# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  IRS Unconstitutional?

## kah13176

I've heard people say the IRS is unconstitutional.  I don't see how it's not, with the 16th amendment?  

Can someone explain the argument?

----------


## Acala

> I've heard people say the IRS is unconstitutional.  I don't see how it's not, with the 16th amendment?  
> 
> Can someone explain the argument?


I am aware of three arguments:

1. the 16th amendment was not properly ratified (I don't know if it was or not)

2. the meaning of the word "income" in the 16th amendment does not encompass individual wages and salaries (I think this is wrong) and

3. the income tax violates the spirit of the Constitution such that it cannot be made Constitutional even with a proper amendment.  (this is based on an incorrect understanding of the Constitution)

----------


## DamianTV

Income refers to Corporate Earnings, not individual wages.

Definition of Direct Unapportioned and Apportioned Tax.

But, go up to a person robbing a store.  Tell them what they are doing is against the law.  See how they respond.  Point is, they have the guns, and unless there are 300 million of us who refuse to stop paying income tax, they are going to pick us off one by one.

----------


## roho76

> But, go up to a person robbing a store.  Tell them what they are doing is against the law.  See how they respond.  Point is, they have the guns, and unless there are 300 million of us who refuse to stop paying income tax, they are going to pick us off one by one.


Exactly. They might as well replace the constitution with a a piece of paper that says: "We have the guns and we'll do what we want to".

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

i suggest a forum search for the answer you seek...

The arguments are (and these are varsity level arguments many robots will not understand until they have a better understanding of the subject matter):

1.  What is the exact object of the tax? (unless of course you believe the federal political subdivision can put individuals in cages for any reason at any time such as for not paying a tax an individual was not aware of because Congress did not declare the object being taxed when exercising powers of taxation...)

2.  Is the exact object of the tax under federal jurisdiction? (unless of course you believe federal jurisdiction is unlimited and the federal political subdivision can do anything it wants to because the federal political subdivision is sovereign and not limited to powers delegated in the Constitution...)

All the 16th Amendment did was make double taxation of property lawful (ie. not legal mind you, lawful, aka. constitutional, aka conforming to Article 1, Section 8).... so when you pay property taxes and income taxes derived from property rents, it can be lawful under certain circumstances...  that is it... the 16th Amendment did no more and no less....  Congress has always had the power to tax but the object of the tax must be qualified under Article 1, Section 8 (and now, additionally qualified by the 16th Amendment which is less stringent than Article 1, Section 8 with regards to property)....

----------


## Sam I am

Income Tax per-se is not unconstitutional, and the Article 1 section 8 mentions that taxes will be uniform [B]Throughout the United States[B] which is intended to be a geographical uniformity so that no states would have tax advantages over another.

----------


## Zippyjuan

Is the IRS Constitutional is a separate question from whether specific forms of taxes are Constitutional.  Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorizes Congress the right to lay and collect taxes:



> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


That clearly extablishes the IRS- as the tool for the collection of taxes which should be authorized by Congress- is indeed Constitutional.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is the IRS Constitutional is a separate question from whether specific forms of taxes are Constitutional.  Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorizes Congress the right to lay and collect taxes:
> 
> That clearly extablishes the IRS- as the tool for the collection of taxes which should be authorized by Congress- is indeed Constitutional.


The constitution also clearly says that direct taxes are not permitted.  (Section 9, article I)  Direct taxation did not exist until the 16th amendment was passed.  This means the IRS is unconstitutional.  (indirect taxes would be paid to various departments rather than a central IRS)

----------


## Zippyjuan

Direct taxes are allowed if they are proportional. This was to disallow "head taxes". 

Article 1 Section 9:



> Section 9 - Limits on Congress
> 
> The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
> 
> The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
> 
> No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
> 
> (No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, *unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken*.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Direct taxes are allowed if they are proportional. This was to disallow "head taxes". 
> 
> Article 1 Section 9:


 I'll concede that.  However, this does not make the IRS constitutional.  Money collected this way could be paid directly to the treasury, just as Federal student loan payments are paid directly to the DoE.

----------


## Acala

> Is the IRS Constitutional is a separate question from whether specific forms of taxes are Constitutional.  Article 1 Section 8 specifically authorizes Congress the right to lay and collect taxes:
> 
> That clearly extablishes the IRS- as the tool for the collection of taxes which should be authorized by Congress- is indeed Constitutional.


I think you nailed it.  This is one case where the necessary and proper clause actually applies.  Congress was clearly granted the power to tax.  It is necessary and proper to create an agency to execute that power.  

What taxes they can collect and how they do it are other matters.

----------


## squarepusher

> Income refers to Corporate Earnings, not individual wages.
> 
> Definition of Direct Unapportioned and Apportioned Tax.
> 
> But, go up to a person robbing a store.  Tell them what they are doing is against the law.  See how they respond.  Point is, they have the guns, and unless there are 300 million of us who refuse to stop paying income tax, they are going to pick us off one by one.


actually, not really, pinning it on a few government officials isn't fair.  Blame the voters for creating and encouraging the government officials to do so.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> It is necessary and proper to create an agency to execute that power.


In Diversified Metal Products, Inc., Plaintiff, v. T-Bow Company Trust, the federal political subdivision denied the IRS is an agency of the United States. 




> 4. *Denies that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government
> 
> 
> http://freedom-school.com/tax-matter...j-response.pdf*


The constitution states:




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes


The power to collect taxes is expressly delegated and requires legislation from Congress.

Please cite the specific act of Congress establishing the IRS to collect taxes...

If you can't find one... maybe you should send a letter to the IRS and  ask them for the Act of Congress that established the IRS:




> Mrs. Margaret M. Richardson 
> Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service 
> 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 
> Washington, DC 20224 
> 
> Dear Mrs. Richardson, 
> 
> Many years ago, I tried to find within the Internal Revenue Code the section which created your agency, but I was unable to do so. I then decided to locate other sources of information regarding how the Internal Revenue Service was established and what I found was nothing short of amazing. 
> 
> ...


If they don't respond or can't cite an Act of Congress... maybe you should wisen the hell up and stop sending payments to alleged tax collection organizations, collecting alleged taxes that are not established by Acts of Congress..

----------


## chudrockz

Over the years I've thought about this issue off and on. Usually when I do my taxes, am "due" a refund, and the gang of thugs jerks me around and comes up with some bull$#@! why they're not gonna give it to me. Going through that right now again, matter of fact.

I don't honestly care whether the IRS is "Constitutional" (probably not) or "legal" (matters not), what I *know* is that they are CRIMINAL.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Please cite the specific act of Congress establishing the IRS to collect taxes...


Don't have the specific legislation bill number but it was under Lincoln in 1862 as part of the US Treasury Department. The Revenue Act of 1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862

Link to the act: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...db&recNum=0463

See Chapter CXIX at the bottom- continued on next page of link.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Don't have the specific legislation bill number but it was under Lincoln in 1862 as part of the US Treasury Department. The Revenue Act of 1862 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1862
> 
> Link to the act: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...db&recNum=0463
> 
> See Chapter CXIX at the bottom- continued on next page of link.


And where does that Act establish the "Internal Revenue Service" or "Bureau of Internal Revenue"?  That Act is addressed in the sample letter above and only establishes a Commissioner of Internal Revenue under the direction of the Secretary of Treasury, nominated by the President, confirmed by Congress...

Furthermore... what is the history of the Revenue Act of 1861 to pay the war debt?  did it ever get repealed?




> *the problem that these acts simply did not create either the Bureau or the IRS is the fact that these acts were repealed* by the adoption of the Revised Statutes of 1873


Don't plan on me paying alleged taxes to alleged tax collectors that are not established by Acts of Congress, alleged tax collectors that have been repealed, or alleged tax collectors claiming their authority derives from legislation that has been repealed.

I would have to be an idiot to do that... or if I did ever do it I must have been ignorant of the law... which unfortunately for me if I did ever do it..  would mean I would never be able to get any monies back paid out of ignorance because ignorance of the law is not an excuse...

----------


## Zippyjuan

If you read the act, you would also see that it authorizes the hiring of as many agents as necessary to do the actual collection of taxes "which may be necessary to carry out the Act". 
And those collectors are authorized to hire their own deputies "as many as they think proper" to help them out (Section 6). It is not in a form I can copy/ past the section for you. It goes on for several pages (click "next page" at the link). It goes on to include penalties for non- compliance.

You are right, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Can you show us the section withing the Revised Statutes of 1837? That is a massive volume which basically codified previous laws and grouped them by topics. 
http://usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/i...l+revenue+code



> Prior to 1874, U.S. statutes (whether in tax law or other subjects) were not codified. That is, they were not set forth in one comprehensive subject matter title, but were instead contained in the various acts passed by Congress. Codifications of statutes, including tax statutes, undertaken in 1873 resulted in the Revised Statutes of the United States, approved June 22, 1874, effective for the laws in force as of December 1, 1873. Title 35 of the Revised Statutes was the internal revenue title. Another codification was undertaken in 1878.


Link to the sixteen volumns of it: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

Good luck.

----------


## Anti Federalist

My issue WRT to the constitutionality of the IRS, is the separate "justice" system maintained with the tax collection agency.

----------


## anaconda

> I've heard people say the IRS is unconstitutional.  I don't see how it's not, with the 16th amendment?  
> 
> Can someone explain the argument?


Here is an interesting site. It will also walk you through exactly why there is no legal requirement to file a form 1040 for the vast majority of us. 

http://www.tax-freedom.com/index.htm

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> If you read the act, you would also see that it authorizes the hiring of as many agents as necessary to do the actual collection of taxes "which may be necessary to carry out the Act". 
> And those collectors are authorized to hire their own deputies "as many as they think proper" to help them out (Section 6). It is not in a form I can copy/ past the section for you. It goes on for several pages (click "next page" at the link). It goes on to include penalties for non- compliance.
> 
> You are right, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
> 
> Can you show us the section withing the Revised Statutes of 1837? That is a massive volume which basically codified previous laws and grouped them by topics. 
> http://usgovernmentbenefits.org/hd/i...l+revenue+code
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry... did you cover the first point?  No I don't think you did address the first point.  Where is the "Internal Revenue Service" or "Bureau of Revenue" established?

I am not citing anything until you can cite where "Internal Revenue Service" or "Bureau of Revenue" appears in the text of an Act of Congress establishing it.

Because if you can't cite that... well... this is a problem:




> *The IRS is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury**
> 
> 
> http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=98141,00.html*

----------


## Zippyjuan

Ok - so don't pay taxes. Go to court and prove your case.  I can't tell you exactly when the name was added but the act established both the taxation iteslf and the means of collection of taxes. It was passed by both Houses and signed by the President.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I can't tell you exactly when the name was added


The scope of the question is way beyond some mere so called name as pointed out in the sample letter above with all of the citations about establishing public offices.  If some so called tax collection agency can not point to the exact Act of Congress that establishes said bureau or agency:




> I request that you provide an answer to me within 20 days. Failing a  response within that time period, I shall conclude that you cannot find  any such statute and shall act accordingly.


I shall act accordingly...




> but the act established both the taxation iteslf and the means of  collection of taxes. It was passed by both Houses and signed by the  President.


This is an entirely separate issue of following the Congressional record because income tax acts have been repealed since 1861 and subsequently declared unconstitutional by SCOUTS in 1895.

----------


## erowe1

Why does it matter if its constitutional?

----------


## Acala

> My issue WRT to the constitutionality of the IRS, is the separate "justice" system maintained with the tax collection agency.


The same question could be asked about the entire administrative branch of government and the manner in which it legislates through the regulatory process.  Congress essentially has created a branch of government not provided for in the Constitution.

Ultimately, IRS and tax court decisions can be appealed in the courts created by the Constitution, and that is the supposed justification.  But there is still what amounts to a new layer of government created by Congress.

----------


## Acala

> Here is an interesting site. It will also walk you through exactly why there is no legal requirement to file a form 1040 for the vast majority of us. 
> 
> http://www.tax-freedom.com/index.htm


But be aware that the obligation to pay taxes is NOT the same as the obligation to file a return.

----------


## Contumacious

> Ok - so don't pay taxes.* Go to court and prove your case. * I can't tell you exactly when the name was added but the act established both the taxation iteslf and the means of collection of taxes. It was passed by both Houses and signed by the President.


Unfortunately , Article III Courts have been abolished.

These type of issues will be immediately dismissed in the welfare/warfare state courts.

.

----------


## ronnilingus

This may come off as a dumb question, but how do you go about not paying taxes?  I understand if you are self-employed, but if I'm working a 9-5 job for the man, how do I simply stop paying taxes.  They're already taken out of my paycheck each week.  Is there something I can do to change this?

----------


## Danke

> This may come off as a dumb question, but how do you go about not paying taxes?  I understand if you are self-employed, but if I'm working a 9-5 job for the man, how do I simply stop paying taxes.  They're already taken out of my paycheck each week.  Is there something I can do to change this?


Study.  Here is a start: http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf

But pay any tax due you may have on _taxable income_ (thankfully, most of us have little to zero of that).

----------

