Time: Wed Sep 17 04:49:26 1997
by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA05719;
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:41:22 -0700 (MST)
by usr02.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA25698;
Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:39:40 -0700 (MST)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 04:39:29 -0700
To: <pursuitoflife@access1.net>
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Direct and Indirect Taxes: the great misunderstood
Yes, I agree. What we found most interesting
about the case was the fact that Brushaber was
domiciled in New York state (outside the
federal zone), while the UPRR was domiciled
in the Utah territory (inside the federal zone).
For this reason, the subsequent Treasury Decision
2313 referred to those with Brushaber's status,
and domicile, as "nonresident aliens." Remember,
THE GOVERNMENT did this, not activists and
tax resisters. The UPRR was being taxed for
exercising the privilege of limited liability.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
At 10:20 PM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Paul congress was able to tax the dividend because it was not a direct tax
>on the property, but was an indirect tax on income severed from property,
>secured from a privelge correct or incorrect. If it had been from sale of
>appreciation of stock then it would not have been taxable, in Brushaber
>
>Mike
>
>----------
>> From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>> To: pursuitoflife@ACCESS1.NET
>> Subject: SLS: Direct and Indirect Taxes: the great misunderstood
>> Date: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 8:20 PM
>>
>> Dear Mike and others,
>>
>> Chapter 13 from "The Federal Zone" is now an
>> Exhibit in a pleading filed in the case of
>> USA v. Knudson, available in the Supreme Law Libary --
>> at the URL just below my name here. This
>> chapter goes into some detail, to analyze
>> many of the questions you raise here. Many cases
>> have ruled that "income" has the same statutory
>> meaning that it had in the original corporation
>> excise tax. See Eisner v. Macomber, for example..
>>
>> The "income," which was the measure of the tax
>> to which Brushaber objected, was the dividend
>> he was expecting to receive from a "domestic"
>> corporation. Here, Congress can tax profit
>> generation by a domestic corporation, because
>> Congress created that corporation in the first
>> place.
>>
>> However, Congress can only create a corporation
>> in its capacity as a legislature for the federal
>> zone; it cannot create a "national" corporation,
>> because such an exercise would violate the
>> Tenth Amendment -- the several states reserved
>> their Right to create their own "domestic"
>> corporations. So, the key to understanding
>> a major part of this deception is to appreciate
>> the true legal meaning of "domestic"; it does
>> NOT mean "American"; it DOES mean "within the
>> federal zone, where Congress and ONLY Congress,
>> is the State Legislature (because there is no
>> Union state to compete with Congress there)."
>>
>> The Union Pacific Railroad Company is such a
>> corporation. Brushaber was wrong to allege,
>> in his original pleadings, that UPRR was
>> "domestic" to Utah state; Utah was a federal
>> territory at the time the UPRR was first
>> created -- BY ACT OF CONGRESS!! Thus, the
>> 30% tax (on Brushaber's dividend) was actually
>> a tax on the corporate privilege of generating
>> profit with limited liability; the quantity of
>> income being taxed was merely the "measure" of
>> the tax, not the subject of the tax. The "subject"
>> of that tax was the corporate privilege. Congress
>> merely got to it before Brushaber did, because the
>> corporation, a creation of Congress, was the
>> withholding agent made liable by the tax in question..
>>
>> All of this is explained in much greater detail
>> in Chapter 13 of "The Federal Zone," which chapter
>> is now available in the Supreme Law Library..
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://supremelaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>> At 06:51 AM 9/16/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> >The Constitution speaks of two classes of taxes..
>> >
>> >Direct taxes: These are simply taxes placed on a person. Your
>property
>> >tax is placed on you, the property is just the measure of the tax. A so
>> >called income tax is placed on you, the income is just the measure of
>the
>> >tax. Any tax that you pay directly to the government is a direct tax.
>The
>> >money witheld from your pay is sent in by your employer, however he is
>> >acting in the capacity of a tax collector for the goverment so it is
>still
>> >a direct tax..
>> >
>> >
>> >Indirect tax: These are simply taxes placed on a product or it could be
>a
>> >service too. When you buy a radio for example, it might include a
>tariff
>> >charge, an excise, and a sales tax, although you payed all these taxes
>when
>> >you purchased the radio, it is an indirect tax because you are not
>> >responsible for sending the money to the government someone else is.
>> >Indirect taxes can be avoided just don't buy the product. This tax is
>> >charged against some one or an entity other than the real payor of the
>tax..
>> > For example the sales tax, if I sell $1,000.00 of goods, and the tax is
>> >7%, then I owe the government $70.00, but the customers pay it not me.
>> >Thus indirect..
>> >
>> >
>> >Before the passage of the 16th amendment, (which allowed taxation on
>income
>> >without apportionment) we had these two classes of taxes, direct and
>> >indirect. Direct taxes had to be apportioned, did this amendment change
>> >this? If so why did it not say so? Why would the constitution be in
>> >conflict with itself?
>> >
>> >Income has more than one definition. Here are two of them..
>> >
>> >1. Income = profit or gain
>> >2. Income = that which comes in
>> >
>> >Which definition was the sixteenth amendment referring to?
>> >
>> >Placing an income tax on a corporations profit is an indirect tax, as
>the
>> >consumers pay the tax when they purchase the goods..
>> >
>> >Placing an income tax on your wages is a direct tax as you pay it
>directly
>> >to the goverment..
>> >
>> >If you think that the sixteenth amendment gave congress the power to tax
>> >your labor the same as the power to tax corporate profits, then why do
>you
>> >not get to deduct all of those things that go into making up your
>product,
>> >like the corporations do?
>> >
>> >If your product is your labor, the cost of food, clothing, shelter,
>> >transportation, insurance on the car, DMV fees, taxes on your home,
>> >education, etc etc, are all part of the cost neccessary to create your
>> >product, then why don't you get to deduct these cost?
>> >
>> >The corporations do not pay taxes on those expenses neccessary to keep
>it
>> >in existence, they deduct all those cost, why shouldn't you be able to
>do
>> >the same?
>> >
>> >Here is the reason, we have been duped, the sixteenth amendment allowed
>for
>> >the taxation of corporation income without apportionment (not your
>wages),
>> >which is totally consistant with the original taxing clauses of the
>> >Constitution.
>> >
>> >If I am right one of two possibilities exist, one the government is in
>> >violation of the Supreme Law of the land, two no law exist that requires
>us
>> >to pay taxes on our labor, we volunteer the payment..
>> >
>> >I can hear all the replies to this in my head now, some will go, hmmmm,
>> >some will say oh yea try it and you will go to jail, you tax protestor
>you..
>> > If I go to jail for refusing to be a slave, it is a small price to pay,
>> >especially considering the price our founders paid to give us our
>> >Constitution, and it's guarantees. By the way involuntary servitude is
>> >also outlawed in this country by the Constitution..
>> >
>> >The Constitution is like a muscle in your body if you do not exercise
>it,
>> >it will atrophy and that is exactly what has happened to our freedoms.
>Our
>> >founders have given us a shield against tyranny in government, if we do
>not
>> >use it, care for it, it will rust away, until our children, will not
>even
>> >possess it..
>> >
>> >To all of my former associates in slavery, when will you say I will be a
>> >slave no more, how much will the government have to take of your
>production
>> >for you to awaken and say, hey this is slavery?
>> >
>> >Mike
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ========================================================================
>> 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.]
>>
>>
>
>
========================================================================
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