Tag Archives: Internal Revenue Service The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump @POTUS), President of the United States, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington. D.C. 20500, has a letter dated August 7, 2017, sent to him, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States two (2) opinions delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Edward D. White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916, on the I.R.S. web-site


August 7, 2017

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington. D.C. 20500

Why, since at least January 2015, have the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) l I a R S been allowed to MISQUOTE the two (2) UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) opinions of Mr. Chief Justice Edward D. White, on the I.R.S. web-site; which is under the direction of the Department of the Treasury❓

Brushaber v. Union Pacific | Stanton v. Baltic Mining
No. 140____________________ | No. 359
240 U.S. 1 (14 pages) | 240 U.S. 103 (7 pages)
36 S.Ct. 236______________ | 36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed 493_______________ | 60 L.Ed. 546

I would appreciate your attention to this matter

Thank you, hugely

Sincerely

Copy:

Jeff Sessions
Office of the U.S. Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Steve Mnuchin
Secretary of the Treasury
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) Headquarters
1401 H Street, NW
Suite 469
Washington, D.C. 20005

John R. Koskinen
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Internal Revenue Service

Washington, D.C. 20224


THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

JANUARY 2015

These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

January 2015

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL

C. The Meaning of Certain Terms Used in the Internal Revenue Code

2. Contention: The “United States” consists only of the District of Columbia, federal territories, and federal enclaves

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C

2.

The Law:

The Supreme Court has “recognized that the sixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves”
_________________________________________________
The Supreme Court has

“recognized that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves”
………………………………………………..
THIS is a FALSE STATEMENT
——————————————————————
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally | US Law

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS | US Law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47
_________________________________________________
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)

(citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
This is a False Statement
………………………………………………..
Pages 12-19 do NOT support this False Statement
——————————————————————
Page 11 clearly shows why the above is a False Statement
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

vi

Table of Cases Reported

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. . . . . 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915—Decided January 24, 1916

(1)

(Argued the same days as the Stanton Case)

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 9

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

240 U.S. 10

Opinion of the Court

We are of opinion, how-

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 11

Opinion of the Court

ever, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
_________________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
………………………………………………..
It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A hitherto unknown POWER OF TAXATION, that is, A POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX WHICH ALTHOUGH DIRECT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF APPORTIONMENT applicable to all other direct taxes”
——————————————————————
(The IRS Assumption is Erroneous)
_________________________________________________
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
240 U.S. 1
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________

xi

Table of Cases Reported

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. . . . . 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY

No. 359. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.—Decided February 21, 1916

Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber Case)

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 107

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber Case)

240 U.S. 112

Opinion of the Court

(1) That as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, …

(Same wrong opinion as IRS)

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is wrong)

But aside from the obvious error of the proposition intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 113

Opinion of the Court

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment …

(The Court says the position of the IRS is an OBVIOUS ERROR)
_________________________________________________
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
(1916)
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
======================================
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html
_________________________________________________

Martha Roby (@RepMarthaRoby) U S Representative, 401 Adams Avenue, Suite 160, Montgomery, Alabama 36104 (334) 262-7718, has a letter dated July 31, 2017, sent to her regarding the accuracy of: The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law. It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government. The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under Subtitle “A” of the Internal Revenue Code


Martha Roby
U S Representative
401 Adams Avenue, Suite 160
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Dear Congresswoman Roby;

Please advise me if the information in the enclosed letter is accurate

1. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 [U.S.C.]) is not positive law

2. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 [U.S.C.]) is special law

3. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 [U.S.C.]) applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government

4. The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under Subtitle “A ” of the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 [U.S.C.])

Internal Revenue Service

Department of the Treasury

Internal Revenue Service Center

Mid-Atlantic Region
Philadelphia, Pa

P.O. Box 245

Bensalem, Pa. 19010

Joann H. Hoverdale

Beachwood Ct

Dear Mrs. Hoverdale:

This is in response to your Privacy Act request dated December 12, 1995

The Internal Revenue Code is not positive law, it is special law

It applies to specific persons in the United States who choose to make themselves subject to the requirements of the special laws in the Internal Revenue Code by entering into an employment agreement within the U.S. Government

The law is that income from sources not effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the U.S. Government is not subject to any tax under Subtitle “A ” of the Internal Revenue Code

This concludes our response to your request

Sincerely yours

Cynthia J. Mills

Disclosure Officer

Enclosure

Martha Roby (@RepMarthaRoby) United States Representative, Alabama, Second District, 442 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2901, has a letter sent to her dated July 24, 2017, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS referring; on their web-site, to the 2 UNANIMOUS U.S. Supreme Court 16th Amendment 1916 opinions as: “frivolous,” ” … devoid of any arguable basis in law,” has financially sanctioned “efforts to argue otherwise,” and notes what it terms the “patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition”


Martha Roby
United States Representative Alabama Second District
442 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515

Why; since at least October 24, 2014, has the U.S. Congress allowed the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on its web-site, to cite Becraft 885 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1989) 548-49, which MISQUOTES the UNANIMOUS U.S. Supreme Court opinions of Chief Justice White ?

Relevant Case Law:

” … the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct nonapportioned income tax”

” … devoid of any arguable basis in law”

“the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition”

Page 2 of 2

“efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous”

The inferior court of the United States, states that what the UNANIMOUS U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1916 is “frivolous,” ” … devoid of any arguable basis in law,” has financially sanctioned “efforts to argue otherwise,” and notes what it terms the “patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition”:

” … the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct nonapportioned income tax”

” … the 16th Amendment provides … power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment … ” is an “erroneous assumption”

Brushaber v. Union Pacific, 240 U.S. 1 at 11

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

January 2015
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

Relevant Case Law:

” … the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct nonapportioned income tax”
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-A-to-C

Relevant Case Law:

” … the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct nonapportioned income tax”

” … devoid of any arguable basis in law”

“the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition”

“efforts to argue otherwise have been sanctioned as frivolous”

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice on the Brushaber and Stanton case)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Vol. 240

60 L. ed. 491

U. S. SUPREME COURT

Volume 240 (1-26)

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

60 L. ed. (493-505)

Supreme Court of the United States

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

60 L. ed. 493

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

[No. 140]

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided January 24, 1916

60 L. ed. 495

(Argued the same days as the Stanton case)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court

60 L. ed. 498

240 U. S. 9

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton case)

Brushaber v. Union P. R. Co.

[10]

We are of opinion, however,

[11]

that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows

60 L. ed. 499

240 U. S. 10-11

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[103]

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Company

60 L. ed. 546

240 U. S.

Stanton v. Baltic Min. Co.

[No. 359]

Argued October 14 and 15, 1915

Decided February 21, 1916

60 L. ed. 547

240 U. S.

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber case)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[107]

Mr. Chief Justice White delivered the opinion of the court

60 L. ed. 552

240 U. S.

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber case)

Stanton v. Baltic Min. Co.

[112]

(1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment …

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the 16th Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber case, it may also be put out of view

60 L. ed. 553

240 U. S.

The United States Ninth (9th) Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the UNANIMOUS opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, are “FRIVOLOUS”

Martha Roby (@RepMarthaRoby) U. S. Representative, Alabama, Second District, 217 Graceland Drive, Suite 5, Dothan, Alabama 36305 (334) 794-9680, has a letter dated July 17, 2017, sent to her, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U. S. two decisions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916, on the I.R.S. Web-site at E, Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens


July 17, 2017

Martha Roby
U.S. Representative
217 Graceland Drive Suite 5
Dothan Alabama 36305

Dear Congresswoman Roby:

Why, since at least January 2015, on the IRS web-site, has the Congress of the U.S. continued to allow the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) lIaRS to make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation (18 U.S. Code § 1001) by misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U.S. two decisions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916❓

Brushaber v. Union Pacific | Stanton v. Baltic Mining
No. 140____________________ | No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915 | Argued October 14, 15, 1915
240 U.S. 1 (14 pages) | 240 U.S. 103 (7 pages)
36 S.Ct. 236______________ | 36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed 493_______________ | 60 L.Ed. 546
Decided January 24, 1916 | Decided February 21, 1916

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

JANUARY 2015

These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

January 2015

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL


_________________________________________________
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendme does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid

In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the “Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation”
………………………………………………..
E.

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT income TAX on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid
_________________________________________________
the “SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX upon United States citizens throughout the nation” ✓
_________________________________________________
THIS is a FALSE STATEMENT

(18 U.S.C. § 1001)
——————————————————————
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally | US Law

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS | US Law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47
_________________________________________________
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)

(citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
This is a False Statement
………………………………………………..
Pages 12-19 do NOT support this False Statement
——————————————————————
Page 11 clearly shows why the above is a False Statement
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice on the Brushaber and Stanton opinions)

vi

Table of Cases Reported

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. . . . . 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915—Decided January 24, 1916

(1)

(Argued the same days as the Stanton Case)

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 9

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

240 U.S. 10

Opinion of the Court

We are of opinion, how-

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 11

Opinion of the Court

ever, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
_________________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
………………………………………………..
It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A hitherto unknown POWER OF TAXATION, that is, A POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX WHICH ALTHOUGH DIRECT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF APPORTIONMENT applicable to all other direct taxes”
——————————————————————
(The IRS Assumption is Erroneous)
_________________________________________________
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
240 U.S. 1
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________

xi

Table of Cases Reported

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. . . . . 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY

No. 359. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.—Decided February 21, 1916

Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber Case)

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 107

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber Case)

240 U.S. 112

Opinion of the Court

(1) That as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, …

(Same wrong opinion as IRS)

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is wrong)

But aside from the obvious error of the proposition intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 113

Opinion of the Court

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment …

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is an OBVIOUS ERROR)
_________________________________________________
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
(1916)
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
======================================
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html
_________________________________________________

Luther Strange (@SenatorStrange) U. S. Senator, Alabama, 100 West Troy Street, Room 302, Dothan, Alabama 36303 (334) 792-4924, has a letter dated July 17, 2017, sent to him, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U. S. two opinions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916, on the I.R.S. Web-site at E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens


July 17, 2017

Luther Strange
U.S. Senator
100 West Troy Street, Room 302
Dothan, Alabama 36303

Dear Congressman Strange:

Why, since at least January 2015, on the IRS web-site, has the Congress of the U.S. continued to allow the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) lIaRS to make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation (18 U.S. Code § 1001) by misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U.S. two decisions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916❓

Brushaber v. Union Pacific | Stanton v. Baltic Mining
No. 140____________________ | No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915 | Argued October 14, 15, 1915
240 U.S. 1 (14 pages) | 240 U.S. 103 (7 pages)
36 S.Ct. 236______________ | 36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed 493_______________ | 60 L.Ed. 546
Decided January 24, 1916 | Decided February 21, 1916

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

JANUARY 2015

These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

January 2015

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL


_________________________________________________
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendme does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid

In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the “Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation”
………………………………………………..
E.

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT income TAX on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid
_________________________________________________
the “SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX upon United States citizens throughout the nation” ✓
_________________________________________________
THIS is a FALSE STATEMENT

(18 U.S.C. § 1001)
——————————————————————
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally | US Law

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS | US Law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47
_________________________________________________
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)

(citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
This is a False Statement
………………………………………………..
Pages 12-19 do NOT support this False Statement
——————————————————————
Page 11 clearly shows why the above is a False Statement
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice on the Brushaber and Stanton opinions)

vi

Table of Cases Reported

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. . . . . 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915—Decided January 24, 1916

(1)

(Argued the same days as the Stanton Case)

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 9

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

240 U.S. 10

Opinion of the Court

We are of opinion, how-

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 11

Opinion of the Court

ever, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
_________________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
………………………………………………..
It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A hitherto unknown POWER OF TAXATION, that is, A POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX WHICH ALTHOUGH DIRECT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF APPORTIONMENT applicable to all other direct taxes”
——————————————————————
(The IRS Assumption is Erroneous)
_________________________________________________
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
240 U.S. 1
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________

xi

Table of Cases Reported

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. . . . . 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY

No. 359. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.—Decided February 21, 1916

Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber Case)

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 107

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber Case)

240 U.S. 112

Opinion of the Court

(1) That as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, …

(Same wrong opinion as IRS)

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is wrong)

But aside from the obvious error of the proposition intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 113

Opinion of the Court

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment …

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is an OBVIOUS ERROR)
_________________________________________________
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
(1916)
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
======================================
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html
_________________________________________________

Richard Shelby (@SenShelby) U. S. Senator, Alabama, 1000 Glenn Hearn Boulevard #20127, Huntsville Alabama 35824 (256) 772-0460, has a letter dated July 17, 2017, sent to him, regarding the CORRUPT Internal Revenue Service (@IRSnews #IRS) LIARS misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U. S. two opinions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916, on the I.R.S. Web-site at E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens


July 17, 2017

To: Richard Shelby
U.S. Senator
1000 Glenn Hearn Boulevard #20127
Huntsville Alabama 35824

Dear Congressman Shelby:

Why, since at least January 2015, on the IRS web-site, has the Congress of the U.S. continued to allow the corrupt Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) lIaRS to make a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation (18 U.S. Code § 1001) by misquoting the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court of the U.S. two decisions delivered by Chief Justice White regarding the 16th Amendment (Federal Income Tax) in 1916❓

Brushaber v. Union Pacific | Stanton v. Baltic Mining
No. 140____________________ | No. 359
Argued October 14, 15, 1915 | Argued October 14, 15, 1915
240 U.S. 1 (14 pages) | 240 U.S. 103 (7 pages)
36 S.Ct. 236______________ | 36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed 493_______________ | 60 L.Ed. 546
Decided January 24, 1916 | Decided February 21, 1916

THE TRUTH ABOUT FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS

JANUARY 2015

These arguments are grouped under ten general categories and contain a brief description of each contention followed by a discussion of the correct legal authority

http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Introduction

January 2015

FRIVOLOUS TAX ARGUMENTS IN GENERAL


_________________________________________________
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendme does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens

Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid

In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the “Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation”
………………………………………………..
E.

The Law:

The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a NON-APPORTIONED DIRECT income TAX on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid
_________________________________________________
the “SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT AUTHORIZES a DIRECT NONAPPORTIONED TAX upon United States citizens throughout the nation” ✓
_________________________________________________
THIS is a FALSE STATEMENT

(18 U.S.C. § 1001)
——————————————————————
18 U.S. Code § 1001 – Statements or entries generally | US Law

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;

(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or

(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001

18 U.S. Code Chapter 47 – FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS | US Law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-47
_________________________________________________
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990)

(citing Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916)
_________________________________________________
This is a False Statement
………………………………………………..
Pages 12-19 do NOT support this False Statement
——————————————————————
Page 11 clearly shows why the above is a False Statement
_________________________________________________
http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals/The-Truth-About-Frivolous-Tax-Arguments-Section-I-D-to-E

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Edward D. White, Chief Justice

(Same Chief Justice on the Brushaber and Stanton opinions)

vi

Table of Cases Reported

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. . . . . 1

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

No. 140. Argued October 14, 15, 1915—Decided January 24, 1916

(1)

(Argued the same days as the Stanton Case)

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 9

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Stanton Case)

240 U.S. 10

Opinion of the Court

We are of opinion, how-

BRUSHABER v. UNION PAC. R. R.

240 U.S. 11

Opinion of the Court

ever, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes

And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, as follows:
_________________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
………………………………………………..
It is an

“ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION”

“that THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A hitherto unknown POWER OF TAXATION, that is, A POWER TO LEVY AN INCOME TAX WHICH ALTHOUGH DIRECT SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE REGULATION OF APPORTIONMENT applicable to all other direct taxes”
——————————————————————
(The IRS Assumption is Erroneous)
_________________________________________________
Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.
240 U.S. 1
36 S.Ct. 236 (36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236)
60 L.Ed. 493
(1916)
——————————————————————
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/1.html
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html
======================================
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/
_________________________________________________

xi

Table of Cases Reported

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. . . . . 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 103

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING COMPANY

No. 359. Argued October 14, 15, 1915.—Decided February 21, 1916

Brushaber v. Un. Pac. R. R., ante, p. 1

(Argued the same days as the Brushaber Case)

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 107

Opinion of the Court

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court

(Same Chief Justice as the Brushaber Case)

240 U.S. 112

Opinion of the Court

(1) That as the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, …

(Same wrong opinion as IRS)

As the first proposition is plainly in conflict with the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment as interpreted in the Brushaber Case, it may also be put out of view

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is wrong)

But aside from the obvious error of the proposition intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed

STANTON v. BALTIC MINING CO.

240 U.S. 113

Opinion of the Court

in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment …

(The Court says the opinion of the IRS is an OBVIOUS ERROR)
_________________________________________________
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.
240 U.S. 103
36 S.Ct. 278
60 L.Ed. 546
(1916)
………………………………………………..
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=103
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/
——————————————————————
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/103/case.html
======================================
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/240/103.html
_________________________________________________