There is no question that the income tax itself, when applied lawfully, is
Constitutional. But the heart of the matter is..................
QUESTION: Who is liable for the income tax?


LET THE CONSTITUTION SPEAK FOR
ITSELF:.......................................... Artlicle 1, Section 8,
Clause 1 States: "The Congress shall have the 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;"
...........................................................................
......... (Above)These are all indirect taxes.
...........................................................................
......... Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 States: "No Capitation, or other
DIRECT DIRECT DIRECT, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the
Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken."

Do you know what a Capitation tax is? Hint: It is the same as a Head tax
and a direct tax. But different from a sales tax which is an indirect
tax. In summary, NO DIRECT TAX WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT. Do you know what
apportionment is? Do you agree so far?
..........................................................................
.. ........ Article XVI (Bill of Rights)-XVI means 16 as in 16th Amendment
Passed in 1913. (YOUR FAVORITE) "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."
..........................................................................
.. ........ Now to me there seems to be a contradiction here. First they
say NO DIRECT TAX WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, then they say IT'S OK TO TAX DIRECTLY WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT. This would mean that this amendment overturns the other. That would be legally impossible. Any Amendment
that contradicts the Constitution would be void. Hmmmmmmm............Lets
see what the Supreme Court says about this......
..........................................................................
.. ....... "Some incorrectly claim that the 16th Amendment (the income tax
amendment) changed the constitutional limitations on direct taxes and
authorized an income tax as a direct tax without apportionment. The U.S.
Supreme Court rejected these claims in the case of BRUSHABER V. UNION
PACIFIC R.R. CO., 240 US 1, (1916), WHEN THEY RULED THAT THE 16TH
AMENDMENT CREATED NO NEW POWER OF TAXATION AND THAT IT DID NOT CHANGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS WHICH FORBID ANY FEDERAL DIRECT TAXATION OF INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE STATES OF THE UNION.
..........................................................................
.. ........
The court stated that the nature of income tax is identified by the wording of the Amendment itself, which says: “Congress shall have the 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 court explained that
since it is a tax "without apportionment", the income tax cannot be a direct tax (a tax on individuals or on property), because the Constitution still requires that all FEDERAL direct taxes must be "Apportioned," among
the states.
..........................................................................
.. ........ If you're having trouble understanding what you just read, I'll sum up the conclusion of the above for you. IF the income tax was not imposed on the income of citizens of the United States before the
16th Amendment, and, as the Supreme Court says, the 16th Amendment did not change the United States Constitution, the only logical conclusion a sane person can come to is that their income is still not subject to the
income tax. If you still do not see the light after reading this then I can only assume that you are either deathly afraid of the IRS or that you work for the IRS and you are purposely lying to people to save your own job.

http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/fedtax-l/msg00597.html

'Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of a statute, enacted pursuant to the newly ratified Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, imposing a federal income tax. The Court ruled that Congress had, even before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the authority to tax income. If the income tax was a direct tax in the constitutional sense, it could be imposed (before the passage of the Amendment) only by apportionment among the states according to their census populations. In the controversial case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Court had overturned longstanding precedent and ruled that a tax on income derived from property was a direct tax. In Brushaber, however, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to "taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" and thus eliminated the need to determine whether the income tax was a direct tax or, alternatively, an excise (an indirect tax)...

...Although the case is clear in its statement that the income tax is constitutional, and need not be apportioned, it has been misunderstood by tax protesters, who have unsuccessfully tried to cite Brushaber as having the opposite meaning. Although they are correct in stating the Court's finding that the Sixteenth Amendment gave "no new power to tax," this is not because the amendment was ineffective. Instead, the Court merely found that Congress always had the power to tax incomes, and that the amendment only affects the way that such taxes must be apportioned.

Indeed, later in the same year the Court stated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-13 (1916), that Brushaber had determined

"that the provisions of the 16th 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 in the category of direct taxation [ . . . . ]"' en.wikipedia.org

Stop whining and pay your national taxes like a good little citizen! Alternatively, don't pay your federal taxes and give up using or benefitting from any services made possible by them. See how long you last...

Here's another explanation of how tax protestors misinterpret Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad.

And a memorandum from a 1996 court case in which a tax protestor unsuccessfully tried to use the misinterpretation of 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific'.

As the website asks, "why is it that people who sell tax protestor materials file their tax returns anyway?"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: newnickname,