Time: Sun Jul 06 04:07:00 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA21278;
Sun, 6 Jul 1997 03:44:49 -0700 (MST)
by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA09100;
Sun, 6 Jul 1997 03:44:43 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 1997 03:44:37 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: corporate profits are "income"
References: <3.0.3.16.19970705183603.3ea727c4@pop.primenet.com>
Please read Chapter 13 from "The Federal Zone,"
Amendment 16 Post Mortem. Congress was reaching
the corporate profits of the U.P.R.R. BEFORE they
were dispersed as dividends. So, it WAS profit
that Congress was taxing, as a measure of the
tax being imposed on a domestic corporation,
for exercising the privilege of limited liability.
Chapter 13 lays it out in great detail.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://www.supremelaw.com
At 08:48 PM 7/5/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> Furthermore, Frank Brushaber was a Citizen of
>> New York state, but his dividend could be taxed at
>> 30%, because the SOURCE of that dividend was
>> the federal zone, specifically, profit generation
>> by a domestic corporation which had been created
>> in the first instance by Congress. What Congress
>> creates, Congress can destroy. Congress merely
>> took a piece of that dividend before it got to
>> Brushaber, and that "income" tax was upheld as
>> a lawful excise upon the privilege of generating
>> profit from a domestic corporation. See Treasury
>> Decision 2313 for proof.
>
>Objection, see the whole text of the below cite to see how they came upon
>the opinion that a "dividend" is not a "gain" or "profit":
>
> Thus, from every point of view we are brought irresistibly to the
> conclusion that neither under the Sixteenth Amendment nor otherwise
> has Congress power to tax without apportionment a true stock dividend
> made lawfully and in good faith, or the accumulated profits behind it,
> as income of the stockholder. The Revenue Act of 1916, in so far as it
> imposes a tax upon the stockholder because of such dividend,
> contravenes the provisions of article 1, 2, cl. 3, and article 1, 9,
> cl. 4, of the Constitution, and to this extent is invalid,
> notwithstanding the Sixteenth Amendment.
>
>EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>> > Chief Judge Voorhees, in Federal District, North Carolina,
>> >respectfully disagrees.
>[A lot of carefully crafted deception snipped.]
>
>It would actually be fun to go through this and point out the errors in
>just about every line. Too bad I don't have the time. *sigh*
>
<snip>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail