Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Court to hear IRS challenge

                                                                                      Judges

Supremes docket income tax challenge
Colorado man's challenge to IRS says wages don't count

Res Ipsa Loquitor

The government calls those who argue the income tax has no legal foundation “tax protesters” and labels their arguments “frivolous.” And usually judges toss their arguments out of court, assess them court costs on top of taxes, interest and penalties, and sometimes even threaten them if they file further cases.

But now the U.S. Supreme Court – the nine judges who sit on the bench in Washington by virtue of their selection by presidents and confirmation by the U.S. Senate – has docketed exactly that type of case.



Maehr wrote in his petition for judicial review that he’s been the victim of administrative bludgeoning used by the IRS to quell citizens with objections as well as questions.
[...]

Among Maehr’s contentions is that while the government has the legal authority to tax, the Internal Revenue Service has used “unlawful, unconstitutional, unfair and biased” manipulations to assess income taxes on that which is not income – essentially salaries and wages.

Basing his argument on 10 years’ worth of research into tax law, he concludes that salaries and wages are the result of the mutual agreement among participants to exchange labor for money – and that’s not income. Income, he said, is the increased value of an asset, such as interest on money in a bank account, which can be subjected to income tax. [Full]

Regardless of the merit of this, or any case for that matter (I direct you to Obamacare), American law is driven by the necessity of keeping bloated government afloat; law and principle be damned.  Besides. Obama evidently knows where Chief Justice Robert's kids go to school.  Still, Maehr is a true & principled American hero in my book. 

Your real self -- the ''I am I'' -- is master of this land, the ruler of this empire. You rightfully have power and dominion over it, all its inhabitants, and all contained in its realm. (Quote by - Robert Collier)

8 comments:

Jess said...

From what I know, the big sell for changing the Constitution, to remove apportionment for income taxes, was the explanation that "income" was not the exchange of labor for money. That, and the progressive system proposed that soaked the rich and left the lower pay bracket folks alone.

Meanwhile, courts laughed at the frivolous argument that wages and salaries are not "income", and threw those that disagreed into the poor house, after jail.

Considering how the Supreme Court has acted the last few years, I'm thinking they'll drop a few hits of acid before they write their opinion.

DougM said...

They'll probably rule that all wages are subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause and can be either determined by Congress or confiscated by the ICC to provide everyone's right to high-speed rail or something.
This will be expensive, since high-speed rail will have to stop within walking/wheelchair distance of everyone's home and place of work and shopping and the abortion clinic and…

Anonymous said...

Mr. Maehr's grammar is a little weak, but I believe his logic works. Hope the Supremes actually consider this one!
PvtCdr(SS) MichigammeDave

george said...

I think they will simply redefine it as a "fine" and fine all wage earners for exhaling CO2.

El Jefe said...

Everyone should be jumping on this

Anonymous said...

Once Holder got his paws on those photos of Roberts pounding away on a 9 year old boy the Constitution went out the shithouse door.

Steve in Greensboro said...

If they can find Abominicare constitutional, this will be a slam dunk.

And "income...is the increased value of an asset" eh?

So I buy gold coin for $1,000. The U.S. government prints money, doubles the money supply and my coin is worth $2,000 in the debased currency. Then I sell the coin and get taxed on the "increase" in value? Because that is income? When all that happened is that I avoided a loss due to U.S. government money printing? If they're going to do that to me, somebody should at least send me flowers.

Kristophr said...

Steve: You are being too optimistic.

You buy a $20 US Double Eagle for $1900.

The Treasury calls you an evil gold hoarder, takes the coin from you, and gives you a shiny new plastic $20 coin in exchange.

You use the new plastic coin to buy a gumball from a candy machine in a store entrance somewhere. You chew it quickly to avoid being charged for hoarding food.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.