Is THE REPEAL 16 COALITION really trying to end taxes calculated from incomes?
As stated at repeal 16.org, “The Coalition to Repeal the 16th Amendment (Repeal 16) is comprised of a broad range of individuals and organizations including the Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America.”
According to REPEAL 16 ORG, its stated goal is to “end our corrupting tax system and the oppressive IRS”.
They go on to ask “What is the Repeal 16 Bill?” And they answer the question as follows:
”Congressman Jim Bridenstine has introduced a bill (HJ Res 104) in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to levy the income tax”.
That statement is factually incorrect and is one of the biggest myths perpetrated upon the American People. The truth is, the 16th Amendment does not allow “the federal government to levy the income tax” as stated at REPEAL 16 ORG. In fact, the 16th Amendment does not mention “income tax” at all. But it does declare Congress may tax incomes “without apportionment among the several States….” But this power, as we shall see, is a power which preexisted the adoption of the 16th Amendment and was not only exercised before the 16th Amendment was adopted, but upheld by the United States Supreme Court! So, it stands to reason that repealing the 16th Amendment as worded in H.J. RES. 104, even if adopted and made part of our Constitution, it would not end taxes which may be laid and collected which are calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” as was done prior to the adoption of the `16th Amendment, nor would it close down the IRS as we know it.
What are the historical facts about our federal government levying an income tax”? The first so called “income tax” is found in An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes. The phrase “income tax” is found in the margin dealing with Section 49 of the Act. SECTION 49 of the Act reads as follows:
Sec. 49. And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three percentum on the amount of such excess over eight hundred dollars...
This income tax was later tested in the Supreme Court and was upheld as being constitutional in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Among other arguments, the argument that the tax was direct and required an apportionment was rejected by the Court.
What the 16th Amendment actually did was put to rest the argument that Congress could not lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, it merely confirmed what the Court had already ruled, and that such a power was possessed by Congress from the very beginning,
The Repeal 16 Coalition’s support of Representative Bridenstine’s proposal would not end, e.g., excise taxes being levied upon the privilege of being a corporation, which may then be calculated from profits and gains earned under the corporate charter. This occurred under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and the tax was upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). The Court found the tax did not have to be apportioned and the Court explained the tax was not laid upon corporate profits, but rather, the tax was laid on the “privilege” of earning income under a government granted corporate charter which made the tax indirect and did not require an apportionment. Additionally, the amount of tax to be paid was measured from the income earned under the privilege.
The court stated:
The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
Under Representative Bridenstine’s proposal which is supported by The Repeal 16 Coalition, Congress would retain power to lay "excise taxes" on corporations which are then calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. Additionally, Congress would still retain power to tax “any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere” as was done during the Civil War, and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains salaries and other incomes earned under the listed professions, trades, employments or vocations “carried on in the United States or elsewhere”
My suggestion to those sending contributions to The Repeal 16 Coalition, or its partnership which includes Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America, is that they ask them to reject H.J.RES. 104 as being useless and demand a change to its wording as follows:
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
Making this change would not only end federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes”, but if adopted into our Constitution it would force Congress to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founding Fathers intended it to operate. To review our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders check out the hearings conducted in 1995 before the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of replacing the federal income tax. The submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service outlines our Constitution's original tax plan, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
As stated at repeal 16.org, “The Coalition to Repeal the 16th Amendment (Repeal 16) is comprised of a broad range of individuals and organizations including the Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America.”
According to REPEAL 16 ORG, its stated goal is to “end our corrupting tax system and the oppressive IRS”.
They go on to ask “What is the Repeal 16 Bill?” And they answer the question as follows:
”Congressman Jim Bridenstine has introduced a bill (HJ Res 104) in the U.S. House of Representatives to repeal the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which allows the federal government to levy the income tax”.
That statement is factually incorrect and is one of the biggest myths perpetrated upon the American People. The truth is, the 16th Amendment does not allow “the federal government to levy the income tax” as stated at REPEAL 16 ORG. In fact, the 16th Amendment does not mention “income tax” at all. But it does declare Congress may tax incomes “without apportionment among the several States….” But this power, as we shall see, is a power which preexisted the adoption of the 16th Amendment and was not only exercised before the 16th Amendment was adopted, but upheld by the United States Supreme Court! So, it stands to reason that repealing the 16th Amendment as worded in H.J. RES. 104, even if adopted and made part of our Constitution, it would not end taxes which may be laid and collected which are calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes” as was done prior to the adoption of the `16th Amendment, nor would it close down the IRS as we know it.
What are the historical facts about our federal government levying an income tax”? The first so called “income tax” is found in An Act to provide increased Revenue from Imports, to pay interest on the Public Debt, and for other Purposes. The phrase “income tax” is found in the margin dealing with Section 49 of the Act. SECTION 49 of the Act reads as follows:
Sec. 49. And be it further enacted, That on and after the first day of January next, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the annual income of every person residing in the United States, whether such income is derived from any kind of property, or from any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever, if such annual income exceeds the sum of eight hundred dollars, a tax of three percentum on the amount of such excess over eight hundred dollars...
This income tax was later tested in the Supreme Court and was upheld as being constitutional in SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880). Among other arguments, the argument that the tax was direct and required an apportionment was rejected by the Court.
What the 16th Amendment actually did was put to rest the argument that Congress could not lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes without having to apportion the tax, it merely confirmed what the Court had already ruled, and that such a power was possessed by Congress from the very beginning,
The Repeal 16 Coalition’s support of Representative Bridenstine’s proposal would not end, e.g., excise taxes being levied upon the privilege of being a corporation, which may then be calculated from profits and gains earned under the corporate charter. This occurred under the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909, prior to the adoption of the 16th Amendment, and the tax was upheld in FLINT v. STONE TRACY CO., 220 U.S. 107 (1911). The Court found the tax did not have to be apportioned and the Court explained the tax was not laid upon corporate profits, but rather, the tax was laid on the “privilege” of earning income under a government granted corporate charter which made the tax indirect and did not require an apportionment. Additionally, the amount of tax to be paid was measured from the income earned under the privilege.
The court stated:
The tax under consideration, as we have construed the statute, may be described as an excise upon the particular privilege of doing business in a corporate capacity, i.e., with the advantages which arise from corporate or quasi corporate organization; or, when applied to insurance companies, for doing the business of such companies. As was said in the Thomas case, supra, the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privileges, and the element of absolute and unavoidable demand is lacking. If business is not done in the manner described in the statute, no tax is payable.
Under Representative Bridenstine’s proposal which is supported by The Repeal 16 Coalition, Congress would retain power to lay "excise taxes" on corporations which are then calculated from profits, gains and other incomes. Additionally, Congress would still retain power to tax “any profession, trade, employment or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere” as was done during the Civil War, and then calculate the amount of tax to be paid from profits, gains salaries and other incomes earned under the listed professions, trades, employments or vocations “carried on in the United States or elsewhere”
My suggestion to those sending contributions to The Repeal 16 Coalition, or its partnership which includes Tea Party Patriots, Americans For Fair Taxation, Americans for Limited Government, Competitive Governance Action and Free Market America, is that they ask them to reject H.J.RES. 104 as being useless and demand a change to its wording as follows:
House/Senate Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.
Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.
Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress.
Making this change would not only end federal taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other “incomes”, but if adopted into our Constitution it would force Congress to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founding Fathers intended it to operate. To review our Constitution’s original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders check out the hearings conducted in 1995 before the Committee on Ways and Means for the purpose of replacing the federal income tax. The submission offered by the American Constitutional Research Service outlines our Constitution's original tax plan, CLICK HERE and scroll down to page 687
JWK
“Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“ ___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.
Last edited:
