LEGAL DISCLAIMER
I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet.
I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet.
I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet.
DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE.
Go look it up for yourself.

U.S. Federal Income Tax

Subjugation by taxation

Sixteenth Amendment: No New Powers of Taxation

Table of Contents

Sixteenth Amendment

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

        The first thing to notice, is that the Sixteenth Amendment creates a paradox.  This Amendment appears to contradict the main body of the Constitution.

ARTICLE. I, Section 2.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

        Side Note: The point of no direct taxes without apportionment was so important to the founders that they put the rule of apportionment in the Constitution TWICE.

ARTICLE. I, Section 9.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

        The reason I say "appears" to contradict the main body of the Constitution will be made clear as you read this Chapter. 

It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, ...

Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; ...

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

        That "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes" as stated in the Sixteenth Amendment "does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes".

        The Amendment acts upon the Supreme Court so that the Supreme Court can not rule on a similar topic in the future in the same way such as it ruled in the Pollock case.  In short and in essence, The Sixteenth Amendment acts strictly and solely upon the Supreme Court.

        The Sixteenth Amendment "does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes" means there is no new power of taxation.  In fact, the Supreme Court said as much in the Stanton case which followed the Brushaber case.

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 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, ...

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

        "[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation". 

ARTICLE. I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

        The "old" powers of taxation are; the power to lay direct taxes subject to the rule of apportionment; the power to lay an indirect tax subject to the rule of uniformity.  A "new" power of taxation would be the power to lay a direct tax NOT subject to the rule of apportionment.

        I repeat this to make sure you "get" it:

There is no new power of taxation.
There is no power of direct - unapportioned taxation.

        A lawyer made the incorrect statement that the Sixteenth Amendment allows for a direct - unapportioned tax.  That statement is shredded with the fine details of the Brushaber and Stanton cases. You can read those details on this page.  Just close it when you are done.

        Direct taxes must be apportioned.  I will cover the importance of this Constitutional rule in a subsequent chapter.

Next Page

Table of Contents