Is Income Tax a Law
Ratification has been slow but surely through state legislators. Some states had already passed their own tax laws to find new ways to fund public schools and other social needs. Surprisingly, the income tax change has met with broad support in cities and rural areas, among both Democrats and Republicans, and in all geographic regions. Even New York ratified the change, despite the state`s reputation as the capital of the “power of money,” with many millionaires among its residents (including John D. Rockefeller). By early 1913, 42 states (six more than necessary) had ratified the income tax amendment. Only six states rejected it. This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment has not been formally ratified or because the state of Ohio was not a state at the time of ratification. Proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue. The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress has the power to levy and levy income taxes, regardless of the source, without apportionment among the various states and without regard to a census or census.
The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio (which became a state in 1803); see Bowman v. United States, 920 F. Supp. 623 n.1 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (discussion of the 1953 joint congressional resolution reaffirming Ohio`s statehood retroactive to 1803) and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the amendment. Under article V of the Constitution, only three-quarters of the states are required to ratify an amendment. There were enough states that ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, even without Ohio, to complete the number required for ratification. In addition, after ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of income tax laws. Brushaber v.
Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since then, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal income tax. In Rev. In 2005-19, 2005-1 C.B. 819 and in Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609, the IRS discussed this frivolous argument in more detail and warned taxpayers of the consequences of attempting to claim on these grounds. Relevant case law:Sochia v. Commissioner, 23 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 1994) – The 5th Judicial Circuit found that the defendant`s appeals challenging income tax legislation through the Sixteenth Amendment were frivolous and warranted sanctions. Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7th Cir.
1989) (per curiam) – The 7th Circuit has imposed sanctions on Miller for taking an “obviously frivolous” position, stating, “We find it difficult to understand why the long and uninterrupted series of cases that generally uphold the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company. and those who explicitly reject the argument made in The Law That Never Was have not convinced Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum to expand their attack on the federal income tax structure. United States v. Steel, 792 F.2d 1438 (9th Cir. 1986) – der 9. The judicial district upheld Stahl`s conviction for failure to file tax returns and perjury, stating that “the Secretary of State`s confirmation, under the authority of Congress, that the Sixteenth Amendment has been ratified by the required number of states and is now part of the Constitution is conclusive for the courts.” United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7th Cir. 1986) – The 7th Circuit rejected Foster`s assertion that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified and upheld his conviction for tax evasion, failure to file a tax return, and filing a false W-4 return. Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5th Cir.
1984) – Der 5. The judicial district rejected the allegation that the Sixteenth Amendment had not been constitutionally passed as “totally unfounded” and imposed monetary penalties on Garlic for the frivolity of his appeal. Other cases: United States v. Moleski, Crim. No. 12–811 (FLW), 2014 WL 197907 (D. n.j. 13 January 2014); Banister v.
U.S. Dep`t of the Treasury, 110 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2012-6790 (Ed. 2011); United States v. Benson, 2008 WL 267055 (N.D. Ill. 10 Jan. 2008); United States v. Schulz, 529 F.Supp.2d 341 (N.D.N.Y. 2007); Stearman v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-39, 89 T.C.M. (CCH) 823 (2005). United States v. Schulz, Some individuals or groups argue that taxpayers may refuse to file federal tax returns or file tax returns that refuse to provide financial information because they believe their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is violated. The Law: There is no constitutional right to refuse to file a tax return on the grounds that it violates the Fifth Amendment privilege of incriminating oneself. As the Supreme Court noted, a taxpayer cannot “draw a wizard`s circle around the whole affair by declaring himself that writing a word about the government would put him in danger.” United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259, 264 (1927).
Failure to comply with the reporting and reporting requirements of federal tax laws is not excused by blanket claims of constitutional privilege against forced self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The IRS discussed this frivolous argument in more detail, warning taxpayers of the consequences of attempting a claim on these grounds.