Is federal income tax unconstitutional

Answer 1

The Personal Income Tax Law is wholly constitutional and conforms nicely with the constraints of the Constitution. The above answer correctly points out that jails and prisons are filled with people who foolishly argued that income taxes are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that both the 16th Amendment and the revenue laws are constitutional and each time they have ruled correctly. It is unfortunate that there are people in jail because they instinctively knew something was wrong with the implementation of these revenue laws, but they are in jail because they did not take the time to learn the law. Everyone is presumed to know the law, including the person who answered above. Are all people who earn income subject to the Personal Income Tax Law?

It doesn't help that there is nothing but confusion and contradiction in the lower courts about what the Supreme court actually said about income taxation. That there is so much confusion amongst the lower courts is ample evidence that the revenue laws are next to impossible to understand and as such it would be next to impossible for any prosecutor to prove that an individual who stands tall and refuses to enter a "tax court", refuses to make any plea until he can understand the law that supposedly made him liable for a tax and subject to that law is actually guilty of committing any crime. If you don't understand the law how can a prosecutor prove mens rea? A law must be written so that a person of average intelligence can understand it. Albert Einstein once said the Internal Revenue Code is the most complex system he had ever encountered. If Albert Einstein has trouble understanding the code why would you trust any old judge or government official to understand it any better?

The taxation and revenue laws may conform to constitutional restraints but that doesn't make them good laws. They must be able to be understood with out the "aid" of a "tax expert" or "legal expert" or "tax lawyer". Walk up to a criminal defense attorney and ask him what the subject of the income tax is and he will refer you to a tax attorney. Even lawyers can't understand this law. This is evidence of horrible legislation and it is sad that people who are or who hope to earn a living by "aiding" people in their tax compliance can be so smug about decent Americans who had the courage to stand up and challenge these laws. It was not that they were statutorily liable for a tax that put them in jail. It was there own hubris that put them in jail. Instead of correctly pointing out that the law was just too hard too understand, they want to show the courts all they have learned and insist that they do indeed understand the law. That assertion is as good as admitting liability and that's what put them in jail, not the statutes or revenue codes.

Very solid reasons why the Federal Income Tax is 100% Constitutional

1) The Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes.

2) The "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (Art. 1 Section 8, cl. 18) gives Congress the power to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers."

3) Those "foregoing powers," once again, include the power to lay and collect taxes

4) In Article 9 Section 1, many people believe the language stating "No...direct Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken," means that all taxes must be apportioned. This is incorrect. The sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution scraps that idea with this language, "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." (Emphasis added, duh.) The 16th Amendment is just as much part of the Constitution as the 1st Amendment. Read it.

5) For those who argue that "the 16th Amendment wasn't even ratified by six of the states." Please read Article V of the US Constitution. You only need 3/4 of the states to ratify a new amendment before it becomes law. 42 of the 48 states at that time ratified this amendment. Simple math will undoubtedly lead you to the conclusion that 42 is indeed at least 3/4 of 48.

6) In addition to the text of the Constitution itself, there have been some notable Supreme Court decisions on this issue. One is Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. The holding in that case, articulated by Justice Butler, clearly states "It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment (the 16th) to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be "direct taxes" within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes "from whatever source derived". (Copied from another website and verified in a con law textbook)

Other cases to look at are the Penn Mutual Indemnity case, and the more recent Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service and Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. Wikipedia generally has very good pages on Supreme Court cases and trust me it is easier than reading a Constitutional Law textbook.

7)Something that should carry quite a lot of weight in evidence is the fact that no judge and very few lawyers would ever argue that the income tax is beyond the scope of the Constitutional powers given to Congress. Why is this? Because judges tend to be very smart people who have studied these things far more closely than the vast majority of non-law professionals. And lawyers tend to only bring cases that have a legitimate basis for recovery. If they waste the time of the court with challenging the Constitutionality of the income tax, they can be sanctioned by the judge. This is a serious issue that lawyers always must consider when filing a complaint. They ask themselves, is this case a legitimate issue of fact or law for a judge or jury to decide on? If they think the answer is "no" then you sure as hell aren't going to court. The fact that this is rarely challenged in court is testament to the truth that it is established law in this country, recognized as such by the very community we entrust with best knowing the law- judges and attorneys.

8) The fact that many people serve prison terms for failing to pay their taxes is further evidence that the law takes taxation seriously. Do you really believe that all three branches of national government AND your local police force AND your state legislators are all in on some giant Income Tax conspiracy to rob you of your earnings? Well, if they are, it's totally legal, too bad. If you are slightly more balanced, perhaps you realize that it's legal anyway and that is why it isn't challenged by legislatures or courts.

9) Is the tax code convoluted? Yes. Is it indecipherable? Not to some people, obviously, since my accountant seems to get my taxes done without the IRS hassling me. Is it illegal? Not likely, but go ahead and try fighting it if you feel it's worth your time. Frankly there are more important issues in the world that you could affect positive change in right now, instead of trying to wriggle out of paying taxes. So get out there! And don't forget to read!