Hi Chiroptera.
This part 4 of the documentary is the one, if you were to watch only one of the parts, is the one I would like you to analyze.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbJ1N9Lm__w
If you wish not to view it, I will do my best in breaking down the interview.
He first interviews Sheldon Cohen, a former tax commissioner and one of the authors of the tax code.
First, Russo confronts Cohen about the "voluntary compliance" statement in the tax code. Cohen uses the analogy of stopping at a red light at 2am as "voluntary". The traffic code, however, according to Russo, states that it is mandatory to stop at a red light, and that Cohen is trying to define voluntary as mandatory.
Second, Russo asks Cohen if the government has the ability to prosecute citizens based on the info given on the 1040. Cohen says yes. Russo replies that if the government can imprison you on info stated on your 1040, then it's a violation of the 5th amendment, which protects us from self-incrimmination.
Third, Russo asks if the word
income is defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. Cohen responds, "the law says that the government can tax income from any source derived", but Cohen agrees that the word "income" isn't defined in the code.
Russo asks how can American citizens know what income is if it isn't defined in the code.
Edwin Vierra, I believe his name was, a constitutional attorney, states that the Supreme Court ruled in the Eisner vs. Macomber case, that income was defined as "gains or profits from some activity", not wages or labor.
Wages and labor, as claimed by Russo and others, was considered private property. As stated in the Coppage vs.Kansas case, it states that "Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are
exchanged for money or other forms of property".
One last argument that Russo uses is the
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. case.
Russo mentions that the result of that case was that the Supreme Court was "conferred no new power of taxation", and that the income tax was unconstitutional.
However, looking at the wiki article, I found the case Russo was trying to use. It states:
Some tax protesters challenge the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,[28] to the effect that 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 [. . . .]" Tax protesters argue that in light of this language, the income tax is unconstitutional in that it is a direct tax and that the tax should be apportioned
Also from wiki:
The reference to "being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it [the income tax] belonged" is a reference to the effect of the 1895 Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[30] where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) ” which, like taxes on income from labor, had always been considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the apportionment rule) ” were, beginning in 1895, treated as direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock,[31] making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor...
This essentially refutes Russo's using of the Stanton case as evidence that the income tax is unconstitutional.
Sorry for the drawn out post. Changing Russo's argument from video to writing is much easier to unpack, for me.
I thank you for your time.
abe:
Third, Russo asks if the word
income is defined anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code. Cohen responds, "the law says that the government can tax income from any source derived", but Cohen agrees that the word "income" isn't defined in the code.
Russo asks how can American citizens know what income is if it isn't defined in the code.
It seems Russo left out the Supreme Court case of
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., in which Justice Butler states that:
quote:
After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
Italics mine.
It seems Russo's argument continues to crumble.
Edited by Infixion, : Added the Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.
™ Version 4.2