| Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916) |
The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article
I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and
effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause
4, BOTH specify that Direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED (to the state governments
for collection). The Court ruled that:
"Income has been taken to
mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax of 1909 (36 Stat.
112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors--merely
an equal exchange of funds for services."
"the command of the amendment
that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by
a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived
forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock
case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises,
duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under
the other or direct class."
and:
Moreover, in addition, the
conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding
that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct
taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation
on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless
and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing
the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was
adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form
and consider substance alone,..."
Since the income tax is "without apportionment" by virtue of the
wording of the 16th Amendment, it cannot be a DIRECT TAX, because direct
taxes MUST still be apportioned. So, the income tax is still an INDIRECT
TAX.
According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment does nothing except
move the Income Tax out of the Indirect classification of duties (imposed
on foreign imports), and into the Indirect classification of excises (imposed
on privileges and commodities).
BUT IT IS STILL AN INDIRECT TAX, NOT A DIRECT TAX WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT,
AS DECEPTIVELY CLAIMED BY THE I.R.S.
The Brushaber decision concludes by referring the reader, for the
definition of excise taxes, to the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) decision,
handed down five years earlier. So, the Court knew what it was doing !
BUT, there is an even bigger story about Brushaber to tell. You see
if you look this case up and read it, you will see that the Supreme Court
tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) that the tax IS Constitutional
(as an indirect excise) and that he (Brushaber) has to pay it (the income
tax). The IRS relies on, and cites, this Court ruling, as absolute proof
that the income tax IS CONSTITUTIONAL. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. HOWEVER, Frank
Brushaber, a citizen, FILED THIS LAW SUIT ON BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPALS,
FROM WHOM HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD INCOME TAX AS THEIR (the
foreigners') US (withholding) AGENT.
FRANK GOT TOLD TO PAY THE TAX ON THE INCOME OF FOREIGNERS, NOT HIS
OWN INCOME. If you don't believe me, please check the
(entire
text of the ruling) and be sure to note carefully in the first sentence
of the first paragraph where it says:
the appellant filed his bill
to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of
the tariff act of October 3, 1913"
You do know what TARIFFS are, don't you ? And Treasury Decision 2313
clearly shows the orders resultant within the IRS as a result of this Supreme
Court decision.
THIS IS A CASE ABOUT THE TAXATION OF FOREIGNERS, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS
and enjoy a government granted PRIVILEGE in being allowed access to the American
markets to earn money. IT IS NOT A CASE RELATED TO THE TAXATION OF A CITIZEN'S
OWN INCOME EARNED BY RIGHT.
IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FRAUD TO MISREPRESENT THIS CASE AS APPLICABLE, OR RELATED, TO THE ISSUE OF TAXATION OF CITIZENS, AS THE IRS HAS DONE FOR OVER 60 YEARS !!
According to the Supreme Court in 1916, even after the 16th Amendment:
INCOME TAX IS STILL A FOREIGN TAX !
(now it is an EXCISE tax (no longer a duty), imposed on the privileged
income of foreigners in America, and on the privileged income of citizens
- earned in FOREIGN countries under tax treaties)