Subject: Updates to case law: your labor is not taxable income
[PP NOTE: Our thanx to Paul Andrew Mitchell at
http://www.supremelaw.org for updating two of the
cases just previously sent about "Your labor is not taxable income: Evans v.
Gore, and Cook v. Tait . See updates below.]
----------
1920: Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245.
Overturned by O'Malley v. Woodrough (307 U.S. 277). Court ruled that income taxes on federal judges were unconstitutional. "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " [A direct tax on salary income of a federal judge] NOTE:O'Malley v. Woodrough did NOT overturn Evans v. Gore. Read it and see for yourself. Repeals by implication are never favored. The discussion of foreign scholars and of a provision in the constitution of South Africa is totally off-point. Evans has never been overturned (see Shepard's Citations), notwithstanding a UCLA Law Review article which alleges the contrary: "The Constitutional Guaranty against Diminution of Judicial Compensation," Vol. 24, Dec. 1976, p. 308 at 332, n. 94. C.J. William H. Rehnquist has argued, before the University of Arizona Law School in January of 1997, that Evans supra was overturned by O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939). Appellant disputes the main holding in O'Malley supra, for being predicated upon the following two false and rebuttable premises: (1) there is only one class of citizens (there are 2); and (2) all federal judges are citizens of either class (but no federal law requires judges to be citizens at all). [end excerpt] You've got to be very VERY careful around Rehnquist: he is slippery like a snake: http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/lawless.htm
Also, the 2 Extension Statutes effectively rendered the main holding in Downes v. Bidwell (1901) ultra vires THIRTY YEARS before the fact! http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871 (+ 30=1901) http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1873
... both of which statutes were placed timely and properly before the U.S. Supreme Court here: http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/cert.htm#drama http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/aol/mandamus.2.htm. Moreover, O'Malley v. Woodrough was predicated on two false and rebuttable premises that: (1) there is only one class of citizens (there are two), and (2) federal judges are citizens of either class, when there is no requirement that federal judges be citizens of anything. http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/opening.htm
Moreover, there are other, equally compelling reasons why the pay of federal judges should NOT be taxed. Under current practices, presenting them with Form W-4 -- and no alternative forms -- renders them material witnesses to practice of CONCEALING the withholding exemption certificate from them. That certificate is clearly mentioned 17 different times in section 3402 of the IRC: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/3402.html (see 3402(n) in chief). We elaborate on this in 31Q&A here:
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm. And, the Public Salary Tax Act has a very limited application, because of the statutory definition of "State" upon which that Act depends: http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/psta/memo.htm
Finally, without a Statute at Large which creates a specific liability for federal income taxes imposed by subtitle A, federal judges are not REQUIRED to pay income taxes either! http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm. The O'Malley decision is bad case law, at best, and C.J. Rehnquist should know better than to instruct a class of law students at the University of Arizona that "there has been a change in DOCTRINE! [sic]"http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/lawless.htm.
I was an eyewitness to that statement by Rehnquist, because I asked him the question about Evans v. Gore. What is DOCTRINE and WHO CHANGED IT???
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
-------------
1924: Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to tax the income received by a native citizen of the United States domiciled abroad from property situated abroad and that the constitutional prohibition of unapportioned direct taxes within the states of the union does not apply in foreign countries.
** More bad case law:
The pertinent Clauses -- 1:2:3 and 1:9:4 -- both make it abundantly clearly that NO DIRECT TAXES CAN BE IMPOSED WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES -- NONE!! http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#1:9:4. This APPORTIONMENT REQUIREMENT was considered SO IMPORTANT that it is mentioned TWICE in the U.S. Constitution!
This means, quite obviously, that Congress may NOT impose any direct taxes that apply ONLY to the federal zone, or to the citizens of that zone, UNLESS those direct taxes are apportioned among the several States of the Union. Why? Answer: because the U.S. Constitution was expressly extended to D.C. in 1871, and into all federal Territories in 1873.
And, a less obvious problem is this: if a direct federal tax IS apportioned
among the 50 States, then what share of those direct taxes would D.C. and the
federal Territories have to pay?
Answer: I would say NONE, for the very same reason that the federal zone has no
voting Members in either house of Congress. If a direct tax is apportioned among
the 50 States, then it is their burden and ONLY their burden to pay that tax.
See what happened when Congress DID enact a lawful direct tax: http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-q.htm. Displayed in tabular format, the States of the Union were assessed as follows:
State Direct Tax
------------- -------------
New Hampshire 77,705.362
Massachusetts 260,435.312
Rhode Island 37,502.080
Connecticut 129,767.002
Vermont 46,864.187
New York 181,680.707
New Jersey 98,387.253
Pennsylvania 237,177.727
Delaware 30,430.792
Maryland 152,599.954
Virginia 345,488.665
Kentucky 37,643.997
North Carolina 193,697.965
Tennessee 18,806.383
South Carolina 112,997.739
Georgia 38,814.875
-------------
Total: 2,000,000.000
=============
Every place mentioned in that taxing statute was a State of the Union!!!
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell
Private Attorney General
No law compels a work eligible man or woman to submit a form W-4 or W-9 (or their equivalent) nor disclose an SSN as a condition of being hired or keeping one's job. With the exception of an order from a court of competent jurisdiction issued by a duly qualified judge, no amounts can be lawfully taken from one's pay (for taxes, fees or other charges) without the worker's explicit, knowing, voluntary, written consent. http://www.preferredservices.org/NonconsentualTaking.html