comes in various forms, but the essence is that the Sixteenth
Amendment was never properly ratified. Therefore, these tax
"experts" claim, the federal income tax system is
is no use examining all the various arguments, but in the
most common one, tax protesters claim that Ohio was not a
state admitted into the Union until 1953. Since Ohio was not
yet a state, President Taft as a citizen of Ohio, was ineligible
to serve as President. Therefore, Taft was not able to properly
convene the Congress which approved the resolution which later
become the Sixteenth Amendment. Furthermore, President Taft
could not lawfully appoint Secretary of State Philander C.
Knox, who verified that the Sixteenth Amendment was properly
could find any number of statements on the Internet, including
the IRS web site, addressing this issue but that would be
a bit like asking Dad if he had the authority to withhold
allowance. These issues are easily researched.
Sixteenth Amendment was initially ratified by 40 states out
of 48 (3/4th's is the required majority) and adopted in 1913.
The truth is, the ratification served only to nullify an 1895
tax case that challenged the government's plenary taxing authority.
In 1895 (Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.),
the Supreme Court struck down an 1894 income tax on the ground
that it was a direct tax required, under Article I of the
Constitution, to be apportioned among the states on the basis
of population. The Sixteenth Amendment merely exempted taxes
on income from the apportionment requirement.
your Client remains convinced that all that money he spent
with Global Prosperity, or whomever else, was not a waste,
refer them to Brushaber
v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
In that case, the Supreme Court said:
Sixteenth Amendment was obviously intended to simplify the
situation and make clear the limitations on the taxing power
of Congress and not to create radical and destructive changes
in our constitutional system.
Sixteenth Amendment does not purport to confer power to
levy income taxes in a generic sense, as that authority
was already possessed, or to limit and distinguish between
one kind of income tax and another; but its purpose is to
relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment
from consideration of the source whence the income is derived.
Income Tax provisions of the Tariff Act of 1913 are not
unconstitutional by reason of retroactive operation, the
period covered not extending prior to the time when the
Amendment was operative; nor are those provisions unconstitutional
under the due process provision of the Fifth Amendment;
nor do they deny due process of law, nor equal protection
of the law by reason of the classifications therein of things
of persons subject to the tax."
should have been clear enough but the issue has been reviewed
many times. If your Client continues to doubt, refer them
v. Commissioner, 749 F2d, 200, 201 (5th
Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) in
which the court described the argument that the 16th Amendment
was not properly ratified as being "totally without
States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir.),
cert denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) in which the Court
affirmed Foster's conviction for tax evasion, rejecting
his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified.
States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9th
Cir. 1986), cert denied 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) in which
the Court states: " . . . that the sixteenth amendment
has been ratified . . . is conclusive upon the Courts"
and upheld Stahl's conviction for failure to file and
making a false statement.
v. United States, 868 F2d 236, 241 (7th Cir.
1989) (per curiam) in which the Court said, "We find
it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of
cases upholding the Constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment
. . . have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek
a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal
income tax structure." The Court labeled their position
"patently frivolous" and levied sanctions against
suppose people will go right on paying that Benson clown to
show up at trial and argue the premise of his book, The
Law That Never Was. It seems to me that Benson should
be telling people what has happened to his Clients each and
every time he did that, and just exactly how many times he
has heard a judge describe his spiel as frivolous.
questions and suggestions.