Talk:Income tax/Archive 1

Miscellaneous

The US section of this article really needs to be edited so it doesn't read like "Income taxes went up. Then they went down. Then they went up again." And why does Progressive tax duplicate this section? Pyrop 04:24, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

How were government operations funded prior to the US income tax? Was is solely from tariffs? --NeuronExMachina 23:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Primarily, but not entirely from tariffs; for example, sale of Federal lands were an important source, especially before the Homestead Act. Septentrionalis 23:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"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." Pray tell, someone, what, precisely, is meant by "apportionment among the several States"? Jm546 17:30:29, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

It means that direct taxes must be allocated to each state in proportion to that state's share of the total population of the U.S. In other words, the ratio of taxes paid from each state to the total taxes paid in the United States must be equal to the ratio of that's state's population to the total population of the United States. It's actually even more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea. — Mateo SA | talk 18:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC); 18:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted section on Ohio conspiracy theory

Removed from article ... note was vandalized as well.

Some challenge the constitutionality of US Income Tax, on the basis that Ohio was not officially a state at the time when it voted to ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, thus invalidating the amendment. Some think that by this argument, however, the presidency was illegally occupied by Ulysses Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley, Warren Harding, and William Howard Taft as they would not have been natural born citizens. However, since they were still born in US territories, they were in fact, at the time, US citizens. dml 21:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that it is at least worth mentioning that this is an argument that some people launch against income taxes, even if we do think its a bit nutty. posiduck

Maybe a new article on Income tax conspiracy theories ? which I don't want to write, but someone perhaps should, there is a whole industry on why the 16th amendment is "unconstitutional" . dml 23:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I just think we should keep the article NPOV, is all posiduck

More detail at [1]. I don't think NPOV demands elaborating on every thoroughly-discredited nutty theory ever put forward. —Stormie 00:54, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that, I guess I just meant, that, being as it is such a popular discredited theory, we might at least mention its existence. Posiduck 02:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Income Tax

I couldn't resist. READ the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. It does not state that Congress shall lay taxes on income. Such a law would be unconstitutional as you cannot tax labor!!!! We have been lied to! Go ask anyone in the IRS, Congress, a lawyer, etc. to show you the law that shows you are liable to pay income taxes. They can't because there is no such thing. It's time to wake up! Unless you like giving money away!

Breezy 2/4/05

A tax on income is not a tax on labour. Historically, income tax literally was a tax on income - you did not have to be entitled to the income to be taxed on it. So if I received interest as your agent, before passing it on to you, I'd have to pay the tax. Now it's a tax on an individual (or trustees or personal representatives or certain corporations) calculated by reference to their income.

Also note that an income tax does not just tax earned income, but also unearned income such as interest, dividends, life insurance policy receipts and rental income.

I also strongly suggest you do pay your taxes. The IRS website has some FAQs roundly rejecting your theory that the tax is unconstitutional. The Courts are likely to give you very short shrift - and some penalties, maybe even a stint in the fed pen if you take it too far:) jguk 09:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the infamous Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. did not invalidate the income tax on wages. It only invalidated sections 28-37, which taxed unearned income. Thus, the XVI Amendment is not needed to tax Joe Sixpack's pay.

Also, the claim that the income tax is a direct tax is either POV or bad scholarship. I won't edit this point without being able to cite sources in detail, but when I last argued this on Usenet in 1985, I found two Supreme Court decisions containing dicta to the effect that the Farmer's case was badly reasoned, and would probably be reversed if reheard on the basis that the tax is an excise on income, provided only that the basis of assets is never taxed. Robert A West 22:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the link to Tax protester should be included at the lower portion of the article. This information is related to the Income Tax subject, but does not need to be included in the article. Steven Kippel 15:39, 20 September 2005

Net income

I am not sure what this part of the article is supposed to mean:

"An income tax is a tax on net income, which is the difference between gross receipts and expenses."

If you make $2 million, you can't just spend it all and tell the government you don't have any net income, so you owe them nothing.

Please clarify...

69.19.2.225 11:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The expenses are those directly attributable to earning those gross receipts. Indeed, the word "income" itself implies that it is net of direct expenses, jguk 12:40, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Changes (US Section)

I would like to remove the section about legal arguments against taxation to another page. It's very long winded and largely irrelevent since US courts do not recognize such arguemnts as valid. I would also like to replace the history of top tax rates with median tax rates as that would be more repesetative of the Tax burden in the US. 198.112.236.6 15:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Saudi Arabia has taxes on incomes. There are probably some other countries besides those shown here also.

Deleted links

I deleted the following links from the section on Swedish income taxes:

They may have been used as sources for that section, but as they were listed they were excessive detail. I'm leaving them here in case someone wants to look over the Swedish section and find a better location for the links (if necessary). Mateo SA | talk 01:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Income tax/Archive 1/Removed text

Lucas v. Earl

Note that this case, which an anon attempted to cite for the proposition that only "profits" not wages could be taxed, actully says the opposite. See significant quote above and full dicision at this site. DES ^(talk) 00:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One should also note that the text he pasted in was copied from another web site (e.g., this one—though it appears in places all over the web). Specifically, it's some tax protester's misrepresentation of the Lucas v. Earle case—hardly a valid citation and likely a copyright violation. — Mateo SA | talk 01:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One should also note link used by DES does not show entire case and only uses out of context.

Also, the text posted is available cases in public info, just like original poster. These are the tax honesty laws, supreme court rulings and constitution. If you don't agree with the constitution, and supreme court rulings, then you should be posting in Tax Protester area. There is no copyright violation and all sources are cited. 216.27.181.235 03:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB[reply]

User:216.27.181.235 in this edit and many similer edits, has inserted the text "The Supreme Court ruled that wages and compensation for personal services were not to be taxed in their entirety, but instead, the gain or profit derived indirectly from them." He has preceeded this with the citation of Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, and followed it with a citation to Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Company, 295 U.S. 330. The quote appears in neither case, and its actual source is not given. Lucas vs earl, as mentioned above, was a case which upheld taxation of gross wages, and so completely opposes the statemetn made. RRB v. Alton (see the full text of decision) was a case chaallangign the constitutionality of the "Railroad Pension Act" a New deal program which was an earlier version of the "Railroad Retirement Act" which was itself a precursor to the Social Security system. It had nothing to do with income taxes, and the arguments were entirely about the allegedly improper burderns on the railroads, that is the employers. RRB v. Alton held the Pension Act unconstituional, by 5-4. The Congress passed a revised version of the act, which was upheld in Railroad Retirement Board V. Duquesne Warehouse Co., 326 U.S. 446 (1946) (see the full decision. According to this site "Under subsequent legislation, an excise is levied on interstate carriers and their employees, while by separate but parallel legislation a fund is created in the Treasury out of which pensions are paid along the lines of the original plan. The constitutionality of this scheme appears to be taken for granted in Railroad Retirement Board v. Duquesne Warehouse Co.". In United States V. Lopez (1995) (case No. 93-1260) The U. S. Supreme Court said:

In addressing New Deal legislation the Court resuscitated the abandoned abstract distinction between direct and indirect effects on interstate commerce. See Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 309 (1936) (Act regulating price of coal and wages and hours for miners held to have only "secondary and indirect" effect on interstate commerce); Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 368 (1935) (compulsory retirement and pension plan for railroad carrier employees too "remote from any regulation of commerce as such"); A. L. A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 548 (1935) (wage and hour law provision of National Industrial Recovery Act had "no direct relation to interstate commerce").

and

The only question is whether the legislative judgment is within the realm of reason. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S., at 276 -277; Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S., at 303 -304; Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton R. Co., 295 U.S. 330, 391-392 (1935) (Hughes, C. J., dissenting);...

thus endorsing the dissent in Alton. In any case Alton had nothing to do with income tax.

The text that the anon user has repeatedly inserted seems to come from this site, a "tax protester" site, or perhaps more likely from this tax protestor site, where the citation to Alton seems to be part of the next paragraph. In either case the conclusion is not a quote from a court case, and is improper without the source being properly cited, and at least arguably a copyright violation. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas v. Earl continued: The mysterious quote that isn't there

Here is the answer to the mystery about the "quote" from Lucas v. Earl at the Irwin Schiff web site at http://irwinschiff.homestead.com

The quote on the Schiff web site, which is falsely attributed to the Court itself, is as follows:

"The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation [sic] for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

This is not from the Court’s opinion in Lucas v. Earl. It is an almost direct quote from page 17 of the Respondent’s brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the government's petition for a writ of certiorari. Guy C. Earl, the taxpayer, was the Respondent. The brief was written by Earl’s attorneys: Warren Olney, Jr., J.M. Mannon, Jr., and Henry D. Costigan. In some versions of the case as reported, this statement and other quotes and paraphrases from pages 8, 10, 14, 15, 17, and 18 of the Respondent’s brief are re-printed as a headnote ABOVE the opinion of the Court itself by Justice Holmes. In the case reprints that include this headnote (and many of them don't even show it), these excerpts are not clearly identified as being from the brief, so a non-lawyer could easily miss the point that this verbiage, like any headnote or syllabus, is not part of the Court’s opinion. As every tax lawyer knows, Mr. Earl lost the case.

Oh well, here's the score: Tax law 99,999, tax protesters zero. Famspear 22:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, as usual. Have you seen Joe Bannisters case? And also, that doesn't mean the misapplied tax protestors are wrong. You have a corrupt justice system and it will be held accountable.BB69 ^Talk 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Editor's note: No, correct as usual! The case of Joe Bannister (or Banister) was a criminal tax case. The defendant was acquitted of certain Federal criminal tax charges. The court in the Banister case did not rule that the Federal income tax laws are invalid. The court also did not rule that wages are not taxable, etc., etc. In criminal tax cases, as in murder cases, some defendants are convicted and others are acquitted. The mere fact that someone is acquitted of a charge of murder does not mean that the court ruled the murder statute to be invalid. Murder is still against the law. Yours, Famspear 16:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize the Assignment of Income Doctrine: Mr. Earl was arguing that because he and his wife, in the year 1901, had made a legally valid agreement (for state law purposes) to have his then-current and after-acquired income earned by him be the income of both him and his wife as joint tenants with right of survivorship, the agreement should determine the Federal income tax effect of the income he himself earned. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that argument, essentially ruling that under Federal income tax law all the income he earned was taxable to him as he earned it, regardless of the validity of the agreement under state law. As usual, the tax protesters who cite this case for the proposition that wages are not taxable are so far out in left field they not only can't see home plate, they can't see the ball park. Famspear 23:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as usual, the missapplied tax protestors are correct and the Supreme Court is wrong. Another one for corrupt "justice" systems. Anyone say Mafia?BB69 ^Talk 17:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

For corn's sake, BB69, listen to yourself talk - "as usual, the missapplied tax protestors are correct and the Supreme Court is wrong". Well, the Supreme Court is the body constitutionally empowered to interpret the Constitution and laws, not the "missapplied tax protestors", so I'm going to go with the Court on this one. Also, Congress - which has the power to pass these laws - has not passed any clarifications or done anything to suggest that the Court has got it wrong; and the President, who ultimately oversees the IRS and is constitutionally bound to enforce the Constitution and laws, has gone ahead and collected those taxes. So perhaps there is indeed a conspiracy - a conspiracy by the majority of the population in this democratic society to impose a tax on the wages earned by the whole of the population, in order to pay for the roads, the parks, the border patrol, the War in Iraq, subsidies for oil companies, and whatever else our elected representatives choose to throw our money at. If you want to get out of the clutches of this conspiracy, you can always renounce your citizenship in this "corrupt" country and move to Tonga. bd2412 T 17:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we leave corn out of it BD2412? Yes, listen to me talk. The Supreme Court is not above the Constitution. I'll go with the Constitution on this one. Have you ever thought that Congress has something to gain from not overturning the Justices that they have elected? I mean really, I would like to see you out of your sheepish stance for once and take a look at what The Constitution says about direct taxes and tell me what you think that really means. The marjority of the population in this democratic soceity do not impose on their wages earned. They go along with whatever is told to them, not remembering that the constitution says that isn't supposed to happen and that an excise tax is collected to pay for the roads, etc. I intend to get out of the clutches of this conspiracy by making them adhere to the law as it is. The law is fine as is, it is just being misapplied. If you would like to be taxed illegally and give up your wages, feel free to, but do not push your beliefs on others who like to keep their constitutional right to keep their monies. BB69 ^Talk 05:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Corporation Tax Act

Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court described income as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor, or from both combined, inclusive of the profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets not ON capital from labor. (emphasis added)206.111.181.109 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB[reply]

RfC responses

The article should state the fact that the U.S. income tax has been challenged as unconstitutional, and should state the fact that the courts have rejected these challenges. It would also be reasonable for this article to mention briefly that, despite the court decisions and IRS practices, some people continue to argue against the tax, and that some of them have received fines and prison sentences for their role in inducing other people to fail to pay their taxes. Any detailed elaboration of the legal history and arguments should go into a daughter article specifically about the U.S. income tax. JamesMLane 18:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree wholeheartedly. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then would one of you actually do it? I've been trying and trying on this article. I've responded to the tax protester's edits by correcting them and providing support. I've continually expanded that section to explain how his ideas are inaccurate. But he continues to insert his POV, and no one does anything about. I'm not going to edit income tax for a while because I might be accused of "imposing my will" by saying that the income tax exists in the U.S. Could either of you—who have not reached any revert limit—correct his edits and give the explanation you describe? Could somebody do something? — Mateo SA | talk 19:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, see "Objections to the tax". DES ^(talk) 23:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state the fact that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional as applied but not in general, and state the fact that the courts have rejected the law and constitution illegally. Right now, the article states the fact that the Supreme Court has defined income as profit or gain but still rule against it illegally. In addition, it should also mention that many people do not pay income taxes because it is voluntary and they do not pay fines or go to prison for their role in helping other people understand what taxes they must pay and which are voluntary. I believe some detailed elaboration of the legal history and arguments are in this daughter article in the talk/discuss page.

Also, no arguments have come forth to prove the facts that I have stated and posted as incorrect, so they do not belong in the article until then. Anything contrary to the constitution and law are PoV. BB69 20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I concur. BB69's arguments are not proven. For that matter, they are neither made nor sourced. A paragraph describing this PoV, with sources properly characterized should be included in the article however. Septentrionalis 23:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. BB69's arguments are all proven. They are both made and sourced. All paragraphs of fact have been sourced. However, what isn't clear is comments made against BB69's point that are properly sourced. I can see from nowhere that anyone else disproves his point.BB69 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I think a compromise is appropriate here. Both of the versions I saw (one essentially pro-tax protester, one anti) were POV. Certainly, tax protesters could be mentioned here (although they really don't have to be), but ought to be characterized merely (and neutrally) as a minority view rather than as lunatics or con artists. IronDuke 00:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look in the history for the veraion I inserted. i think it is a reasonable compromise -- it doesn't call tax protestors con-artists, but does say that the courts consistatly ahve not upheld their veiws, which is vertifiable fact. DES ^(talk) 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is my text for the "objectiosn to the tax" section:
- "There have long been objections to the tax on the ground that Congress did not have the power to pass it, or that the Sixteenth Amendment was not valid, or that "income" did not include wages, or that since the tax system is often described as voluntary (in the sense of self-reporting) it was not mandatory, and on various other grounds. Early in the history of the tax there was some inconsistancy in court rulings on exactly what constituted "income", particularly the income of a corporation or buisness. But the courts have long settled these questions, and clearly and consistantly enforce the tax laws as written by Congress and the tax regualations promalgatued by the IRS. That wages are included in income has been the consistant ruling of all federal courts. And people who file returns claiming to owe no tax or very little tax while citing one of these arguemnts can be and often are assesed penalties for filing "frivilous" returns, which have in some cases been as high as $25,000. The tax protestors argue that the courts are acting illegally nd unconstitutionaly. Be that as it may, they have been consistant in how they act on this issue."

I read your paragraph and I would like to suggest some changes to this part:

"...But the courts have not settled these questions, and clearly and consistantly do not enforce the tax laws as written by Congress and the tax regualations promalgatued by the IRS. That wages are included in income has not been the consistant ruling of all federal courts. And people who file returns claiming to owe no tax or very little tax while citing one of these arguemnts can be and often are assesed penalties for filing "frivilous" returns, which have in some cases been as high as $25,000. The penalties are questionable based on the law and many non-filers do not pay these penalties and are ok. The tax honesty movement argue that the courts are acting illegally nd unconstitutionaly. Be that as it may, they have been inconsistant in how they act on this issue." Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Income_tax"

These findings are based on the constitution, 16th Amendment, Supreme courts and Internal Revenue Codebook.

This article should also list laws, not only opinions and interpretations by the courts.

The laws are as such:

Constitution:

1. The powers of Congress, and the limitations set upon those powers, are set forth in Article I of the United States Constitution. Section 8 specifies both the power to collect, "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises," and the requirement that, "Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." If the income tax is not uniform they are illegal.

2. However, the Constitution specifically limited Congress' ability to impose direct taxes, by requiring it to distribute direct taxes in proportion to each state's census population. It was thought that head taxes and property taxes (slaves could be taxed as either or both) were likely to be abused, and that they bore no relation to the activities in which the federal government had a legitimate interest. The fourth clause of section 9 therefore specifies that, "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Again, it has to be in proportion to the Census or enumeration, or else it isn't legal, which the income tax is being taken as right now.

3.Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 states "...direct taxes shall be apportioned..." which they are not being apportioned right now, so it is unconsitutional.

4. The 16th Amendment did not give Congress any more taxing powers than it already had, which it could not tax directly, it was talkin about corporate profits and gains and here is proof:

The 16th Amendment Purpose and Intent

"It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power." Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170; 46 S.Ct. 449 (1926)

Legislative Intent of the 16th Amendment According to President William H. Taft Whenever there are controversies over the interpretation of a statute or a Constitutional provision, the first thing that courts of justice will resort to is the plain language of the law itself. If the language is unclear or subject to multiple interpretations, the courts will then examine the legislative intent revealed by those who wrote the law. The most revealing way to determine the legislative intent of any law is to examine the Congressional debates preceeding its enactment. All changes to the law that were proposed during debate and rejected must then be rejected as not being consistent with the intent of the proposed law. The first thing we must look at to discern the intent of the Sixteenth Amendment is the proposal of the President himself. The following speech was given in front of the U.S. Senate by President William H. Taft, in which he introduced the 16th Amendment and clearly revealed its legislative intent. It is very revealing, in that it shows that the intent was to allow the government to tax only its own employees but not private citizens. President Taft would also later be appointed to the Supreme Court in 1921 as the Chief Justice, and eventually became the only U.S. President who ever served as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and a Collector of Internal Revenue. He replaced E.B. White as the Chief Justice, who you may recall was the person who opposed the majority view in the Pollock Case that declared income taxes unconstitutional.

White wanted to make direct taxes legal, and apparently, so did Taft. No other U.S. President, therefore, had a better understanding of the legal implications of the proposed 16th Amendment than did Taft.

Adapted from the book Constitutional Income, Do You Have Any?, by Phil Hart, 2001, ISBN 0-9711880-0-9; Alpine Press, 1324 N. Liberty Lake Road, PMB 145; Liberty Lake, Washington 99019. See especially pp. 197-203.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE - JUNE 16, 1909 [From Pages 3344 – 3345] The Secretary read as follows: To the Senate and House of Representatives:

It is the constitutional duty of the President from time to time to recommend to the consideration of Congress such measures, as he shall judge necessary and expedient. In my inaugural address,immediately preceding this present extraordinary session of Congress, I invited attention to the necessity for a revision of the tariff at this session, and stated the principles upon which I thought the revision should be affected. I referred to the then rapidly increasing deficit and pointed out the obligation on the part of the framers of the tariff bill to arrange the duty so as to secure an adequate income, and suggested that if it was not possible to do so by import duties, new kinds of taxation must be adopted, and among them I recommended a graduated inheritance tax as correct in principle and as certain and easy of collection.

The House of Representatives has adopted the suggestion, and has provided in the bill it passed for the collection of such a tax. In the Senate the action of its Finance Committee and the course of the debate indicate that it may not agree to this provision, and it is now proposed to make up the deficit by the imposition of a general income tax, in form and substance of almost exactly the same character as, that which in the case of Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust Company (157 U.S., 429) was held by the Supreme Court to be a direct tax, and therefore not within the power of the Federal Government to Impose unless apportioned among the several States according to population. [Emphasis added] This new proposal, which I did not discuss in my inaugural address or in my message at the opening of the present session, makes it appropriate for me to submit to the Congress certain additional recommendations. Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency. The decision of the Supreme Court in the income-tax cases deprived the National Government of a power which, by reason of previous decisions of the court, it was generally supposed that government had. It is undoubtedly a power the National Government ought to have. It might be indispensable to the Nation’s life in great crises. Although I have not considered a constitutional amendment as necessary to the exercise of certain phases of this power, a mature consideration has satisfied me that an amendment is the only proper course for its establishment to its full extent. I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.

This course is much to be preferred to the one proposed of reenacting a law once judicially declared to be unconstitutional. For the Congress to assume that the court will reverse itself, and to enact legislation on such an assumption, will not strengthen popular confidence in the stability of judicial construction of the Constitution. It is much wiser policy to accept the decision and remedy the defect by amendment in due and regular course. Again, it is clear that by the enactment of the proposed law the Congress will not be bringing money into the Treasury to meet the present deficiency, but by putting on the statute book a law already there and never repealed will simply be suggesting to the executive officers of the Government their possible duty to invoke litigation.

If the court should maintain its former view, no tax would be collected at all. If it should ultimately reverse itself, still no taxes would have been collected until after protracted delay. It is said the difficulty and delay in securing the approval of three- fourths of the States will destroy all chance of adopting the amendment. Of course, no one can speak with certainty upon this point, but I have become convinced that a great majority of the people of this country are in favor of investing the National Government with power to levy an income tax, and that they will secure the adoption of the amendment in the States, if proposed to them.

Second, the decision in the Pollock case left power in the National Government to levy an excise tax, which accomplishes the same purpose as a corporation income tax and is free from certain objections urged to the proposed income tax measure. I therefore recommend an amendment to the tariff bill Imposing upon all corporations and joint stock companies for profit, except national banks (otherwise taxed), savings banks, and building and loan associations, an excise tax measured by 2 per cent on the net income of such corporations. This is an excise tax upon the privilege of doing business as an artificial entity and of freedom from a general partnership liability enjoyed by those who own the stock. [Emphasis added] I am informed that a 2 per cent tax of this character would bring into the Treasury of the United States not less than $25,000,000.

The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Spreckels Sugar Refining Company against McClain (192 U.S., 397), seems clearly to establish the principle that such a tax as this is an excise tax upon privilege and not a direct tax on property, and is within the federal power without apportionment according to population. The tax on net income is preferable to one proportionate to a percentage of the gross receipts, because it is a tax upon success and not failure. It imposes a burden at the source of the income at a time when the corporation is well able to pay and when collection is easy.

Another merit of this tax is the federal supervision, which must be exercised in order to make the law effective over the annual accounts and business transactions of all corporations. While the faculty of assuming a corporate form has been of the utmost utility in the business world, it is also true that substantially all of the abuses and all of the evils which have aroused the public to the necessity of reform were made possible by the use of this very faculty. If now, by a perfectly legitimate and effective system of taxation, we are incidentally able to possess the Government and the stockholders and the public of the knowledge of the real business transactions and the gains and profits of every corporation in the country, we have made a long step toward that supervisory control of corporations which may prevent a further abuse of power.

I recommend, then, first, the adoption of a joint resolution by two-thirds of both Houses, proposing to the States an amendment to the Constitution granting to the Federal Government the right to levy and collect an income tax without apportionment among the several States according to population; and, second, the enactment, as part of the pending revenue measure, either as a substitute for, or in addition to, the inheritance tax, of an excise tax upon all corporations, measured by 2 percent of their net income.

Wm. H. Taft

So what the President proposed was an excise tax on the government itself, and nothing more. This is important. You can view the original version of Taft’s speech above along with the complete Congressional Debates on the Sixteenth Amendment at the following link below

Taft's Original Speech and Congressional Debates on the 16th

After we look at what our President proposed, the next thing we must look at to discern legislative intent are the Congressional debates on the Sixteenth Amendment in 1909. Three different written versions of the Sixteenth Amendment were proposed before the one we have now was approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Below is a summary of each in written form: Versions of Proposed Sixteenth Amendment Prior to Approval

Version Text of proposed Amendment Vote on proposed amendment

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 25 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes and inheritances."

Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 39"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect direct [emphasis mine] taxes on incomes without apportionment among the several States according to population." [44 Cong.Rec. 3377 (1909)]

Rejected

Senate Joint Resolution (S.J.R.) No. 40"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."

Approved

This is the version of the Sixteenth Amendment we have now. Approved (purportedly) 77 to 15 on July 5, 1909. (See Bill Benson and Red Beckman's incredible research on this fraud at the link below)

The Law That Never Was

The first two, obviously, were voted down, but what were they? Both versions that were voted down included proposals to levy a direct tax on the states without apportionment and one of them proposed to eliminate the apportionment requirements found in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution! Senator Brown from Nebraska wrote all three versions of the Sixteenth Amendment that were voted on by Congress, which included S.J.R. No. 25, S.J.R. No. 39, and S.J.R. No. 40, in that order. S.J.R. No. 40 was the one finally approved. The Senate voted in favor of the 16th Amendment we have now (S.J.R. No. 40) at 1 o’clock on July 5, 1909. Senator Aldrich had earlier tried to ram it through the Senate on Saturday, July 3rd, a holiday weekend, for an immediate vote without debate when only 52 senators were present. A few senators protested and the vote was set for the following Monday. As a 1result of the minimal debate that did take place on July 3rd, several amendments were proposed to S.J.R. No. 40 that came up for a vote at the appointed hour of 1 P.M. Monday, July 5th. 15 The first of these was an amendment to S.J.R. No. 40, proposed as S.J.R. No. 25 by Senator Bailey of Texas to provide that conventions of each of the several States be required to ratify the constitutional amendment as opposed to the state legislatures. This was voted down. Next was the second amendment to the proposed Sixteenth Amendment in the form of S.J.R. No. 39. This amendment by Bailey to add the language "and may grade the same" to modify the term "income tax" as a way to provide that the tax may be graduated. Bailey proposed this language on Saturday, July 3rd. By Monday, July 5th, when this came up for a vote, Bailey realized it would fail and tried to have it withdrawn. Bailey wanted it withdrawn because, according to Bailey:

"Mr. President, I am satisfied that this amendment will be voted down; and voting it down would warrant the Supreme Court in hereafter saying that a proposition to authorize Congress to levy a graduated income tax was rejected." [44 Cong.Rec. 4120 (1920)] 25

In other words, Senator Bailey understood that once Congress rejected a particular provision while amending the Constitution, Congress would be forever barred from implementing that provision by way of statute in the future. This legal principle applies to all legislation, even to income taxes. It is also why the Framers had the Constitution mandate that Congress keep a journal. Bailey was told by the Senate’s Vice President that he could not withdraw the amendment and that it must be voted on. The rules required it. Senator Aldrich intervened and somehow the rules were suspended and the amendment was withdrawn without a vote.

Next was an amendment by Senator McLaurin of Mississippi. His proposed amendment to S.J.R. No. 40 was as follows:

"The SECRETARY. Amend the joint resolution by striking out all after line 7 and inserting the following: ‘The words ‘and direct taxes’ in clause 3, section 2, Article I, and the words "or other direct,’ in clause 4, section 9, Article I. Of the Constitution of the United States are hereby stricken out." [44 Cong.Rec. 4109 (1909)] 3

Senator McLaurin’s amendment would have stricken out the requirement for apportionment of direct taxes from Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 and Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution and made the income tax into an unapportioned direct tax! The Senate rejected this, as this amendment failed by voice vote. Had this amendment passed, it would have provided authority for a species of income tax that was inherently a direct tax to be levied without apportionment, and it would have changed the original wording of the Constitution to forever do away with the prohibition against direct taxes. Lastly, there was an amendment by Senator Bristow of Kansas to replace S.J.R. No. 40 with S.J.R. No. 39. S.J.R. No. 39 read:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect direct [emphasis mine] taxes on income without apportionment among the several States according to population."

This substitute amendment also included a provision to elect senators by popular vote. After some debate this was also rejected by voice vote.

Next, S.J.R. No. 40, the version of the Sixteenth Amendment that we have now, was voted on and passed 77 to 15. So what can we conclude from all of this? Well, first of all we can conclude that the Senate understood it was the practice of the Supreme Court at the proceedings of Congress to see what the intent of the Congress was. If Congress voted on a measure and rejected it, then the Supreme Court would interpret that vote as a clarification of the intent and purpose of Congress. Here is how Sutherland’s rules on statutory construction explains it:

"One of the most readily available extrinsic aids to the interpretation of statutes is the action of the legislature on amendments which are proposed to be made during the course of consideration in the legislature. Both the state and federal courts will refer to proposed changes in a bill in order to interpret the statute as finally enacted. The journals of the legislature are the usual source for this information. Generally the rejection of an amendment indicates that the legislature does not intend the bill to include the provisions embodied in the rejected amendment." [Sutherland on Statutory Construction, sec. 48.18 (5th Edition)]

We also learned that twice the Senate was offered the opportunity to vote on a measure to provide that the income tax being considered by the 16th Amendment would provide for a direct tax within the constitutional meaning of the term "direct tax." Twice in the hour or so prior to the final Senate vote on the income tax amendment, the Senate rejected the opportunity to bring direct taxes within the scope of the 16th Amendment. This issue was squarely before the Congress, and Congress rejected it.

"It is plain, then, that Congress had this question presented to its attention in a most precise form. It has the issue clearly drawn. The first alternative was rejected. All difficulties of construction vanish if we are willing to give to the words, deliberately adopted, their natural meaning." U.S. v. Pfitsch, 256 U.S.

"When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of the Congress." [Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)]

Now of these two opportunities to include direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the second of the two also included a provision on the election of Senators by popular vote. But the same issue of the election of Senators was later approved by the Senate and sent out to the several States as the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. This Amendment was purportedly ratified and is now part of our Constitution. Therefore, the reason the second Bristow amendment failed was due to the term "direct taxes" and not because of the election of senators issue.

It can’t be any more clear. The 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on incomes, but only authority for an indirect tax on incomes. A direct tax on incomes is a tax that diminishes the source of the income. An indirect tax on income is a tax on unearned income or profit; such a tax leaves the source of the income undiminished. Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39), Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate. Despite this congressional hostility to the idea, the IRS and the lower courts admit they are collecting a direct tax. At a minimum this is scandalous. In reality it is probably criminal.

"Acts of Congress are to be construed and applied in Harmony with and not to thwart the purpose of the Constitution." [Phelps v. U.S., 274 U.S. 341, 344 (1927)] "Courts should construe laws in Harmony with the legislative intent and seek to carry out legislative purpose. With respect to the tax provisions under consideration, there is no uncertainty as to the legislative purpose to tax post-1913 corporate earnings. We must not give effect to any contrivance which would defeat a tax Congress plainly intended to impose." [Foster v. U.S., 303 U.S. 118, 120-1 (1938)]

Today the government’s story is that the 16th Amendment provides authority for an unapportioned direct tax. But in 1916 the Attorney General of the United States’ office understood this differently. In the case of Peck & Co. v. Lowe the attorney general for the United States stated:

"It is, however, equally clear that a general income tax is an excise tax laid upon persons or corporations with respect to their income: that is, a person or a corporation is selected out from the mass of the community by reason of the income possessed by him or it...

"This is brought out clearly by this court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103. In the former case it was pointed out that the all- embracing power of taxation conferred upon Congress by the Constitution included two great classes, one indirect taxes or excises, and the other direct taxes, and that of apportionment with regard to direct taxes. It was held that the income tax in its nature is an excise; that is, it is a tax upon a person measured by his income...It was further held that the effect of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to change the nature of this tax or to take it out of the class of excises to which it belonged, but merely to make it impossible by any sort of reasoning thereafter to treat it as a direct tax because of the sources from which the income was derived." [Brief for the United States at 14-15 in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1917). Not in the ruling itself]

This argument by the United States was in response to the question put to the court by Peck & Co. as to whether the 16th Amendment created any new taxing power.

"The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution has not enlarged the taxing power of Congress or affected the prohibition against its burdening exports." [Brief for the Appellant at 11, Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1917)]

Had the 16th Amendment provided for an unapportioned direct tax this would have been an enlargement of the taxing power of Congress. At least on the issue of whether there was an exemption to the apportionment rule for direct taxes, all parties to the Peck & Co. v. Lowe Case agreed there wasn’t. The issue of the case dealt with the taxation of export, not direct taxes. The Supreme Court ruled in Stanton v. Baltic Mining that there was no enlargement to the taxation authority of Congress by the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. Therefore it is settled; the 16th Amendment did not grant to Congress an exception to the apportionment rule for direct taxes required by the Constitution.

Just as the intent of the Congress should be followed when constructing a statute, so must the intent of the People, in their sovereign capacity, be followed when construing an amendment to the Constitution.

The construction of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution absolutely proves our argument. It was necessary for the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th Amendment before the 21st Amendment could have any effect. Both Amendments related to "intoxicating liquors." The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation or importation and use of them. Section 1 of the 21st Amendment reads "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed." The 21st Amendment would not have been in Harmony with the totality of the Constitution unless the 18th Amendment was first repealed. Similarly, had it been the intention of Congress to offer to the people an income tax amendment which would give Congress the power to impose a direct tax on the source of income without apportionment, the 16th Amendment would have provided for such power only by modifying the direct taxing clauses of the Constitution found at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. The 16th Amendment did not do this. Section 2 of the 18th Amendment included an enforcement clause which read "The Congress and the several States shall have the concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." The 21st Amendment did not include such an enforcement clause as the 21st Amendment was not conveying a new power to Congress, but in fact was adding a limitation on the power of Congress.

Nor does the 16th Amendment have an enforcement clause, as it does not convey a new power to Congress, but only clarifies a theory of taxation. That theory was the basis for the Pollock Decision. The Pollock Decision was overturned by the 16th Amendment. Congress did not modify the direct taxation clauses of the Constitution by the construction of the 16th Amendment.

Therefore, the 16th Amendment does not provide authority for a direct tax on sources of income which enjoy constitutional protection. (Some sources of income do not enjoy constitutional protection, like income derived from sources without (outside) the several States of the Union.) Therefore, there is no authority for Congress to tax one of the several States of the Union, unless that tax is apportioned.

Sources quoted in subject matter and also contributed by IMF Decoder.

For one, if you can not cite somewhere in the constitution that it is ok to to have direct taxes unapportioned, it is just an opinion and that goes for the Courts as well.

Supreme Court has ruled:

Corporation Tax Act of 1909, the Court described income as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor, or from both combined, inclusive of the profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets not ON capital from labor. (emphasis added)206.111.181.109 19:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)BB[reply]

Internal Revenue Code Book:

Section 1 of the IRC is the only part that refers to Income Taxes. There is no section that describes an income tax liability to pay or file unlike other sections of the IRC for Tobacco, Alcohol and Firearms that give a penalty, say "liability" to file and pay if you sell these types of things.

Two, if you can not cite a part of the IRC under Section 1 that says "liable to pay/file income taxes and have it define income not by saying "income is income" then it is just an opinion or point of view.

I understand that Wikipedia wants have pro and con on the article, so I'm fine with anyone wanting to post under a seperate heading "Argument to Law" but I would like to suggest the paragraph I have edited above to go into the article. If no one can challenge the information by constitution or IRC then it should go in by default and arguments can be listed under a seperate heading. bb69 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

The problem here is evident from your use of the term "findings". That's an accurate characterization of what you've written -- it's what you've concluded is the correct POV. Presenting it as you've suggested, however would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Your view can be reported as one opinion, if attributed to a prominent spokesperson. Yes, court rulings are "opinions", too, but they're also worth reporting (and worth identifying as court rulings, not just as another opinion) because they affect people's lives. I agree with you that we shouldn't state or imply that any ruling is correct. We also shouldn't state or imply that it's incorrect, or even inconsistent. You would have Wikipedia take a position on the issue with your proposed language, "But the courts have not settled these questions, and clearly and consistantly do not enforce the tax laws as written by Congress and the tax regualations promalgatued by the IRS."

It's not what I've concluded. It's what the Constitution and Supreme court conclude, and what the IRC doesn't show. That isn't a PoV and neither violates WP:NPOV or WP:NOR as WP admins have determined. When I say "I think" that is a PoV. When I cite sources and references, that is fact. If you reject the Supreme court rulings, I would have you look at what the constitution says, as I have posted here and what the IRC doesn't say to make your determination. That's why I think it is fair for Wikipedia to take a position on the issue. Clearly, they cannot cite from the sources I have listed. That being the case, by default, the source should stand. --bb69 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

The statement that the income tax as applied is unconstitutional is opinion, not fact. I personally believe it to be constitutional but that's also an opinion, not fact. The facts are that certain issues have been raised and litigated, that the courts have made certain rulings, and that certain arguments have been advanced pro and con. JamesMLane 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If that statement is opinion, then cite the source. I have already posted the laws. Regardless of Supreme Court rulings, the Constitution is still in tact and the IRC still doesn't show a liability.--bb69 19:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Tax Honesty Movement addition/edit

Since there have been no challenges, I have updated the section on the article and marked it Tax Honesty Movement. Please do not remove or edit the article until we have discussed it on the discussion page first. Thank youbb69 17:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

The tax protester position is very marginal. Although it is worth mentioning, it is not worth spending a large amount of space on in the main Income tax article. Citing scads of irrelevant judicial opinions without context is besides the point. --Macrakis 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the tax protestors position is very marginal. The Tax Honesty Movement, however, is not. It's significant, and apparently worth spending a large amount of space on the main Income tax article since there seems to be so much confusion about it. We don't need to cite relevant judicial opinions in the article, just as it is for the rest of it. We can just supply a summary. Apparently it is worth your time to revert instead of deleting the whole article, so you must think it's worth it being there. Since you didn't discuss it here first, and cite anything I'm reverting it. bb69 22:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

There is a nice Wikipedia article on tax protestors, which I have linked. Relabelling substantively the same position as the Tax Honesty Movement isn't particularly helpful, but it might be interesting to contribute an institutional history of them under their own article. BB69, I believe this action reflects the consensus of the editors on this page. --Macrakis 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful in the way that "tax protestor" is somewhat incorrect, since it implies that someone protests the tax all together, when, in fact, what is protested is the use of the tax, not the actual tax, since in certain cases income taxes are valid. (i.e. pertaining to profit and gain). Macrakis, my objective is not to print the consensus of the editors on this page, but to print what is accurate amongst legal documents. As you know, the consensus isn't always correct. bb69 15:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

I agree that the term "tax protestor" is somewhat misleading, but that is the usual term. "Tax Honesty" is a clearly POV way of putting it. If we can come up with a better NPOV term, so much the better. As for 'consensus', I think you're misinterpreting the WP process of consensus among editors. The consensus is not about 'truth', but about what to put in the article. About what is in legal documents, they are meaningful in context. Part of the editorial judgement is determining which ones are worth reporting on, and how. --Macrakis 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I haven't got an idea of a NPOV term to call this. Perhaps you can define consensus better to me then. As I understand, it means what the majority favors and I've already commented on that. It seems like it's just you and me determining what to report on and how. What's your opinion? bb69 16:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)BB69[reply]

Removed Tax Protestor Text

I have removed this information until it can be agreed upon how to print it balanced and complete or not at all. bb69 16:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)--BB69[reply]

It is true that many law makers believe that an income tax is illegal with out the consent of the people. This is based on a theory that the Declaration of Independance stateing that there should be no direct taxes on the individual without just representation. The history channel showed a program discussing the issue. As a side not a sociol security tax in theory is also an illegal tax. If these taxes were voted by the people than the tax would be legal. This has to be with Early Americans believing strongly that they shouldn't be taxed without representation. There have been many law books, which have talked about the legality of the Income Tax. This problem arises because the supreme court bases their opinions on only the Costitution and other Precedence of a case, but they do not base their opinions on the Declaration of Independance.

Of course, the Courts do not create taxes. Congress (which is the representation of the people) passes laws saying how much the people will be taxed. So there is no taxation without representation, because the taxes are determined with representation. Furthermore, here's a dirty little secret - even though politicians are full of tax-cutting rhetoric, they don't dare actually cut taxes because this country has been mortgaged up to it's eyeballs to the Saudis and the Chinese and the Germans and the Japanese. If we have any further tax cuts of any substance, those countries are going to call in their debts, and we will fold. Do you know what that means? No other countries buying U.S. goods. No oil coming in. No one propping up the value of the dollar. It happened in Argentina not long ago, and our ability to sway the rest of the world has fallen enough for it to happen here as well. bd2412 T 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that is what I was going to get to next, we voted for our senators thus they are our representatives. The amendment about income tax says that the government can tax income, but it doesn't say that they can tax us without representation, but than our representation is our senators and house members. : D

Wikipedia is not Advertising

I feel that we should avoid using commercial sites as external links whenever possible. In this instance, there is no reason to go through the Turbo Tax site to reach the IRS site -- that can be reached directly. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What systemic bias?

Someone tagged this article for not having a worldwide view without explaining what he or she found deficient. I don't follow. Surely no one expects a single article to describe in detail income taxes in every country, and the selection provided is a reasonable selection of interest to english-speaking readers. Unless someone explains, I intend to remove the tag. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cut and pasted with permission from project talk page---------------------

Is there any specific article you have in mind? I for one always try to add a short explanation when tagging an article with, for example, {{limitedgeographicscope}}. — mark ✎ 10:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have seen this template a fair amount on articles, and rarely has it (or any other cleanup tag) been explained. Perhaps that is just my experience. Now, in the majority of cases, the problem is glaringly obvious. On the other hand, I have seen this tag unexplained on articles that seem to have been constructed with some care and attention to including various perspectives, which includes the instant case, Income tax. A comment there would be helpful to understand whether the project believes we need to discuss every country in detail (I would disagree on MEGO grounds) or whether there is something more substantial. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I would advocate splitting all the 'Income tax in Country X' parts into their own articles. The main article should describe broader trends (with examples) - illustrating geographical differences, differences between richer and poorer countries, things like that. I don't have the knowledge to even start on it, so I'm not going to demand that someone else does it immediately. If you go through Category:Cleanup by month I'd bet that 90%+ of those tags have no explanation.--Cherry blossom tree 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You recommend what already exists. There are already specific articles on specific countries -- removing the short summaries from the current article will not improve the net worldwide balance of Wikipedia, it merely makes summary information harder to find. But, this is not the place to discuss specifics -- the issues identified by the project should have been raised on the article's talk page. Again, I emphasize my belief that placing a tag on an article (as opposed to a talk page) is a warning to the readership that the article is not to be trusted in some sense. That is pretty serious. In the case of an article with no sources, it is justified, and normally requires no explanation: the tag is removed as soon as at least some citations are added. On the other hand, NPOV tags need to be explained or are subject to removal. I see no reason why this project's tags should be any different. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am recommending what already exists. I realise that seperate articles exist but I think that listing 5 different rates of tax with two graphs for the UK is more detail than the article needs. I think that the article would be better served by describing the broad trends than by describing individual case studies forcing the reader to make these inferences for themselves and based on a skewed picture - each country listed is in the world's top 25 for HDI, for example - what is the income tax system in Bolivia or Sierra Leone? I don't mean to criticise the article too much - I think it's pretty good - I'm just speculating as to why it was tagged.

I do agree entirely that tags should be explained - I doubt you'll find anyone who doesn't except in blindingly obvious cases. I've added a note to the project page to state this - feel free to reword as needed.--Cherry blossom tree 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the note, and I see your point about the graphs. There is an interesting point about relative importance: U.S. Income tax affects a greater percentage of the world economy than Bolivia's, and has extraterritorial impact. Perhaps it should be mentioned where Bolivia's is not. Perhaps not. Do you mind if I cut and paste your comments into the talk page for Income tax? It would give other editors something to think about.

I hope I am not coming across as petulant -- I actually wrote very little of the present text of that article, but I remember my reaction to tags like this when I first started reading Wikipedia -- "Oh! I'd better watch out for this article if the Wikipedia Authorities have tagged it!" Yes, I know now that is not how we work, but I have had many conversations with Wikipedia users who believe that there are groups of official fact-checkers and reviewers who check articles, and that tags are placed by some official rating mechanism, and I used to be one of them. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(re-indenting) I don't think anyone would object to the USA receiving more prominence than Bolivia in an article on income tax, I was more bothered that countries like Bolivia (South America isn't mentioned at all, for examplem, nor Africa) were being overlooked completely. You can put any of this on the talk page if you think it'd be worthwhile.

No, not petulant at all. Don't worry. It's easy to forget what effect slapping a tag on an article actually has. Nice talking to you. --Cherry blossom tree 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your comments above gave me ideas about ways in which the article can be improved. I added a mention of the ancient practice of tithing, and briefly how it differs from an income tax. I alluded to how the invention of double-entry bookkeeping, and the advent of a culture with a respect for precision in such matters is essential to a modern income tax. That much I can source to Eugen Weber from memory -- he makes the point that the respect for precision is one of the most distinguishing features between the medieval world and ours. It occurs to me that the spread of the adoption of income taxes (which I know nothing about) would be of interest, and there must be research about income taxes and transparency. So, I will cut-and-paste this discussion over there, because I may not have time to do this for a while. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the worldwide perspective tag and am sorry for not commenting on the talk page. At the time the article had nothing at all on income tax generally and had a cleanup tag. It had a long part on income tax in the US, a part on income tax in the UK and a short bit on Sweeden. I wrote the introduction "Principles of income tax", so the article was at least about income tax. The long bit on the US was moved (by somebody else) into Income Tax in the United States which was linked to this article. I, consistent with that, linked in the other Income tax in X pages with short summaries.

My reason for adding the tag was because the page didn't explain the important features of income tax but rather took a US and UK perspective. I don't know if the tag is still needed or if the summaries really belong here.

-Mb99 06:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The history [2] and [3] shows that the tag was removed on 27 February and replaced on 10 April 2006 by Evolve2K. It is the replacement of the tag that puzzled me. But, there is some interesting work to be done, so I have left the tag to remind me to get to it. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Income Tax in India

I've added a section on Income tax in India, linking to the main article (which at this point is sorely lacking in content). Over the next few days I will enhance that page as well. Deepakshenoy 12:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries in section organized

I think that all the countries listing in section #3 should be organized alphabetically. Any objections? --GurufromIndia 10:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - Done Morphh ^(talk) 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headers

Per WP:MOSHEAD, we should avoid restating the subject of the article or of an enclosing section in heading titles. It is assumed that you are writing about the same subject, so you usually do not need to refer to it again. For example, "Principles of Income Tax" -> "Principles", "History of Income Tax" -> "History", "Income tax in the United States" -> "United States". Since this could be consider a major change, I figured I would post for discussion. Thoughts? Morphh ^(talk) 14:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made this change. Morphh ^(talk) 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spain

Can we add a section on Spain to the article — it had no income tax till the fall of Franco, which is very recent for a 'Modern Western European country'. What other countries don't rely on income tax so much? Njál 13:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - Is there a main article on the Spain Income Tax? If not, perhaps someone could write a something up to include. Morphh ^(talk) 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as other countries not relying on the income tax - I'm not sure that has a place in this article. I'm not even sure the section "Countries with no personal income tax" should exist in this article. If a country that is notable has an income tax, we should include them so I don't see why we should have a list of those that don't. Morphh ^(talk) 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list of countries wihout income tax is valuable — for one thing it tells us there's no need for a section on income tax in that country. It could be relegated to another page, though. Njál 14:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, I think we should put it into a multi-column format. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-obvious vandalism

Good catch. Morphh. The direct tax is that paid by the employee. JQ 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced, incorrect material moved from article

The following material has been moved from the article to this talk page:

U.S. States that do not report income to the Federal Government. Doesn't not include other taxes ex. property tax,sales tax,inheritence taxation.

Delaware

Las Vegas

Oregon

U.S. States where Federal Income taxation is not paid by resident or employer.

Oregon

U.S. Virgin Islands where a tax sumpliment [sic] is charged for residents on expenses.

First of all, it's unclear what is meant by the phrase U.S. States that do not "report income" to the Federal government. State governments generally don't have to pay Federal income tax on their own income, so it's unclear what was intended here. Second, Las Vegas is not a state. Third, none of this information is sourced.

Federal tax -- especially Federal income tax -- is most certainly paid by both residents and employers in Oregon.

The verbiage on the Virgin Islands is also enigmatic. A tax "sumpliment" (supplement, maybe?)? Charged "on expenses"? What is this all about? Yours, Famspear 15:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the user who added that has made several odd edits relating to Oregon. [4] Katr67 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Katr67: OK, I see what you mean. I especially like the one about the seven foot tall penguins at [5]. Yours, Famspear 16:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned commentary

Definition of income by the Supreme Court. We find that the U.S. Supreme court said: “…Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition of ‘income,’ it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.” Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918):

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.153.17.186 (talk • contribs) .

More unsigned commentary

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized the specific restrictive nature of the term “taxpayer,” which follows the general restriction on any statutes that would impose an obligation, as expressed by the Supreme Court in Gould v. Gould, when the court stated:

“Since the statutory definition of 'taxpayer' is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non-statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Revenue Acts.” C.I.R. v. Trustees of Lumber Inv. Assn.; Trustees of Lumber; Inv. Ass.n v. C.i.R.; Randolph Lumber Co. v. C.I.R.; Nos. 6435 - 6437; 100 F2d 18 at 29 (7th Cir. 1938).

Again, as per Gould v. Gould, the statute making one liable must be clear in its language. To ascertain a standard for what is a clearly stated statute that imposes a “legal duty,” simply look in Title 26 of the United States Code, where there are specific sections for other taxes which do clearly state when one is “liable” or “made liable” and where a reasonable man can clearly understand that which meets the Gould v. Gould requisite.

Under TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 3 (WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS) > Subchapter B > § 1461 Liability for withheld tax…It is clearly stated for Aliens who is liable here:

“Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”

[above unsigned material moved by Famspear, with signature notation added:] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.153.17.186 (talk • contribs) .

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Income tax/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is a close one for me (B or Start Class). It has a good amount of content and I feel that many searching for Income taxation would this article useful. However, it is missing citations for the content. It has a nice summary style format for country systems. I would work on added inline references, expanding content, the lead, and copyedit/cleanup before targeting GA. Morphh ^(talk) 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 15:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)