY of a CERTIFIED copy.

I seem to recall that some tax protesters may have made the bizarre, laughable argument that the purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to allow the National Government “to levy an income tax upon the National Government” – a silly and legally nonsensical idea.

I believe that this may be the wording of the Taft message:

“I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.”

In other words, the protesters read just the words "conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government" and ignore the rest of the sentence. Conferring “the power to levy an income tax” upon the National Government is not the same as the bluntly goofy idea of proposing a constitutional amendment to allow the National Government to levy an income tax upon the National Government itself. Taft obviously never did any such thing. The purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment is well-documented. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesnt seem a bit odd to you famspear? first you rebuke my post with this No, the document does not say anything about a "tax on the National Government. and then post this as the correct wording ? conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government

so clearly when i say it, it is false according to you, but when you say the same thing it becomes fact  :)

odd stance for someone wouldnt you say ?

As for removing additons it is the same thing.

My correction in adding "derived from is removed yet it exactly what you post in support of your argument.

no honesty here what so ever from you.

Double standards ?69.245.136.69 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears the undoing of edits may have been mateo in which i owe you an apology Fam i assumed due to your response on tafts letter i assumed it was you that changed edits.Lojack12b (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this a mistake?

"Prior to the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[6] all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity."

Shouldn't that be "not required to be imposed with geographical uniformity?" It was direct, not indirect, taxes subject to the apportionment requirement, right? -- Mwalcoff 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Article I Section 8 specifies that Congress could impose direct, apportioned taxes, or indirect, uniform, taxes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mwalcoff: This statement is correct: "Prior to the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity." Indirect taxes (excises) are required (and have always been required, both before and after the 1895 Pollock case) to be imposed with geographic uniformity. The geographic uniformity requirement (for indirect taxes) and the apportionment requirement (for direct taxes) are two separate concepts. Yours, Famspear 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Saturday Evening Post article

I put the Saturday Evening Post article link at http://www.restoreliberty.com/incometax.htm back in the article because the editor who deleted it did not explain why he believes it is an unrelaible source. Mpublius 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but "restoreliberty.com" does not appear to be the "Saturday Evening Post." Please review Wikipedia rules about how to cite a source. Yours, Famspear 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the rules and the source is reliable. Mpublius 19:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)