Attachment C: Jeffrey- Thomas: Maehr

Constitutional and legal Forms of taxation;

The Constitution clearly defines only TWO forms of taxation:

Article I

Section 2, Clause 3; Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers,

Direct taxes must be "apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union."[See Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4.] These include taxes directly upon people or personal property.

"...all duties, imposts and excises [indirect taxes], shall be uniform throughout the United States."[See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1.]

This tax is on all people as an equal amount across the entire country, period. Taxes such as cigarette taxes, alcohol and gasoline taxes, which are uniform... the same for ALL Americans regardless of where they live.

"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax [direct], but an excise tax [indirect] upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation".
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399, 414 (1913)

"'The name of the tax is unimportant' that 'it is the substance and not the form which controls;' that the limitations of the constitution cannot be 'frittered away' by calling a tax indirect when it is in fact direct." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 580-1, 583 (1895).

"That decision affirms the great principle that what cannot be done directly (direct taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result." Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 U.S. 283, 294 (1901).

"If it be true by varying the form the substance may be changed, it is not easy to see that anything would remain of the limitations of the constitution, or of the rule of taxation and representation, so carefully recognized and guarded in favor of the citizen of each state. But constitutional provisions cannot be thus evaded. It is the substance, and not the form, which controls, as has been established by repeated decisions of this court." Id. At 296.

"I believe in earning an income by personal service every man consumes a part of his principle, and that fact ought always to be taken into consideration. The man who has his fortune invested in securities may find in a hundred years, if he spent his income, (interest from his fortune) that the fortune still intact, but the lawyer or the physician or the man engaged in other personal employment is spending his principle in earning his income.. That fact ought under every just system of income taxation to be recognized and provided for." 44 Congressional Records, 4007 (1909).

The court has ruled on defining "income taxation" below:

"...Taxation on income is in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such" (in other words enforced as an "indirect"tax -- as a tax upon an optional exercise of privilege, such as buying gasoline or cigarettes, something which can be avoided.)

"The terms "excise tax" and "privilege tax" are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably. American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880

"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege. "Flint vs. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911).

"An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common rights but is an excise tax... The legislature may declare as 'privileged' and tax as such state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, (such as unearned income) but it has no power to declare as 'privilege' and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 (1925);

"The income taxes is, therefore, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax." F. Morse Hubbard, Treasury Department legislative draftsman. House Congressional Record March 27th 1943, page 2580.

"When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excises it is merely stating that the tax is on the property itself but rather it is a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property." John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney with the Library of Congress, "Frequently Asked Questions

"The tax imposed by sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax, within the meaning of the constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid." Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 and 158 U.S. 601 (1895)

The IR Code mentions...:

The court, again, rules on defining "income taxation" below:

"The tax imposed by the Act of 1894, (income tax) inasmuch as it falls upon the income of real and personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, was unconstitional and void because it was not apportioned according to representation among the several states, all these sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid." Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1894), reh. 158 U.S. 601, 637 (1895).

So we have two conflicting rulings on "income taxation." Let's look further. Many, including the IRS, claim the 16^th Amendment gave the government the authority to tax outside the constitutional forms of taxation... i.e. direct or indirect. This is clearly fraud on the government's part. One of the elements of the crime of fraud is to remain silent when there is a clear duty to speak, and certainly our government has a clear duty to come out and tell the public that most Americans do not owe a penny of Subtitle 'A' or 'C' taxes, either under the original provisions of the Constitution, or under the alleged authority of the 16th Amendment

Contrary to what is commonly promoted, the 16^th Amendment creates no new classification of taxes under the Constitution and we are therefore still left only with direct and indirect taxes. The 16^th Amendment did NOT change the Constitutional tax laws or open the door for a new type of taxation. The 16^th Amendment has been misquoted and misused:

"The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretive regulations, make income out of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income (See Attachment A) that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment." Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2D 575

Obviously the courts are making it clear that there is a real and significant distinction between "income" in the ordinary sense, and "16th Amendment income." This means that only "16th Amendment income" (The 16th Amendment only pertains to "income" in the form of dividends, patronage dividends, and interest from corporate investment. (See Attachment A) can be taxed without apportionment.

In the brief for the United States at 11-12, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916), the government postulated that the 16^th amendment allowed the government to tax income directly without apportionment according to the constitution, but the Supreme Court stated they were (and are) wrong:

"The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16^th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; (That of being able to tax people outside direct and indirect, as they are being taxed today - JTM) that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulations of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."

"But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it -(the 16^th Amendment), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the (16^th) Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned." Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

And of course, all INDIRECT taxes are to be uniform across the country according to Constitutional law.

"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. 341, 344 (1927).

"The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged..." S. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847 (US Dist. Ct. S.D., N.Y., 1917); U.S. 330 (1918)

"The legislative history merely shows that the words 'from whatever source derived' of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to the federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment (direct tax classification) requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable." [South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988) (footnote 13)]

"The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, (Brushaber), it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment (direct tax classification) among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918.

The 16^th Amendment "Made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax." Representative Carlson, Individual Income Tax Collection Act of 1943.

The income tax, in other words, is STILL fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of receiving passive income which is ONLY possible under the protection of civil government.

This means "income taxation" is a INDIRECT tax, as court cases uphold, and therefore falls within the "uniformity" requirement upon ALL people to even begin to be legal and constitutional, which it is NOT. It also ONLY applies to the other constitutional and congressional record definitions of what "income" is and how it should be applied to Americans as other IR code details.

I have to ask, "what is this "Income" "under the Constitution, which is "excluded by law," and "not taxable by the Federal government?" Can this "income" be defined and explained in law or the IR Code? (See Attachment A).

I present this as further evidence of crimes being committed on a daily basis, and require responsible parties to act on this criminal knowledge by commencing a Grand Jury to publicly investigate this or be personally liable.