Conference back40::soapbox

    Oh, goodie, a whole new BUREAUCRACY!!!  I'm so happy I could just s...

    What good things would you spend it on? Giving money to underdevoped
    countries like the IMF fund?

    
    
    	who the heck endorsed that bill?
    
    

    .2
    
    From the "Fact Sheet"
    
    "Where the Peace Tax Fund Money Would Go: The percentage of an
    individual's taxes equaling the current military portion of the federal 
    budget would go into a special trust fund, called the Peace Tax Fund. 
    Money in this fund would be allocated to governmental programs such as: 
    the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children 
    (WIC), Head Start, the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Peace Corps."
    
    And before you jump to conclusions, please note that this is not "my"
    bill - I'm not even taking sides (yet).  The bill was initially
    introduced in Congress in 1972 and has been getting renewed attention 
    as of late.
    
    

The U.S. Institute of Peace?  Wozzat?

FILE h1402.ih
          HR 1402 IH
          104th CONGRESS
          1st Session
          To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve revenue
          collection and to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed 
          to participation in war may elect to have such taxpayer's income,
          estate, or gift tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes, to
          create the United States Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax
          payments, and for other purposes.
                             IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                                      April 5, 1995
          Mr. JACOBS (for himself, Mr. LEACH, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. FRANK of
              Massachusetts, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. MILLER of
              California, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. OBERSTAR, 
              Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. YATES, Ms. FURSE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, and
              Mr. MCHALE) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
              to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the
              Committees on International Relations, and Economic and
              Educational Opportunities, for a period to be subsequently
              determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
              such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
              committee concerned
                                         A BILL
          To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve revenue
          collection and to provide that a taxpayer conscientiously opposed 
          to participation in war may elect to have such taxpayer's income,
          estate, or gift tax payments spent for nonmilitary purposes, to
          create the United States Peace Tax Fund to receive such tax
          payments, and for other purposes.
           [Italic->]   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
          Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
          assembled, [<-Italic]
          SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
            This Act may be cited as the `United States Peace Tax Fund Act'.
          SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND POLICY.
            (a) FINDINGS- The Congress finds that for a significant minority
          of Americans, sincere conscientious objection to participation in
          war in any form means that such Americans cannot in conscience pay
          the portion of their taxes that would support military expenditures.
            (b) POLICY- It is the policy of the Congress--
                (1) to improve revenue collections and to allow conscientious
              objectors to pay their full tax liability without violating
              their moral, ethical, or religious beliefs;
                (2) to reduce the present administrative and judicial burden
              created by conscientious objectors who violate tax laws rather
              than violate their consciences;
                (3) to recognize conscientious objector status with regard to
              the payment of taxes for military purposes; and
                (4) to provide a mechanism for congressional appropriations 
              of such funds for nonmilitary purposes.
          SEC. 3. UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            (a) CREATION OF TRUST FUND- There is hereby established within 
          the Treasury of the United States a special trust fund to be known
          as the `United States Peace Tax Fund' (hereinafter referred to as
          the `Fund'). The Fund shall consist of such amounts as may be
          transferred to the Fund as provided in this section.
            (b) TRANSFER TO FUND OF AMOUNTS EQUIVALENT TO CERTAIN TAXES- 
                (1) IN GENERAL- There are hereby transferred to the Fund
              amounts equivalent to the sum of the amounts designated during
              the fiscal year by individuals under sections 2210, 2506, and
              6099 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for payment into the
              Fund. Such amounts shall be deposited into the Fund and shall 
              be available only for the purposes provided in this Act.
                (2) METHOD OF TRANSFER- The amounts transferred by paragraph
              (1) shall be transferred at least monthly from the general fund
              of the Treasury to the Fund on the basis of estimates by the
              Secretary of the Treasury of the amounts, referred to in
              paragraph (1), received in the Treasury. Proper adjustments
              shall be made in the amounts subsequently transferred to the
              extent that prior estimates were in excess of or less than the
              amounts required to be transferred.
                (3) REPORT- The Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the
              Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
              and the Senate each year on the total amount transferred into
              the Fund during the preceding fiscal year. Such report shall be
              printed in the Congressional Record upon receipt by the
              committees.
          SEC. 4. INCOME TAX PAYMENTS TO UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            (a) IN GENERAL- Subchapter A of chapter 61 of the Internal 
          Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to information and returns) is
          amended by adding at the end the following new part:
           `PART IX--DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO UNITED
                                  STATES PEACE TAX FUND
                         `SEC. 6099. DESIGNATION BY INDIVIDUALS.
          `SEC. 6099. DESIGNATION BY INDIVIDUALS.
            `(a) IN GENERAL- Every eligible individual (other than a
          nonresident alien) whose income tax liability for any taxable year
          is $1 or more may designate that such individual's income tax
          payment for such year shall be paid into the United States Peace 
          Tax Fund established by section 3 of the United States Peace Tax
          Fund Act.
            `(b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section--
                `(1) Eligible individual- 
                    `(A) IN GENERAL- The term `eligible individual' means an
                  individual who by reason of
          religious training and belief is conscientiously opposed to
          participation in war in any form, and who--
                        `(i) has been exempted or discharged from combatant
                      training and service in the Armed Forces of the United
                      States as a conscientious objector under section 6(j) 
                      of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App.
                      456(j)), or corresponding law, or
                        `(ii) certified in a statement in a questionnaire
                      return made under section 6039F that such individual is
                      conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any
                      form within the meaning of section 6(j) of such Act.
                    `(B) Verification- 
                        `(i) QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RECEIPT- Any taxpayer who
                      makes a designation under subsection (a) shall attach
                      the questionnaire return receipt provided under section
                      6039F(b) to such taxpayer's return of tax.
                        `(ii) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE REQUIRED- The
                      Secretary may require any taxpayer who makes a
                      designation under subsection (a) to provide such
                      additional information as may be necessary to verify
                      such taxpayer's status as an eligible individual.
                    `(C) DENIAL OF DESIGNATION- If the Secretary determines
                  that a taxpayer who makes the designation provided for by
                  subsection (a) is not an eligible individual and is not
                  entitled to make such designation, then the Secretary, upon
                  written notice to the taxpayer stating the reasons for
                  denial, may deny the designation. The taxpayer may 
                  challenge the Secretary's ruling by bringing an action in
                  the United States Tax Court, or in the United States
                  district court for the district of such taxpayer's
                  residence, for a declaratory judgment as to whether the
                  taxpayer is an eligible individual and entitled to make 
                  such a designation.
                `(2) INCOME TAX LIABILITY- The term `income tax liability'
              means the amount of the tax imposed by chapter 1 on a taxpayer
              for any taxable year (as shown on such taxpayer's tax return)
              reduced by the sum of--
                    `(A) the credits (as shown in such return) allowable 
                  under part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 (other than
                  subpart C thereof), and
                    `(B) the amount designated under section 6096.
                `(3) INCOME TAX PAYMENT- The term `income tax payment' means
              the amount of taxes imposed by chapter 1 and paid by or 
              withheld from a taxpayer for any taxable year not in excess of
              such taxpayer's income tax liability.
            `(c) MANNER AND TIME OF DESIGNATION- A designation under
          subsection (a) may be made with respect to any taxable year either--
                `(1) at the time of filing the return of the tax imposed by
              chapter 1 for such taxable year, or
                `(2) at any other time (after the time of filing the return 
              of the tax imposed by chapter 1 for such taxable year) 
              specified in regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
          Such designation shall be made in such manner as the Secretary
          prescribes by regulations except that, if such designation is made
          at the time described in paragraph (1), such designation shall be
          made on the page bearing the taxpayer's signature.
            `(d) SPECIAL RULE IN THE CASE OF JOINT RETURN- In the case of an
          eligible individual filing a joint return, upon the consent of such
          individual's spouse, the joint income tax payment may be designated
          pursuant to subsection (a).
            `(e) EXPLANATION OF UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND PURPOSES- Each
          publication of general instructions accompanying an income tax
          return or a questionnaire return described in section 6039F shall
          include--
                `(1) an explanation of the purpose of the United States Peace
              Tax Fund,
                `(2) the criteria for determining whether an individual meets
              the requirements of section 6(j) of the Military Selective
              Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 456(j)), and
                `(3) an explanation of the process for making the designation
              provided by this section.'.
            (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENTS- The table of parts of subchapter A of
          chapter 61 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
          adding at the end the following new item:
           `PART IX--DESIGNATION OF INCOME TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO UNITED
                                STATES PEACE TAX FUND.'.
            (c) Designation Information- 
                (1) Subpart A of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 of 
              the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
          (relating to information and returns) is amended by adding at the
          end thereof the following new section:
          `SEC. 6039F. UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND DESIGNATION INFORMATION.
            `(a) QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN- Every taxpayer who makes a designation
          described in section 6099(a) for any taxable year shall make a
          questionnaire return during such year as described in this section.
          The questionnaire return shall request the taxpayer to certify such
          taxpayer's beliefs about participation in war, the source or 
          genesis of such beliefs, and how the beliefs affect the taxpayer's
          life.
            `(b) QUESTIONNAIRE RETURN RECEIPT- Upon receipt of a 
          questionnaire return that is timely filed, the Secretary shall 
          issue a receipt to the taxpayer indicating timely filing of such
          return.'.
                (2) The table of sections for such subpart is amended by
              adding at the end the following new item:
          `SEC. 6039F. UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND DESIGNATION INFORMATION.'.
            (d) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
          apply with respect to--
                (1) taxable years beginning after December 31, 1995, and
                (2) any taxable year ending before January 1, 1996, for which
              the time for filing a claim for refund or credit of an
              overpayment of tax has not expired on the date of the enactment
              of this Act.
            (e) Rules Applicable to Returns of Tax for Taxable Years Ending
          Before Date of Enactment-
                (1) PENALTIES FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAX- Notwithstanding any
              other law, any person's failure or refusal, before the date of
              the enactment of this Act, to pay all or a part of the tax
              imposed by chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall
              not be a violation of Federal law if the person--
                    (A) pays the tax due (with interest), and
                    (B) establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary of
                  the Treasury that the failure or refusal to pay was based
                  upon such person's conscientious objection to participation
                  in war in any form within the meaning of section
                  6099(b)(1)(A) of such Code (defining eligible individual).
                (2) DISPOSITION OF AMOUNTS COLLECTED- There are hereby
              transferred to the Fund amounts equivalent to the sum of the
              amounts paid into the Treasury by persons under the provisions
              of paragraph (1). Such amounts shall be deposited into the Fund
              and shall be available only for the purposes provided in this
              Act.
          SEC. 5. ESTATE TAX PAYMENTS TO UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            (a) IN GENERAL- Subchapter C of chapter 11 of the Internal 
          Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
          new section:
          `SEC. 2210. DESIGNATION OF ESTATE TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO
                            UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            `An eligible individual (within the meaning of section 
          6099(b)(1)) may elect that the tax imposed by section 2001 on the
          taxable estate of such individual shall be transferred when paid to
          the United States Peace Tax Fund established by section 3 of the
          United States Peace Tax Fund Act. The election may be made by the
          executor or administrator of the estate under written authority of
          the decedent. Such election shall be made in such manner as the
          Secretary shall by regulations prescribe.'.
            (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for subchapter C of
          chapter 11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
          adding at the end the following:
             `SEC. 2210. DESIGNATION OF ESTATE TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO
                             UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.'.
            (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
          apply with respect to the estates of decedents dying after December
          31, 1995.
          SEC. 6. GIFT TAX PAYMENTS TO UNITED STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            (a) IN GENERAL- Subchapter A of chapter 12 of the Internal 
          Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
          new section:
          `SEC. 2506. DESIGNATION OF GIFT TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO UNITED
                            STATES PEACE TAX FUND.
            `Any eligible individual (within the meaning of section
          6099(b)(1)) may elect that the tax imposed by section 2501 shall be
          transferred when paid to the United States Peace Tax Fund
          established by section 3 of the United States Peace Tax Fund Act.
          The election shall be made in such manner as the Secretary shall by
          regulations prescribe.'.
            (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for subchapter A of
          chapter 12 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
          adding at the end the following new item:
           `SEC. 2506. DESIGNATION OF GIFT TAX PAYMENTS FOR TRANSFER TO UNITED
                                STATES PEACE TAX FUND.'.
            (c) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall
          apply with respect to gifts made after December 31, 1995.
          SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
            (a) CERTIFICATION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL- As soon after the close
          of each fiscal year as may be practicable, the Comptroller General
          shall determine and certify to the Congress and to the President 
          the percentage of actual appropriations made for a military purpose
          with respect to such fiscal year. The certification shall be
          published in the Congressional Record upon receipt by the Congress.
            (b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There is hereby authorized 
          to be appropriated for each fiscal year a certain portion of the
          Fund for obligation and expenditure in accordance with the
          provisions of this Act. Such portion is equal to an amount which is
          the sum of--
                (1) the product of--
                    (A) all funds transferred to the Fund in the previous
                  fiscal year, times
                    (B) the percentage determined under subsection (a) for
                  such previous fiscal year, plus
                (2) all funds in the Fund previously authorized to be
              appropriated under this subsection but not yet appropriated
              pursuant to this Act.
          Funds remaining in the Fund shall accrue interest according to the
          prevailing rate in long-term Government bonds.
            (c) SURPLUS COVERED INTO GENERAL FUND- For each fiscal year, the
          portion of the Fund which is attributable to funds transferred to
          the Fund in the previous fiscal year and which is not authorized to
          be appropriated under subsection (b) is hereby covered into the
          general fund of the Treasury of the United States. No part of the
          funds transferred to the general fund under this subsection shall 
          be appropriated for any expenditures, or otherwise obligated, for a
          military purpose.
          SEC. 8. ELIGIBLE APPROPRIATIONS.
            (a) PAYMENTS- Funds appropriated pursuant to the authorization
          under section 7(b) shall be available, subject to appropriation, to
          make grants, loans, or other arrangements for eligible activities
          described in subsection (b).
            (b) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES- The following activities are eligible to
          receive funds under subsection (a):
                (1) Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and
              Children (WIC);
                (2) Head Start;
                (3) United States Institute of Peace; and
                (4) Peace Corps.
            (c) DISPLACEMENT OF OTHER FUNDS- It is the intent of this Act 
          that the Fund shall not operate to release funds for military
          expenditures which, were it not for the existence of the Fund, 
          would otherwise have been appropriated for nonmilitary expenditures.
          SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
            For the purposes of this Act--
                (1) The term `military purpose' means any activity or program
              which any agency of the Government conducts, administers, or
              sponsors and which effects an augmentation of military forces 
              or of defensive and offensive intelligence activities, or
              enhances the capability of any person or nation to wage war.
                (2) The term `actual appropriations made for a military
              purpose' includes, but is not limited to, amounts appropriated
              by the United States in connection with--
                    (A) the Department of Defense;
                    (B) the Central Intelligence Agency;
                    (C) the National Security Council;
                    (D) the Selective Service System;
                    (E) activities of the Department of Energy that have a
                  military purpose;
                    (F) activities of the National Aeronautics and Space
                  Administration that have a military purpose;
                    (G) foreign military aid; and
                    (H) the training, supplying, or maintaining of military
                  personnel, or the manufacture, construction, maintenance, 
                  or development of military weapons, installations, or
                  strategies.
                (3) The term `agency' means each authority of the Government
              of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to
              review by another agency, but does not include--
                    (A) the Congress; or
                    (B) the courts of the United States.
                (4) The term `person' includes an individual,
              partnership, corporation, association, or public or private
              organization other than an agency.
          SEC. 10. SEPARABILITY.
            If any section, subsection, or other provision of this Act, or 
          the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held
          invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of such
          section, subsection, or other provision to other persons or
          circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    .3
    
    "                  IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                               APRIL 5, 1995
     Mr. Jacobs (for himself, Mr. Leach, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Frank of
     Massachusetts, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Miller of California, 
     Ms. Rivers, Mr. Towns, Mr. Markey, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Vela 1zquez, Mr. 
     Yates, Ms. Furse, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr. McHale)"
    
    Also, Senate legislation was introduced in 1975 by Mark Hatfield
    (R-OR).
    
    
    
            

    
    
    	so, are the folks who elect not to contribute to the military also
    not obligated to be protected by it? seriously. They don't want to pay
    for it, why should the military protect them. 
    
    	jim

    The whole thing is moot considering we can blow the world up 12 times
    over with just one nuclear submarine.
    
    -Jack

    .5
    
    From their web site:
    
    "The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan
    federal institution created and funded by Congress to strengthen the 
    nation's capacity to promote the peaceful resolution of international 
    conflict. Established in 1984, the Institute meets its congressional 
    mandate through an array of programs, including grants, fellowships, 
    conferences and workshops, library services, publications, and other 
    educational activities. The Institute's Board of Directors is appointed 
    by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate."
                                                                       
    

Could somebody who has the energy to read the text tell me if this changes
expenditures?  I suspect it's just a feel-good measure for COs.  The same
amount of money gets spent on the military, but COs can say it's not their
money.

    
       well, if we do that, why not a whole questionnaire ?  I'd
     rather give to NASA than HUD.  I'd prefer to subsidize the
     Department of Agriculture than the Department of Health.
    
       We could have a budget by individually targetted contributions,
     with only the total specified by law.  "Let's see - 12% for the
     Justice Department, nothing for the UN..."
    
       There would be no need for a budget from either the President
     or the Congress - it would come from the people.  The various
     departments would flood the airwaves with TV ads just before
     April 15th.
    
       bb

    Why not allow us to opt out of paying for entitlements, too? 

    .11
    
    Obviously, under this legislation it would still be up to Congress to
    appropriate defense funds.  However, the bill's sponsors would suggest
    that this goes beyond feel-good measures; that, in fact, there is a
    constitutional basis for the rights of CO's to refuse to support war
    efforts.
    
    I should mention that a number of church organizations support the
    bill, and that other church organizations are pressuring Congress to
    consider tax legislation aimed at shielding their members from
    supporting expenditures which they find morally wrong.
    
    To me, it's a wonderful example of a potential political orgy
    (considering the possible makeup of interested bedfellows).
    

    Forgot to mention that this was brought to my attention by a letter to
    the editor of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News who suggested that, in her
    words, "some people 'earn down' so as not to pay for what conscience
    prohibits".  The text of the bill would also suggest that some people
    refuse to pay taxes altogether to salve their consciences, and that
    passage of the bill would, conceivably, increase tax revenue
    accordingly.
    

    I may be misquoting, but I think the late John Lennon had a song that
    went something like this:
    
    All we are saying
    Is re-route our taxes
    
    It was something like that, anyway.
    
    lunchbox

    >However, the bill's sponsors would suggest that this goes beyond 
    >feel-good measures; 
    
     How so?

    Sorry, this aside...
    
    "Gonna start a revolution from my bed.  'Cause you said the brains I
    had went to my head."
    
    What goes around...
    

    .17
    
    Ostensibly, by affirming Constitutional law.
    

    >Forgot to mention that this was brought to my attention by a letter to
    >the editor of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News who suggested that, in her
    >words, "some people 'earn down' so as not to pay for what conscience
    >prohibits".  
    
     Color me skeptical.
    
    >The text of the bill would also suggest that some people
    >refuse to pay taxes altogether to salve their consciences, and that
    >passage of the bill would, conceivably, increase tax revenue
    >accordingly.
    
     Pull the other one.

    .20
    
    >> The text of the bill would also suggest that some people
    >> refuse to pay taxes altogether to salve their consciences, and that
    >> passage of the bill would, conceivably, increase tax revenue
    >> accordingly.
    
    > Pull the other one.
    
    Consider it pulled.  I know one such individual personally; this person
    and her now-deceased husband have for more than 15 years carefully
    adjusted their withholding such that they would "owe" an amount at
    least as large as the portion of their nominal taxes representing the
    military budget, and they have filed their returns with checks for only
    the amount due that was over and above the military portion.  They are
    not alone; they belong to a peacenik network of several thousands who
    do the same thing.  The gummint has yet to prosecute any of them for
    this.

>    The gummint has yet to prosecute any of them for this.

I knew about the other part.  This is the part I find hard to believe.

    They had some of them in stir for a while, but they let them out
    without formally bringing therm to trial.

    Funny, maybe we should all go investigate the Victory Tax.
    That, IMO was the beginning of our current voluntary tax system.
    Anyone who didn't give to the victory tax was considered lower
    than whale dung.  So, 100% compliance and still voluntary.  Wow,
    what a concept.  Only problem was after the war was over, the tax
    didn't go away.  and NOW, they want to allow people who don't like
    "war" to be able to donate their money somewhere else.  
    
    Why don't they fix the whole GD tax system huh?  Christ I get sick.
                                                            

    re: Note 715.19 by DYPSS1::OPPER
    
    } Ostensibly, by affirming Constitutional law.
    
    WHAT?  If your talking about USC26 (Internal Revenue Code) you're
    not dealing with "Constitutional law" anymore.  If you're talking about
    the 16th Amendment, you're not even talking about the current tax
    system.
    
    Help me out.

.25

Sorry, I misspoke.  Not Constitutional LAW, but rather Constitutional 
PRINCIPLE, as supported (their contention, and most recently) by the 
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Congress.

    
    
    
    DEFENSE POT        ENTITLEMENTS POT      DISCRETIONARY POT
    
      You get to pick which pot your money goes in but the pot sizes stay
    the same. 
    
      The net result is nothing changes on the appropriation side but 400
    unemployed accountants will suddenly be added to the government
    payroll.
    
                              Steve J.

    
      Huh ?  What constitutional principle ?
    
      Congress has the power to levy taxes.  Since the 16th Amendment,
     it can choose to levy or not levy unequally.
    
      If Congress chooses to pass a law that says these people don't
     have to pay these taxes, that is constitutional.  If Congress
     chooses to pass a law saying anybody who doesn't pay these taxes
     will be executed, that is also constitutional.
    
      There isn't any constitutional right not to pay a tax.  Where
     did you get that ?  Please quote from US Constitution.
    
      bb

    re -.1
    
       I'm note quoting, but paraphrasing...there shall be no direct taxes
    ie income tax.
    
                              Steve J.

    >                 -< don't have the constitution handy >-
    
     see 10.0

                      <<< Note 715.29 by NCMAIL::JAMESS >>>

>       I'm note quoting, but paraphrasing...there shall be no direct taxes
>    ie income tax.
 
	I AM quoting.

	Amendment XVI

	The Congress shall have the 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.

	Ratified February 3, 1913

Jim

    
      Since at least 1936, SCOTUS has tossed hundreds of cases of
     people trying to avoid paying taxes.  Nobody has ever won, in
     fact, you have to raise an interesting point to get even one
     vote for granting cert.
    
      As a practical matter, the executive always weighs the cost of
     litigation and then throwing you in the slammer, vs. the amount
     of tax they could get.  This is purely a practical enforcement
     consideration.  If lots of people started to refuse, the penalties
     would go up.
    
      The 16th is perfectly clear and unambiguous - by law, you have
     to pay up.  Failure to do so is just another crime.  Of course,
     there were good reasons to oppose the 16th, and some smart people
     did oppose it.  But they lost.  It would now take the customary
     supermajority to repeal it.  Good luck with that !
    
      As to the proposed bill, it looks constitutional to me.  Taxes
     are an exception to the 14th.  They do NOT have to be equal,
     because the 16th came later in time, and amendments always
     supercede whatever sections or prior amendments they contradict.
    
      bb

    The 16th Amendment allowed for direct taxation.  The fact that the
    Constitution was amended to allow for this shows that this was not a
    power granted to the government via the Constitution...it is the
    creation of a new (and very dangerous, to the people) power.
    
    I bring to your attention that any amendment that grants the federal
    government power is immediately suspect.  Note that the first 10
    amendments specifically limit government and guarantee rights of the
    people.  The 11th has to do with limitations on judicial power; the 12th 
    has to do with voting procedures; the 13th abolished slavery (a guarantee 
    of basic human rights); the 14th has to do with citizenship and due 
    process (amoung other things); the 15th insures voting rights for former 
    slaves.  
    
    Note that none of the above amendments grants the federal government
    power over the people directly, but guarantees rights for the people.
    Then we come to the 16th Amendment, which flies in the face of what is
    written into the text of the Constitution in Article 1 section 8.  You
    have a one sentence amendment that begins with "The Congress shall have
    the power".  This is the first time that the government grants itself
    direct power over the people via amendment.  
    
    In my opinion, this Amendment contradicts the spirit of a limited
    federal government- something that the FF specifically wrote into our
    founding document (and "ensured" via the 10th Amendment).  It should be
    repealed.  To take money from someone's pay directly, without their
    consent, is theft- regardless of who is doing the taking.  I don't care 
    who consented in previous years to this abuse of power, I never gave my 
    consent (so much for being a sovereign entity).
    
    The power to tax is the power to control.  Direct taxation allows
    direct controls to be put on the people.  The fact that this practice
    is deemed necessary underscores that fact that our government is simply
    much larger than it was ever intended to be.
    
    
    -steve 

Good griefffff!  THEIR contention is that the government, by utilizing tax 
revenues to support efforts morally reprehensible to some, violates their 
freedom of religious expression.  I would think you Constitutional 
purists would eat this one up, rather than engage in picayune mental 
copulation about technicalities..

    
     Their contention makes some sense philosophically, and the tax may be
    morally reprehensible.  But the US Constitution never says Congress
    cannot have morally reprehensible laws - on the contrary, it is
    clearly constitutional for Congress to be morally reprehensible.
    
     They have no case in US law - SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear
    that freedom of religious expression gives nobody the right to break
    any law, so long as that law has a "demonstrable secular purpose".
    See, for example, Reynolds v. US (the polygamy case); or Employment
    Division v. Smith (1990), where the court affirmed a lower court in
    denying unemployment benefits to Native Americans convicted of peyote
    violations, despite conceding the drug use was part of their religion.
    Under the "belief-action doctrine", the "free exercise clause" only
    can make a law unconstitutional if it has no secular purpose.
    
     bb

                <<< Note 715.33 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

>    Note that none of the above amendments grants the federal government
>    power over the people directly,

	The first use of the phrase "Congress shall have the power" is
	contained in the 13th Amendment. And the 14th Amendment (in Section
	4) completely abrogated the property rights of former slave owners.

	Both could be considered violations of the "spirit" of a limited
	Federal government, but I doubt that you will find too many 
	people arguing for the repeal of either of these amendments.

	The "original intent" of the Founders was clear. They wisely
	built a change process into the Constitution. That process
	was followed for the 16th (and all other amendments).

Jim

    From the NCPTF Fall 1995 Newsletter:
    
    A HAVEN FOR THE CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE
    
    Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or 
    prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -- the Constitution
    
    During emperor Constantine's reign in the 4th century the church emerged 
    as a power alongside the state. Bishops we (sic) happy to accept 
    Constantine's patronage and in return followed his directives. Empire and 
    church eventually became fused. This union of church and state led to holy 
    wars and inquisitions so abhorrent we still refer to those times as the 
    dark ages.
    
    A profound belief in the free exercise of religion motivated the
    18th century founders of the U.S. who named it the first freedom in the 
    founding documents. Many immigrants had experienced the bite of 
    persecution that inevitably results when government either promotes or 
    hinders religion. In naming and elevating this first freedom the founders 
    underscored the government role with two restrictions: it cannot establish 
    and it cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Government cannot 
    facilitate or impede, aid or oppose, help or hinder. Together these two
    clauses guarantee religious freedom for citizens of every faith as well as 
    those who profess no faith at all. The connecting link between the two 
    clauses is freedom of conscience.
    
    Surely, religious liberty is not a subject that should be driving us apart.
    Yet it is. Disturbingly, the first freedom has currently become a 
    contentious political issue. In fact, the First Amendment is cited 
    repeatedly as an obstacle to private expression of religion.
    
    As one example, a misrepresentation is made of the issue of prayer in 
    public schools. On Meet the Press, Newt Gingrich said, "Most people don't 
    realize it's illegal to pray in public schools." Except by misinformed 
    school administrators, in fact, prayer has not been banned in public
    schools, nor should it be. Students are free to pray privately, and to have
    prayer meetings and Bible studies as long as they are not disruptive. 
    Students have a right to share their faith with their friends, wear 
    religious garb and express religious opinions in class and homework. The
    only prayer that is prohibited by the courts is the prayer that requires 
    government endorsement or approval.
    
    Government support for religion does not enhance religious liberty. 
    Instead, it proves a hindrance. Religions have flourished in this country 
    with unparalleled strength and diversity. Religion prospers most when 
    freest. In fact, attempts to have the state advance religion are, in the 
    last analysis, a confession of the religion's weakness. Church and state 
    are not enemies of each other. They simply operate with different 
    authorities.
    
    We at the Peace Tax Fund office are asking you to argue the religious 
    freedom aspect in your lobbying and letter writing. Our mission in this 
    regard is three-fold.
    
    First, we assert that without a Peace Tax Fund Bill the First Amendment's 
    second clause is being violated. Hear again this testimony from our 1992 
    hearing: The Peace Tax Fund Bill "seeks to reduce the 'inhibiting effect' 
    of current law on the practice of religion. -- Michael McConnell,
    Religious Freedom expert, Univ/Chicago Law School. "If not allowed to 
    follow one's conscience, there can be no religious freedom." -- Bishop 
    Thomas J. Gumbleton. "Faced with the conflict between religious duty and
    civil law each of our traditions has tried to no avail to honor the 
    conscience of employees who do not want their tax money used for military 
    purposes. We appeal to an end to what we consider to be the oppressive 
    entanglement of the government in the practice of our faith." -- Quakers, 
    Church of the Brethren, Mennonites.
    
    Secondly, we ask Congress to serve as a check and balance to another branch
    of government, the courts. When the Supreme Court refused in 1990 in the 
    Smith case to recognize religious practice as a constitutional right, 
    Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and
    provided a statutory right. RFRA is hailed as the most significant 
    legislation affecting religious liberty since the Bill of Rights was 
    ratified in 1791. Before RFRA, almost all religious liberties cases were 
    resolved in favor of the government and against the religious claimant. In 
    the three years since RFRA the process has been reversed. As the courts 
    consistently fail to establish conscientious right to re-direct military 
    taxes as a constitutional right, we rightly insist that Congress must 
    establish a statutory right, as it did in RFRA.
    
    Third, by our efforts we can safeguard what Roger Willians called "a haven 
    for the cause of conscience." Williams felt conscience is best protected by
    maintaining a healthy distance between church and government. We would
    certainly have to agree: a look back reveals that history is strewn with 
    the wreckage of churches and states, each destroyed by unhealthy unions 
    between the two. In these unions each party denies freedom of conscience.
    
    Remember, unlikely allies win religious freedom battles. Some members of 
    Congress have changed their perspectives on Peace Tax Fund legislation 
    when they have understood that this Bill represents an appeal for the
    freedom to practice one's religion and one's deepest moral-ethical
    convictions faithfully in all aspects of life.
    

    .36
    
    It wasn't so much the wording, but the end result, Jim.  The previous
    amendments protected/guaranteed rights.  The 16th does no such thing-
    it merely grants government the power to tax you and I directly, and
    without apportionment. 
    
    I'm not arging the process wasn't adhered to for amending.  I do
    believe this goes against the spirit of what was penned by our FF.
    
    
    -steve

    So it's basically a feel-good measure after all. The measure allows
    people to believe that "their" tax revenues are not being used for
    purposes they find abhorrent, without affecting the actual funding for
    the things they find abhorrent. Indeed, if the claim that this bill
    will prove to increase tax revenues from COs is true, they may in fact
    be contributing to a situation which allows more money (from other
    taxpayers) to be used for the very things these people find so
    abhorrent. Nifty, eh?

    
      Sorry to beat a dead horse, but the word "constitutional" sets
     me off, because there is so much blather in Soapbox (from both
     left and right) about whether an action or proposal is
     constitutional or unconstitutional, when what is actually meant
     is whether it is good or bad.  These two things are only very
     loosely related, if at all.
    
      The mere introduction of Amendment 16 was an admission that without
     it, direct unproportioned income taxes were not a power of Congress
     as listed.  Similarly, the introduction of HR1402 (see note 715.0)
     constitutes an admission that Congress has the power to impose these
     taxes, no matter how repugnant to the taxpayers, and no matter how
     bad a policy this may be on practical or moral grounds.
    
      I am NOT saying the 16th Amendment or HR 1402 is good or bad
     policy when I assert that HR1402 does not violate Amendment 16.
     I would say this whether I supported or opposed either or both.
    
      As to the "religious expression" argument, it is bogus, and SCOTUS
     has said so for centuries till the justices of all points of view
     are blue in the face.  I do not know how many times we have to go
     over this, but here we go again.  Notice that NOWHERE am I arguing
     for or against the First Amendment "Congress shall make no law
     respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free
     exercise thereof;..."  But what this means is logically airtight,
     and the Court has said it many times through both liberal and
     conservative times.  The court system has no ability to determine
     whether any religious doctrine is, in fact, a religion, whether it
     is "recognized" or "legitimate".  You may form, if you like, "The
     United Church of Jaywalking", and preach with impunity the doctrine
     that it is a sacrilege to cross a street except diagonally.  If you
     register, your Church will have exactly the rights and duties of any
     other Church.  But the "free exercise" clause cannot exempt you or
     your devotees from the jaywalking laws.  You have every right to
     your belief, and to speak of it.  You have no more right to your
     action than jaywalkers who choose NOT to join your church.  Action
     is only protected by the free exercise clause in a rare case : that
     the law regulating it serves no secular purpose.  It would be VERY
     hard to show this - for example, maybe a law against crossing yourself
     in public.  Otherwise, the secular laws cannot be circumvented by
     adopting any religion that urges their contravention.  SCOTUS has
     been precise about this, because of the early deluge of lawsuits
     over it.
    
      bb 

    The way I read history is that The 16th was ratified by 3/4 of the
    states, by the duly elected representatives of those states.
    Only after it became abundantly clear that the Gov't of the states
    could *not* be funded by tariffs and duties without unfair apportionment.
    
    Colin
    

    
      That's the way I'm reading it to, Doc.  Suppose I collect 4
     piles of money : $5/$7/$9/$11, for $32 total, and I spend on
     4 items, ABCD, $8 each.  Now suppose you pass a law saying "the $7
     collection may not be used for item C."  What have you done ?
    
      bb

                <<< Note 715.38 by ACISS2::LEECH "extremist" >>>

>    I'm not arging the process wasn't adhered to for amending.  I do
>    believe this goes against the spirit of what was penned by our FF.
 
	The power to tax was granted to the Federal goverment by the
	original document. This amendment simply expanded that power
	to an area that originally was prohibited.

Jim

    Direct taxation of the populace does not a "limited federal government"
    make.  This is my point.  We can discuss semantics, but I think you
    understand where I'm coming from.
    
    Such an amendment would never have passed in the days of the FF.

    
    Step 1 - Nothing ever changes
    
    Step 2 - If you want to feel nice and cozy, do what your little heart
             desires re: taxes.
    
    Step 3 - See Step 1
    

    re: Note 715.31 by BIGHOG::PERCIVAL
    
    Yup, that's what it says.  And if you go read the IRC, you will
    see it only applies to "US Citizens", as defined in Amendment 14.
    US Citizens are "taxpayers".
    
    Also, look at the wording in Amendment 16.  "Tax on income".
    What is "income"?  We don't know, because it's defined as
    corparate profits usually.  When did Mr. Percival incorparate?
    Also, there are ~51 types of Taxes... which, if any apply to you?
    Probably the "1040" tax.  Only problem is, the 1040 is a FORM, not
    any defined tax.
    
    You can't see through the word-wizardry.
    
    MadMike

    
    OK, I'm finally curious enough to bluntly ask.
    Just how much is this "research" costing you?
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Note 715.32 by GAAS::BRAUCHER
    
    Complete BS.  In my recent previous post I put in an example of 
    how people avoid filing a return.  It's against the law to
    commit purjury, and since the IRS can't tell me which of the 51
    taxes I failed to file on, I guess it's a dead issue.  They can't
    answer their own questions.
    
    Next up, you and many others are too busy looking at the 16th
    Amendment.  The code, which is full of holds and word art, is what
    you're supposed to follow, if it applies.  
    
    As for the executive weighing the cost v. benefits, usually that is
    true, but they love going after hardasses over as little as $25.
    
    We're dealing with administrative BS, not the Constitution when
    discussing the IRS and "income tax".
    
    Quick example:  If I could call what you call "income", COMPENSATION
    for SERVICES RENDERED, it's not income.  An example of this is why
    aren't Awards from damages taxable?   If I can, properly, redefine
    my cash as "compensation", then when the IRS comes back and says,
    "Hey, you didn't file".  "Ya, I had no taxable income".  The End.
    
    MadMike

    
      MadMike : the current Income Tax Code is atrocious legislation.
    
      But the US Constitution is bereft of any indication that a law
     need not be obeyed just because it is atrocious policy.
    
      "Income" means money coming in - opposite of "outgo".  And power
     to tax it was given to Congress by 2/3 of both houses of Congress
     and 3/4 of the states, by the book.
    
      You're just mad that your side lost.  But you have no case in law.
    
      bb

re: Note 715.49 by GAAS::BRAUCHER

}                        -< never said I liked the IRS >-
 
Never said you did.  Just wished people in general would look deeper
at the issue.  The Congress is busy tweeking and tuning.  The whole
"problem" with that is, who does it apply to?  Congress can do ANYTHING
they want, but where it is in force is a different story.
(example: until recently they were exempt from their own laws.  They
are sovereign over their territory which DOESN'T include the states.
The States, as evidenced by batf agents wearing DISTRICT OF MONTANA
jackets ought to set little alarm bells off in your mind.)
   
    
}      But the US Constitution is bereft of any indication that a law
}     need not be obeyed just because it is atrocious policy.

Funny thing is:  We're OBEYING the law.  It has been ruled
(Gregory vs. Helvering, 293 US 465; Knetsch vs. U.S., 361) that it
is ok to structure your affairs to minimize the taxes owed, if any.
    
}      "Income" means money coming in - opposite of "outgo".  

I THINK you're wrong.  Income hasn't been legally defined.  I think the
supreme Court has ruled AGAINST the government from defining "income".
Too Vague.
The IRS however trys to define "income" as everything under the sun,
but when push comes to shove, they are on shakey ground.  Again, the
IRS is an administrative body.  What they define as "income" is not
necessarily going to hold up in a court of law.  (next alarm bell:
Why do we have separate tax courts?  It ain't to offload REAL courts
from having to deal with joe taxpayer, it's so the IRS can use its
rules to Stomp on Joe.)

} And power
}     to tax it was given to Congress by 2/3 of both houses of Congress
}     and 3/4 of the states, by the book.
 
Yes/no/maybe so.  This fact is debatable, and a topic for another day.
There is ample proof this was pushed through by midnight funny bizness,
and just EXACTLY how many states "ratified" the amendment?  I think they
missed one.
   
}      You're just mad that your side lost.  But you have no case in law.
 
No case law?  Look at Long v. United States.  I think we're going with
apples and oranges here.  You're coming in with a religious/ moral issue
to taxation.  This is why the IRS "requires" religious organizations to
"get a tax exempt status", so they can be taxed.  RELIGIOUS activites
in general are EXEMPT FROM TAXATION (not tax exempt).  See Amendment 1.
"My side" didn't loose.  The People lost.  Many people can and do
"win" all the time.  You just don't hear about it.

My beef with this whole deal is everyone is piddling over flat tax,
no tax, untax, fun tax, tax tax tax, i don't wanna pay for this or
that tax.... when I'm argueing about the validity of the whole system.
Finally, the system IMO is not "unconstitutional" but the way it is
used against the people IS.  In a nutshell, it's FRAUD.  The IRS can
legally tax a small fraction of the people they currently do with this
system.  The fact that they trap millions of people into the current 
system via fraudulent means is wrong, IMO.

Regards,
Rev. MadMike

    
      It certainly might benefit us all if this year we paid very
     close attention to what every candidate says about taxes (and
     presidential candidates are not even the most important, either).
    
      No matter who wins where, you can bet tax policy will be a big
     item next term.  It remains to be seen what sort of tax reform
     our political system might come up with.  I'm pessimistic because
     of the past performances, but, go ahead, surprise me, somebody !
    
      bb

    <<< Note 715.46 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    Also, look at the wording in Amendment 16.  "Tax on income".
>    What is "income"? 

	What part of "from whatever source derived" do you not understand?

Jim

    The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with the Internal Revenue Code.
    Therefore what the 16th amendment says is irrelevent.  It won't
    get ruled on because it's not in play.
    
    Let me put this into terms you can understand.
    
    When the gov't effs with guns it'll be on something like "to protect
    commerce".  Right?  Within 1000 feet of a school is a no-no because...
    commerce.  They're not even getting near the 2nd amendment so there
    is no way to "test" the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment.
    
    You're chasing the wrong tail.
    
    MadMike
                                                                   

    <<< Note 715.53 by VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK "Four54 Camaro/Only way to fly" >>>

>    The 16th Amendment has nothing to do with the Internal Revenue Code.
>    Therefore what the 16th amendment says is irrelevent.  It won't
>    get ruled on because it's not in play.
 
	The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to tax income.
	How Congress weilds that power is the subject of the Internal
	Revenue Code.

Jim

    
    "The Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but
     simply prohibited the previous 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..."
    
    Stanton v Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103, @ page 112 (1916 Supreme
    Court)
    
    What is an indirect tax ?
    
    "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from
     its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..."
    
    Tyler v U.S., 281 U.S. 497 @ page 502 (1930 Supreme Court)
    
    FYI, the tangible fruits are your income, while the event is...
    well, you find the event in Title 26 that requires a tax on
    your income AS A MEASURE of some event you performed.
    
    Percival, you should read a bit more.
    
    

    
    Oh yeah, almost forgot this one:
    
    "The income tax 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 measuring the
     amount of tax."
    
    Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, @ page 2580
    
    Again, tell me what ACTIVITY or PRIVILEGE is the basis of income tax
    in Title 26 ...

    
    .33
    
    Leech, hope you read the last couple of notes. 
    
    

    
    Ah, the things that men of free character come up with.
    
    Helpful hint.
    Mad Mike is *NOT* a lawyer.
    Mad Mike is *NOT* a tax accountant.
    
    								-mr. bill

Good thing.  I don't think a lawyer or accountant with "Mad Mike" on his
shingle would get much business.

    
    Think again.
    
    								-mr. bill

    ... lots of nutty advice here..
    Like the base note about giving money to the needy. Great idea! Execpt,
    if I can, I would like to continue giving money to the military and
    defence. And when bad times came upon us, the peacenicks could send
    their entitlement buddies to fight in Bosnia and Nam, and stuff when we
    start running out of good men to go defend women and children of the
    world.

    re: Lots of people following such nutty advice..
    
    Ya, the laws of the United States of America.  Whatta Laugher.
    
    NOWEHRE have I suggested a course of action.  What I posted was
    informational only, from Cornell Law School.  The fact that
    they're hanging off internet means I don't have to pay $1000+
    for a set of law books.
    
    You're right I'm not a tax guy or a lawyer.  I wouldn't want to be.
    I study this to benefit me and my family.  If Mr. Bill chooses
    to stick his head in the sand, that's fine by me.  It's still
    a free country, sorta.  I find it somewhat concerning that bill
    continually ridicules that which he can't understand.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

|Tips are a private gift, to ensure promptness. - legally.  Non-taxable.
    
    You did *NOT* find anything of the kind at Cornell.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Note 715.60 by NOTIME::SACKS
    
    } I don't think a lawyer or accountant with "Mad Mike" on his
    } shingle would get much business.
    
    Right, I'd be disbarred in a heartbeat.  When you know how to play
    the game and can break the big boys toys, you get run out of town
    on a rail.   
    
    Any "tax accountant" offering that advice would go to jail.
                                                              
    I wasn't put on earth to play games.  I just got sick and tired of
    getting pissed on everywhere you turn.  If I can get people off my
    back quickly, what's so bad about that?

    re: Note 715.64 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    } Tips are a private gift, to ensure promptness. - legally.
    } You did *NOT* find anything of the kind at Cornell
    
    You're right duffus, that's a supreme court cite.  It's called
    precident.  It's pretty clear what the supreme court called
    "income", and fyi the supreme court "beats" all other courts
    if/when the topic of "income" comes up.
    
    You still haven't broken my lien yet.  The fact that all you can
    do is blow your wad all over the place when I (we ) present
    verifyable facts says it all..,
    
    MadMike

    
    No, that's not a supreme court cite, you cited the internut....
    
    http://image.ucr.edu/~borg/jwz/Constitution/intro.html
    
    								-mr. bill

    }No, that's not a supreme court cite, you cited the internut..
    
    "Income" EXCLUDES WAGES, SALARIES, TIPS, ETC.
    (Graves v. People of NY. ex rel O'Keefe 59 SCt 595, 1939)
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    See, that's a supreme Court cite.
    
    The definitions (IRC 7701) were in fact obtained from internet.
    I hate typing.  I just happened to be doing 2 things at once.
    I know there's a lot going on here, but this is supposed to be
    confusing, so you can't figure it out.
    
    Keep spinning.
                                          

William just finds it disturbing that some folks take an interest in
certain aspects of the interpretations of current tax laws and their
administration.

William would prefer that folks all disregard that, and be good little
doobees and send their dollars unquestioningly to the people in Washington,
DC who know best.

William is concerned that if he doesn't make this clear, he's failing
in his duties to be a good Murrican.

    reinforces my feeling that william is an arse first class.

|William just finds it disturbing that some folks take an interest in
|certain aspects of the interpretations of current tax laws and their
|administration.
    
    Certain aspects of the interpretations of current tax laws?
    
    A free clue.  ASK A TAX ACCOUNTANT A SIMPLE QUESTION?  ARE TIPS
    TAXABLE?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    BTW, Mad Mike, a softball for you.
    
    Regarding "Graves v. People of NY. ex rel O'Keefe"
                                                     
    	Name justices voting with majority
    	Name justices voting with minority
    	Name justice writing for the majority
    	Name justice writing for the minority
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Note 715.71 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    } A free clue.  ASK A TAX ACCOUNTANT A SIMPLE QUESTION?  ARE TIPS
    
    Of course they are, if you're a taxpayer.  Ask a tax accountant
    anything and you'll get an "irs" favorable answer... because it's
    his butt and in his official capacity as a "tax accountant" if
    he tells you how to get "aggressive" he could get himself into
    hot water.  Not to mention, it's in his best interest to keep 
    people around to employ his services.  Imagine if all taxpayers
    disaappeared?  What would he do for a living then?
    
    re: who's who in 1939.  You obviously looked it up.  Tell us about
    the decision.  Better yet.  Does the decision NOT say what I wrote?
    If that is the case, please correct me.
    
    MadMike

    
|   re: who's who in 1939.  You obviously looked it up.  Tell us about
|   the decision.  Better yet.  Does the decision NOT say what I wrote?
|   If that is the case, please correct me.
    
    You obviously didn't look it up.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    What difference does it make?  It's obviously a side issue.  
    
    The lack of Mike's response to your demand has little relevance on the
    argument at hand.

    
    Another "damn the truth" reply.
    
    								-mr. bill

   from Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States,
 1992, Oxford University Press, "Graves v. New York ex rel O'Keefe" by
 Melvin I. Urofsky

   306 U.S.466 (1939), argued 6 Mar. 1939, decided 27 Mar. 1939 by
 vote of 7 to 2; Stone for the Court, Hughes and Frankfurter concurring,
 Butler and McReynolds in dissent.  Until this case, there had been an
 explicit immunity of state employees from federal taxation and federal
 employees from state taxes, going back to the 1871 decision in Collector
 v. Day.  This immunity had been reinforced in the famous Income Tax Cases
 (see *Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust, 1895), in which the Court had
 held that a tax on income was a tax on the source of that income.

   New York imposed an income tax on a New York resident employed by the
 Federal Home Owners Loan Corporation, who paid the tax and then appealed
 on the basis of intergovernmental tax immunity.  The Court held that
 nothing in the Constitution required such an immunity, nor did any act of
 Congress specifically grant immunity to federal employees.  The Court thus
 concluded that salaries of federal employees were subject to regular
 state taxes.

   Justice Harlan Fiske *Stone's opinion specifically overruled Collector
 v. Day and other cases supporting immunity as well as the doctrine that
 a tax on income constitutes a tax on the source of that income.

   Later in the year Congress enacted the Public Salary Tax Act, specifically
 extending federal income taxes to state employees and also consenting to
 state taxes on the income of federal employees, although under the ruling
 in this case such consent was no longer necessary.

   (See also TAX IMMUNITIES)

    Mr. bill, here's the straight poop:  This has nothing to do with the
    internet anymore (cornell, etc).
    
    I have 4 pages (at least) of case cites where the IRS has LOST.  I 
    referenced the one I did simply FYI.  You now want me to write an essay 
    on the  decision, to which I say, "bad words".  IF I were relying on this
    particular case to pretect myself legally, you can bet I'd have
    it handy, but I don't.
    
    So the question remains.  DOES THE DECISION SAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN
    WHAT I SAID?  You obviously have the book in front of you, ready
    to pounce on me if I screwed up who said what.
    
    Nobodys "damning the truth", I just ain't gonna be your court
    page looking up all sorts of stuff to amuse you.
    
    MadMike 

    re: Clear your source is *NOT* Cornell, *NOT* SCotUS.
    
    FWIW, you're right.  My source is from "Free at Last from the IRS"
    by  Dr. N.A. Scott of Oceanside California.  To the best of my
    knowledge, his is NOT in prison for "tax evasion", or anything
    else for that matter.
                                                         
    If you think I'm relying on internet to screw around with our
    friends HQ'd in Puerto Rico, you are mistaken.
                    

    You too can get all kinds of "cites" for only $40.00, yes, $40.00
    (plus $3.00 shipping and handling....)
    
    								-mr. bill