"Brian Rookard" <b_rookard@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7f590650.0405130203.43ec247c@posting.google.com...

Diablo <irc-diablo@shaw.ca> wrote in message

news:<irc-diablo-38213C.16063612052004@news.va.shawcable.net>...

In article <6Qwoc.190397$L31.114669@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacdonald@verizon.net> wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lfwoc.7294$KE6.824@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Richard A. Macdonald wrote:

Now where did the Congress give the Secretary any
authority to determine what is or is not Gross Income?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations

-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title

to

any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury
Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and
regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all

rules

and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration

of

law in relation to internal revenue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the
light of the constitution. However broad and general its
language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those
matters which it was within the constitutional power of the
legislature to reach."
[McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations

The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are the official
Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code
and follow the numbering sequence of Internal Revenue Code
sections.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

None of the above allows the Secretary to alter or change statutes

enacted

by Congress.

And, what gives Congress the right to conjure-up an unapportioned

direct

tax?

Since the income tax is an indirect tax, the question is moot.

Richard,

DIRECT TAX - A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal
income tax.

Care to explain this contradiction??

Sure, the Supreme Court does not go by that economic definition. See
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 81.

From BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):
"This is the text of the 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.'
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, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and
distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole
purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from
apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was
derived. 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; that is, of determining whether a
tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the
taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the
burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived,
since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from
whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the
regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises,
first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning
the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as
to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no
support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose
which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention
that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is
relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the
rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and
enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the
command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to
apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income
may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] 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. This must be
unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the
Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that
criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of
the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs
and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently
with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of
view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on
the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the
limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this
because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case,
because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be
accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to
taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment
contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case
that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also
taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and
therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a
part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the
purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent
necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the
resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to
cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself,
and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and
imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We
come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the
light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within
its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We
first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on
the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other
respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the
16th Amendment."


As the Supreme Court said, it is an Indirect Tax.

DIRECT TAX - A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal
income tax.

Care to explain this contradiction??

Sure, the Supreme Court does not go by that economic definition. See
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 81.

From BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916):
"This is the text of the 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.'
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, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit and
distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole
purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from
apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was
derived. 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; that is, of determining whether a
tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the
taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the
burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived,
since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from
whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the
regulation of apportionment. From this in substance it indisputably arises,
first, that all the contentions which we have previously noticed concerning
the assumed limitations to be implied from the language of the Amendment as
to the nature and character of the income taxes which it authorizes find no
support in the text and are in irreconcilable conflict with the very purpose
which the Amendment was adopted to accomplish. Second, that the contention
that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is
relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the
rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct,
thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and
enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the
command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to
apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income
may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] 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. This must be
unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the
Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that
criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of
the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs
and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently
with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of
view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on
the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the
limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation. We say this
because it is to be observed that although from the date of the Hylton Case,
because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had come to be
accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were confined to
taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership, the Amendment
contains nothing repudiation or challenging the ruling in the Pollock Case
that the word 'direct' had a broader significance, since it embraced also
taxes levied directly on personal property because of its ownership, and
therefore the Amendment at least impliedly makes such wider significance a
part of the Constitution,-a condition which clearly demonstrates that the
purpose was not to change the existing interpretation except to the extent
necessary to accomplish the result intended; that is, the prevention of the
resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to
cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself,
and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and
imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes. [240 U.S. 1, 20] We
come, then, to ascertain the merits of the many contentions made in the
light of the Constitution as it now stands; that is to say, including within
its terms the provisions of the 16th Amendment as correctly interpreted. We
first dispose of two propositions assailing the validity of the statute on
the one hand because of its repugnancy to the Constitution in other
respects, and especially because its enactment was not authorized by the
16th Amendment."


As the Supreme Court said, it is an Indirect Tax.

Brian Rookard wrote:

Diablo <irc-diablo@shaw.ca> wrote in message

In article <6Qwoc.190397$L31.114669@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacdonald@verizon.net> wrote:

"Dale Eastman" <dalereastman@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:Lfwoc.7294$KE6.824@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Richard A. Macdonald wrote:

Now where did the Congress give the Secretary any
authority to determine what is or is not Gross Income?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations

-STATUTE-
(a) Authorization
Except where such authority is expressly given by this title to
any person other than an officer or employee of the Treasury
Department, the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and
regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all

and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration

law in relation to internal revenue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the
light of the constitution. However broad and general its
language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those
matters which it was within the constitutional power of the
legislature to reach."
[McCullough v. Com. Of Virginia, 172 U.S. 102 (1898)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.10.7.2.3.1 (05-14-1999)
Income Tax Regulations

The Federal Income Tax Regulations (Regs.) are the official
Treasury Department interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code
and follow the numbering sequence of Internal Revenue Code
sections.
http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

None of the above allows the Secretary to alter or change statutes

by Congress.

And, what gives Congress the right to conjure-up an unapportioned

tax?

Since the income tax is an indirect tax, the question is moot.

DIRECT TAX - A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal
income tax.

Care to explain this contradiction??

Sure, the Supreme Court does not go by that economic definition. See
Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 81.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1
it had come to be accepted that direct taxes in the
constitutional sense were confined to taxes levied
directly on real estate because of its ownership, the
Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging
the ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct'
had a broader significance, since it embraced also
taxes levied directly on personal property because of
its ownership, and therefore the Amendment at least
impliedly makes such wider significance a part of the
Constitution, -a condition which clearly demonstrates
that the purpose was not to change the existing
interpretation except to the extent necessary to
accomplish the result intended; that is,
the prevention of the resort to the sources from which
a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct
tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source
itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the
class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in
the class of direct taxes.

the Amendment contains nothing repudiation or challenging the
ruling in the Pollock Case that the word 'direct' had a broader
significance, since it embraced also taxes levied directly on
personal property because of its ownership,