|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Lamont:
The plain language seems to say something different from what you conclude.
I am sure I hate paying the confiscatory taxes we are subject to as much as
you, but I am not convinced re your arguments. Please explain.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lamont Cranston <strategies@xxxxxxx>
To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 07, 2000 8:07 PM
Subject: Re:Stop paying taxes
>To All:
>
>The Constitution provides for two types of Taxes; Direct Taxes, which are
>taxes that are paid directly to the Government (which is the way that the
>Government attempts to impose the federal Income Tax) and Indirect Tax,
>which the Constitution refers to as duties, imposts, and excises and which
>must be geographically uniform in order for them to be constitutional.
>
>The founders had just won independence from a tyrannical king and were
>concerned about giving any government too much power including any
>opportunity to impose any kind of direct tax, without apportionment.
>Apportionment means that before the Government can impose any type of
direct
>tax, it first must decide how much money it needs to collect in any given
>year. Then it must apportion the tax among the the various states based
>upon the populations of those states.
>
>In two seperate Supreme Court cases, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co.,
>157 U.S. 601, and Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1, the
court
>ruled that direct taxes were unconstitutional.
>
>In the 16th Amendment, it states "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." But, the qualifying phrase in this amendment, that denotes
>the fact that it only applies to corporate profits which is the "on
incomes,
>from whatever source derived."
>
> In the IRS code, Section 61 it states that "any person made liable for any
>tax" must pay said tax. The word "person" is this case means corporation.
>This is what the phrase in the 16th amendment, "income, from whatever
source
>derived", refers to -- corporate profits.
>
>With further research, in reference to that Section 61, and the statement
>that income from whatever source derived is taxable, if further examined it
>would show that the original source of that statement comes from the 1939
>Tax Code Section 22. The source of the statement comes from Title 26 Part
>519, which refers to a tax treaty with Canada. In another words, all
income
>from whatever source derived in Canada is taxable.
>
>Just the facts folks, just the facts.
>
>Lamont Cranston
> "who knows what evil lurks"
>
>
>
>
>
|