| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle |
| |
|
08/30/08
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
September
24, 2007 In anticipation of the balls being put-up for auction, memorabilia experts attempted to place a dollar value on the balls. The speculation ended last week when the ball that tied the record was auctioned for $186,750 while the ball that broke the record went for $752,467. According to so-called tax experts, the money from the sale of the baseballs constitutes income to Mr. Hughes and Mr. Murphy. An article on The Wall Street Journal blog states: "It's taxable income to the fan the instant that person catches the ball because it's "accession to wealth." Leave to government and attorneys to come up with terms and schemes to "legalize" the theft of our money. Since the Constitution only recognizes two types of taxes, direct and indirect, this co-called "accession to wealth" event raises a question in my mind: is it being taxed as a direct or indirect tax? In 1933, the House Ways and Means Committee authorized the preparation of a report entitled "DOUBLE TAXATION." The report made the following statement, in part, concerning the federal government's power to tax: "The power of the Federal Government to levy taxes, like the other powers it possesses, is delegated by the Constitution. The scope of this taxing power, through broad, is defined and limited by the Constitution, and rests solely in the Congress. The limitations on the power to levy taxes applicable to Federal statutes are as follows: First, general restriction on sovereignty.- The Government's power to tax does not extend beyond its inherent power of sovereignty. The Government must have jurisdiction over the person or object subject to tax... Third, rule of apportionment.- Direct taxes, such as property taxes, must be apportioned among the several States according to the population by the specific wording of the Constitution. Fourth, rule of uniformity.- Indirect taxes, such as duties, imposts and excises, must be uniform throughout the United States; that is, they must operate 'with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of them is found.'"[EN-1] In this report, which was written 20 years after the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress acknowledged that the Amendment did not change the federal government's taxing power and authorize the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax. Thus, contrary to popular belief, direct taxes are still subject to the rule of apportionment. The basic difference between a direct and indirect tax can be found in a 1989 Congressional Research Service report concerning the federal income tax: "An excise [or indirect] tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself [a direct tax]. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction. When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself." [EN-2] It is an undisputed fact that the moment Hughes and Murphy took possession of the baseballs they became private property. If Hughes' and Murphy's co-called "accession to wealth" is simply a disguised attempt to tax private property under a misconception concerning the Sixteenth Amendment, then the tax is direct and unconstitutional because it must apportioned among the several States. Thus, the proceeds from the sale of Hughes' and Murphy's private property cannot be taxed by the federal government under the general provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. On the other hand, if the federal government is attempting to tax the sale of the baseballs as an indirect tax, then they are claiming the act of selling private property constitutes a federal privilege that subjects Hughes and Murphy to an indirect excise tax. The reader will recall that the 1933 report referenced above states the federal government cannot impose a tax unless it has "jurisdiction over the person or object subject to tax." Since the Constitution does not grant the federal government any general jurisdiction over baseballs or the American people, then where is the constitutional authority to tax the sale of Hughes' and Murphy's private property? [EN-3] EN-1-Double Taxation -Preliminary Report of a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means Relative to Federal and State Taxation and Duplications Therein, 72D Congress, 2D Session, (Government Printing Office, Washington DC., 1933), p. 2. EN-2-Howard M. Zaritsky, Some Constitutional Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax, (Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC., 1980) p. 5. EN-3-"The plan of the [Constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress.shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Essay No. 83. "[I]t is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects." James Madison, Federalist Essay No. 14.
Now Available! See Editor's review here. "The Bill
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights" $10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax. Send to- PSCS Note: We have several hundred copies that contain a few minor typos in a couple of quotes and a footnote. The average reader would probably miss them. However, with the purchase of a book we are offering these as seconds for $3.00 each to cover shipping in the event the reader wants to give a copy to a friend or relative. There is no limit and this offer is good until they are all gone. Email with
any questions concerning the book to-rbgreenslade [at] yahoo.com
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
The ·2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3 No Senator Clinton - Government is the one Squeezing Consumers From the Another Usurpation of Power in the Name of Patriotism Department "Newspapers in Education" needs an Education on the Constitution and Second Amendment If Women have the Right to an Abortion then I have the Right to Own a Firearm Left Wing Socialist wants to make Minutemen Domestic Terrorists A Catch-22 will Stop Plan by Democrats to Pull American Troops out of Iraq Hillary has a Bogeyman in her Closet Concerning her Latest Position on the War in Iraq "Government of the People, by the People and for the People" -- or Not? Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
| ||||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
