Is Federal Income Tax Unconstitutional?
Posted: April 12th, 2011 | Author: Joe | Filed under: Taxes | Tags: 16th Amendment, Income Tax, Taxes | 3 Comments »All those people dutifully paying their income taxes are fools! In case you didn’t know it, the federal income tax is unconstitutional and you don’t have to pay a dime! At least that’s what some people claim every year at this time.
That’s right, tax day is rapidly approaching and that means it’s time for all the crackpots to hit the Internet, airwaves and cable channels selling books and classes on how the federal government cannot really collect income tax. Some may even be offering their legal services to help you fight the IRS in your valiant struggle to uphold the constitution. Often times, these people have been in and out of prison themselves for not paying income tax, but that’s beside the point…
Mine being an inquiring sort of mind, I did a little digging on this subject, and here’s what I found…
Income Tax Unconstitutional - The premise.
The premise of the “income tax is unconstitutional” crowd is that:
“The authority of the federal government to collect its income tax depends upon the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the federal income tax amendment, which was allegedly ratified in 1913.”
What the constitution says about taxes.
Before we can discuss the 16th amendment, we need to consider the relevant clauses of the base constitution and then see what the 16th amendment was meant to amend.
Article I. Section 8, Clause 1:
Article I. Section 8, paragraph (clause) 1:
“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;”
This essentially grants ability of Congress to collect taxes – including income tax.
Article I. Section 9, Clause 4:
Article I. Section 9, paragraph (clause) 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
This clause limits how Congress can collect direct taxes.
What it all means
It’s when Article I, Section 9, clause 4 is considered that things seem to support the “income tax is unconstitutional” crowd. Basically, Section 9 says that while Congress can impose a federal income tax, it must be uniform in its application. Anyone who has ever done his own taxes can see that our tax code is far from uniform. I would wager that even those who have not done their own taxes are at least familiar with the concept of “tax brackets”. The U.S. Federal tax bracket systems ensures that those who earn more, pay more. This by it’s very definition is not uniform. I’m sure there are those who would argue that as long as the non-uniformity is applied uniformly, then it’s consistent and supported by Sections 8 and 9 of Article I. In other words, as long as all millionaires are taxed a uniform amount greater than non-millionaires, then it’s OK. In actuality, it’s not necessary to twist the argument like this.
In 1913, Congress ratified the 16th amendment to grant the power to collect income tax to the federal government. Or did it?
(Note: you can read the U. S. Constitution for yourself here.)
The law that never was
According to the proponents of the unconstitutional income tax view, the 16th amendment was never truly ratified.
Article V of the constitution states that in order to ratify an amendment, 3/4 of the states in the union must ratify the amendment. At the time of the 16th amendment (1913), there were only 48 states in the union, so 36 would have to ratify it. Philander Knox, the Secretary of State at the time, claimed to have 38 states who had ratified the amendment.
But according to William J. Benson , there were 4 states (Kentucky, Oklahoma, California, and Minnesota) who had either not ratified the amendment, or had done so in a manner that violated their own state constitutions.
He goes on to state that upon rigorous investigation, including traveling to each and every state capital, he discovered that in fact only 2 states had every truly ratified the 16th amendment!
Why the 16th amendment doesn’t matter
While this may be fascinating and appear to grant the tax payer the right if not the inherent duty to not pay income tax, it’s all a moot point because the 16th amendment does not, in fact, alter the federal government’s taxing powers. That’s right, all the work to pass the amendment, and all the bickering after the fact is a waste of time. At least according to Robert Greenslade (and others).
In the end, it seems that Congress does indeed have the power to collect income tax because it is not taxing the money, but the transaction which results in the transfer of wealth. You see, Section 9 dealt with direct tax, not indirect. If income tax was a direct tax, then the 16th amendment would be needed. It would also mean that you would be taxed for any and all wealth owned by you as of tax day. Instead, you are taxed on the transaction of receiving that wealth – not on its possession.
Maybe that’s just a lot of legal twisting, parsing and massaging of the language and it’s meaning. I’m not a lawyer. But one thing is certain: failure to pay your taxes will get you in big trouble with the IRS, and the “income tax is unconstitutional” argument is an argument you won’t win.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
[...] Do not pay income tax its unconstitutional!! Is Federal Income Tax Unconstitutional? [...]
Yeah it’ll get you in trouble, but that doesn’t make it right!