Subject matter jurisdiction DOES NOT EXIST under the 16th Amendment!
In addition to the above, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916) that the Sixteenth Amendment “conferred no new taxing powers”.
This fellow missed some MAJOR points that render his commentary IRRELEVANT to the average American:
1. All the Sixteenth Amendment really did was remove the apportionment requirement for taxes that were excise taxes listed in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, by the admission of no less than the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time of Sixteenth Amendment Ratification in 1913, the things removed from the apportionment requirement would have been mainly PROFIT from personal property and not taxation of the property itself, because that type of property at the founding of our country only included real estate and capitation taxes:
“The legislative history merely shows that the words “from whatever source derived” of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id., at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1916). ”
[South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 n.13 (1988);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2348693652139851544]
Even when the Direct Tax Clause was written it was unclear what else, other than a capitation (also known as a “head tax” or a “poll tax”), might be a direct tax. See Springer v. United States, 102 U.S. 586, 596-598, 26 L.Ed. 253 (1881). Soon after the framing, Congress passed a tax on ownership of carriages, over James Madison’s objection that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Id., at 597. This Court upheld the tax, in part reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates depending on how many carriages were in their home State. See Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 174, 1 L.Ed. 556 (1796) (opinion of Chase, J.). The Court was unanimous, and those Justices who wrote opinions either directly asserted or strongly suggested that only two forms of taxation were direct: capitations and land taxes. See id., at 175; id., at 177 (opinion of Paterson, J.); id., at 183 (opinion of Iredell, J.).
“That narrow view of what a direct tax [on PROPERTY] might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that “direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation [of DIRECT taxes] to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601, 618, 15 S.Ct. 912, 39 L.Ed. 1108 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 218–219, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920).”
[Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 571 (2012);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12815172896965834886]
“There is consensus on certain basic principles, in addition to the rule that the United States notion of income taxes furnishes the controlling guide. All are agreed that an income tax is a direct tax on gain or profits, and that gain is a necessary ingredient of income. See Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1931); Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521 (1920); Keasbey Mattison Co. v. Rothensies, 133 F.2d. 894, 897 (C.A.3), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 739, 64 S.Ct. 39, 88 L.Ed. 438 (1943). Income, including gross income, must be distinguished from gross receipts which can cover returns of capital. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918); Allstate Ins. Co. v. United States, 419 F.2d. 409, 414, 190 Ct.Cl. 19, 27 (1969); 1 Mertens, Law of Federal Income Taxation, § 5.10 at 35-36 (1969). Only an “income tax”, not a tax which is truly on gross receipts, is creditable.”
[Bank of America Nat. T. S. Ass’n v. U.S., 459 F.2d. 513, 517-18 (Fed. Cir. 1972); https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12199037144535776358]
That last quote above is deceptive: The point of reference in the constitution for whether a tax is direct or indirect is PRIVATE property, not PUBILC property. A “direct tax” refers to PRIVATE property in the constitution, meaning YOUR property. It is inappropriate and deceptive to call a tax on PUBLIC property, such as a tax on PROFIT, a direct tax. It’s an INDIRECT excise tax because the property taxed was CONVERTED to public property by the licensing or election process of the activity SUBJECT to tax. For instance, the minute a “nonresident alien” elects “U.S. person” status, all property connected to the status then becomes PUBLIC property.
2. Contrary to what Thomas Freed claims in the above video, the Sixteenth Amendment didn’t need an enabling clause like Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3 because all it did essentially was EXPAND the definition of Direct taxes to include personal property and remove PROFIT from personal property from the apportionment requirement. The Bank of America Nat. case above mistakenly labels the result a DIRECT tax, but its an INDIRECT tax on profit because they don’t want you to know that “income” from a constitutional perspective STILL means profit and not gross receipts.
3. Also, even BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment, it has ALWAYS been the case that:
- Government is just a business that delivers CIVIL and CRIMINAL protection. CIVIL is optional, CRIMINAL is not.
- You have a right to REFUSE all CIVIL benefits to avoid the tax.
- If you refuse all “benefits” they don’t have a right to charge or tax you for ANYTHING.
- If you don’t have a right to REFUSE “benefits” and the obligations to pay the costs of delivering the benefits, we don’t need a Bill or Rights because at that point, government as a Merchant can charge WHATEVER THE HELL THEY want for their services, meaning that their power of taxation is completely unlimited. It becomes literally a mafia at that point.
4. The modern income tax doesn’t even UTILIZE the Sixteenth Amendment at ALL!
FAQ: You allege that there is NO PROVISION of the I.R.C. that taxes CONSTITUTIONAL/Sixteenth Amendment “income”. How can this be?, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/faq-you-allege-that-there-is-no-provision-of-the-i-r-c-that-taxes-constitutional-sixteenth-amendment-income-how-can-this-be/
Below is how we describe the above in the 1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077:
1. It is my right under principles of equity to reject any and all privileges and benefits in order to preserve my liberty and autonomy.
2. An offer of privileges I am legally unable to refuse or a prior acceptance I can’t revoke is little more than a criminal mafia enterprise and slavery disguised as government benevolence. Alex De Tocqueville called this “soft tyranny”. Remember the Godfather movie?: “An offer you can’t refuse.”
3. “A person is ordinarily not required to pay for benefits which were thrust upon him with no opportunity to refuse them. The fact that he is enriched is not enough, if he cannot avoid the enrichment.” Wade, Restitution for Benefits Conferred Without Request, 19 Vand. L. Rev. at 1198 (1966). [Siskron v. Temel-Peck Enterprises, 26 N.C.App. 387, 390 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975)]
4. “Quilibet potest renunciare juri pro se inducto. Any one may renounce a law [including a CIVIL FRANCHISE statute] introduced for his own benefit.” [Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856]
5. Rules of equity definitely apply to our interactions because:
6. Lawful money is no longer in circulation, and it has been replaced with fiat currency. Equity only applies where lawful money is not involved. Principles of equity and unjust enrichment are frequently used in the enforcement of the tax franchise “codes”, and especially when presenting to juries.
7. If I can’t approach the government as a co-equal, then there is no real law and no legitimate government, because real law is BASED on equality of treatment.
8. Excise taxable franchises such as the I.R.C. Subtitle A create and enforce inequality between the governed and the governors but they do so ONLY by consent of all parties concerned and I do not consent expressly nor do so impliedly by knowingly asking for and receiving any privilege.
[1040NR Attachment, Form #09.077, Section 3, Form 1, Standard IRS Form 8275; https://sedm.org/Forms/09-Procs/1040NR-Attachment.pdf]
On the above list the U.S. Supreme Court has held:
“As was said in Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U.S. 435, 444 (1940), “[t]he simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.”
[Colonial Pipeline Co v Traigle, 421 U.S. 100, 109 (1975);
SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16559630216409245512 ]
The power of taxation, indispensable to the existence of every civilized government, is exercised upon the assumption of an equivalent rendered to the taxpayer in the protection of his person and property, in adding to the value of such property, or in the creation and maintenance of public conveniences in which he shares, such, for instance, as roads, bridges, sidewalks, pavements, and schools for the education of his children. If the taxing power be in no position to render these services, or otherwise to benefit the person or property taxed, and such property be wholly within the taxing power of another State, to which it may be said to owe an allegiance and to which it looks for protection, the taxation of such property within the domicil of the owner partakes rather of the nature of an extortion than a tax, and has been repeatedly held by this court to be beyond the power of the legislature and a taking of property without due process of law. Railroad Company v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; State Tax on Foreign-held Bonds, 15 Wall. 300; Tappan v. Merchants’ National Bank, 19 Wall. 490, 499; Delaware &c. R.R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 198 U.S. 341, 358. In Chicago &c. R.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, it was held, after full consideration, that the taking of private property 203*203 without compensation was a denial of due process within the Fourteenth Amendment. See also Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S. 97, 102; Missouri Pacific Railway v. Nebraska, 164 U.S. 403, 417; Mount Hope Cemetery v. Boston, 158 Massachusetts, 509, 519.
[Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Kentucky, 199 U.S. 194 (1905); SOURCE: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14163786757633929654]
Per the above, the “benefit” or “privilege” you both ASKED for and RECEIVED from the government is the “compensation” required to render the taking through taxation lawful under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause.
More at:
- Journey to the Sixteenth Amendment, FTSIG
https://ftsig.org/history/journey-to-16a-fed-reserve-nnot/ - Taxation Page, Section 13: 16th Amendment, Family Guardian Fellowship
https://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/taxes.htm#16th_AMENDMENT - Truth in Taxation Hearings, Section 6: Sixteenth Amendment
https://truthintaxationhearings.famguardian.org - Sixteenth Amendment Congressional Debates, Exhibit #02.007
https://sedm.org/Exhibits/EX02.007.pdf