Anonymous asked in Business & FinanceTaxesUnited States · 1 decade ago

If Federal income tax is unconstitutional why do we pay it?

Why do people pay taxes (federal) if they dont have to? and why is the IRS not reconginized as a government agencey. Don't try to convince me by copying pasting the 16th amendment because that's all bull ****... Stampler vs US 1896 i believe Defined WAGES Non taxable. Wage is defined as; you work at Wendy's you get paid 5$ a/h your exchanging your goods/services for pay equal exchange. Profit is defined as INCOME OVER WAGES.... SO THE WHY DO MILLIONS OF AMERICANS PAY INCOME TAX ON THEIR WAGES.... The only way someone is going to sway my opinion on this is if there were to get a Supreme court case DEMING The 16 amendment constitutional... Because I believe in 1896 the supreme court declared anything like it unconstitutional if there were a review on it later on maybe and then maybe(not talking about congress because they cant declare something constitutional or unconstitutional.) talking about Supreme court. SO FIND THE LAW THAT TELLS ME I HAVE TO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON WAGES! A LAW NOT A CODE A LAW. PROVE ME WRONG IF YOU CAN!!!!

7 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The federal income tax is NOT unconstitutional. An income tax on wages was NEVER unconstitutional and the 16th amendment was properly ratified to remove the restriction on tax income from personal property.

    Since you did not provide a proper citation to Stampler v. US, I'm not going to bother to try and find it. However, I can guarantee that you are mistaken about the decision.

    The "equal exchange" argument is complete bull*** and has been defeated in court every single time it has been used. Here are just two cases (there are many others) that refute that ridiculous argument.

    "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions." - Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985)

    "According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital’ are commonly treated as income." - United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980)

    Your ignorance about how the Constitution, the court system, and government works is astounding. If Congress enacts a law and the courts declare it unconstitutional, the law is unconstitutional in regards to the Constitution at that date. Once the Constitution is changed by adding an amendment that addresses the issue through the amendment process, the court ruling is essentially overruled by the Constitution. Therefore, the two Pollock decisions in 1894 and 1895 declaring a tax on income from personal property as unconstitutional are essentially irrelevant in regards to current tax laws.

    After the ratification of the 16th amendment, Congress enacted an income tax law. The law was challenged as being unconstitutional in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). The SUPREME COURT, in an unanimous decision, held that the income tax was constitutional because “in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment."

    Finally, you want to know where the law is? It is located where all other laws passed by Congress are located, within the U.S. Statutes at Large. For the most part, the U.S. Statutes at Large are not available online. However, they can be found in most law libraries and most Federal Depository Libraries. You can find a Federal Depository Library in your state at

    The current income tax laws are based upon the Internal Revenue Act of 1954 and the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Several other laws have amended those two acts in the years since. You can find the 1954 act in Volume 68A of the U.S. Statutes at Large starting on page 3. You can find the 1986 act in Volume 100 of the U.S. Statutes at Large starting on page 2085. The 1954 Act is PUBLIC LAW 83-591. The 1986 Act is PUBLIC LAW 99-514.

    BTW, Title 26 of the U.S. Code IS LAW. While it may not be "positive law", it is prima facie law. A prima facie law is one that is considered evidence of the actual, or positive, laws passed by Congress. In court cases, the court will refer to Title 26 in considering arguments about what the law means. The acts of Congress will be referenced in instances where there is disagreement about how Title 26 states the positive law. You need to read

    Now, will you take the time to listen to reason and actually look at the different sources I have provided? Or, will you remain attached to your ignorance and not even bother? I bet that the latter is most likely.

  • 1 decade ago

    If the 16th Amendment is bull, then the whole Constitution is bull too. The law is based on the Constitution. BTW, the 1896 case is way outdated. The courts and Congress have overturned the view on this case couple decades after. And many recent cases have upheld the 16th Amendment. Just ask Wesley Snipes.

  • 1 decade ago

    All constitutional amendments are constitutional by definition. No amendment has ever been deemed constitutional. Only laws and codes are ruled constitutional or not by the Supreme Court.

    So I guess that means you have no freedom of speech since the 1st Amenedment was never ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, if I were to use your logic. The police will be around to arrest in you the morning since you have no freedom of speech.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If Federal income tax was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have said so decades ago. You are a fool to believe otherwise.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Judy
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Ah, the old "don't try to convince me with facts, my mind's made up"

    Don't pay. Then work your way up through the court system - maybe YOU can be the supreme court case you're looking for. Probably not though - when they refuse to even bother to hear it, you'll be even more convinced you're right.

  • MadMan
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Apt name, Thejoker.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Oh, boy. Another tax protester (yawn).

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.