The thing is the IRS has addressed the issue of the 16th amendment and subsequent court decisions have affirmed the constitutionality of the amendment. Miller V US addresses "The Law that Never Was."
IRS response:
-D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax
laws are unconstitutional.
This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.
The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also
ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only
three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment.
There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v.
Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) â the court stated, âWe find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company ...
and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.â The court imposed sanctions for them having advanced a âpatently frivolousâ position.
-17-
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) â stating that âthe Secretary of Stateâs certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,â the court upheld Stahlâs conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) â the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as âtotally without meritâ and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. âEvery court that has considered this
argument has rejected it,â the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) â the court affirmed Fosterâs conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens. Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac.
R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the âsixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.â
Relevant Case Law:
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) â the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayerâs frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) â the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district courtâs frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneysâ fees to the government âbecause [the taxpayersâ] legal position was patently frivolous.â The
appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing âfrivolous
arguments in bad faith.â
Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) â the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.
IRS response:
-D. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution was not properly ratified, thus the federal income tax
laws are unconstitutional.
This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification. This argument has survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue.
The Law: The Sixteenth Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. U.S. Const. amend. XVI. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified by forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also
ratified the Amendment. Under Article V of the Constitution, only
three-fourths of the states are needed to ratify an Amendment.
There were enough states ratifying the Sixteenth Amendment even without Ohio to complete the number needed for ratification. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent to ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment in Brushaber v.
Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Since that time, the courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal income tax.
Relevant Case Law:
Miller v. United States, 868 F.2d 236, 241 (7 th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) â the court stated, âWe find it hard to understand why the long and unbroken line of cases upholding the constitutionality of the sixteenth amendment generally, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company ...
and those specifically rejecting the argument advanced in The Law That Never Was, have not persuaded Miller and his compatriots to seek a more effective forum for airing their attack on the federal income tax structure.â The court imposed sanctions for them having advanced a âpatently frivolousâ position.
-17-
United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1441 (9 th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1036 (1987) â stating that âthe Secretary of Stateâs certification under authority of Congress that the sixteenth amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states and has become part of the Constitution is conclusive upon the courts,â the court upheld Stahlâs conviction for failure to file returns and for making a false statement.
Knoblauch v. Commissioner, 749 F.2d 200, 201 (5 th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830 (1986) â the court rejected the contention that the Sixteenth Amendment was not constitutionally adopted as âtotally without meritâ and imposed monetary sanctions against Knoblauch based on the frivolousness of his appeal. âEvery court that has considered this
argument has rejected it,â the court observed.
United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457 (7 th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 883 (1986) â the court affirmed Fosterâs conviction for tax evasion, failing to file a return, and filing a false W-4 statement, rejecting his claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
E. Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens. Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.
The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid. In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited to Brushaber v. Union Pac.
R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the âsixteenth amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation.â
Relevant Case Law:
In re Becraft, 885 F.2d 547 (9 th Cir. 1989) â the court affirmed a failure to file conviction, rejecting the taxpayerâs frivolous position that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax.
Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 518 (7 th Cir. 1984) â the court rejected the argument that the Constitution prohibits imposition of a direct tax without apportionment, and upheld the district courtâs frivolous return penalty assessment and the award of attorneysâ fees to the government âbecause [the taxpayersâ] legal position was patently frivolous.â The
appeals court imposed additional sanctions for pursuing âfrivolous
arguments in bad faith.â
Broughton v. United States, 632 F.2d 706 (8 th Cir. 1980) â the court rejected a refund suit, stating that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes imposition of an income tax without apportionment among the states.
