Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 US 1 (1916)

The Brushaber decision determined that since the provisions of Article I of the Constitution were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, BOTH specify that Direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED (to the state governments for collection). The Court ruled that:

"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors--merely an equal exchange of funds for services."

"the command of the amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to the rule of apportionment by a consideration of the source from which the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity and were placed under the other or direct class."

and:

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."

Since the income tax is "without apportionment" by virtue of the wording of the 16th Amendment, it cannot be a DIRECT TAX, because direct taxes MUST still be apportioned. So, the income tax is still an INDIRECT TAX.

According to the Supreme Court, the 16th Amendment does nothing except move the Income Tax out of the Indirect classification of duties (imposed on foreign imports), and into the Indirect classification of excises (imposed on privileges and commodities).

BUT IT IS STILL AN INDIRECT TAX, NOT A DIRECT TAX WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT, AS DECEPTIVELY CLAIMED BY THE I.R.S.

The Brushaber decision concludes by referring the reader, for the definition of excise taxes, to the Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911) decision, handed down five years earlier. So, the Court knew what it was doing !

BUT, there is an even bigger story about Brushaber to tell. You see if you look this case up and read it, you will see that the Supreme Court tells Frank Brushaber (an American citizen) that the tax IS Constitutional (as an indirect excise) and that he (Brushaber) has to pay it (the income tax). The IRS relies on, and cites, this Court ruling, as absolute proof that the income tax IS CONSTITUTIONAL. AND THEY ARE RIGHT. HOWEVER, Frank Brushaber, a citizen, FILED THIS LAW SUIT ON BEHALF OF HIS FOREIGN PRINCIPALS, FROM WHOM HE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT AND WITHHOLD INCOME TAX AS THEIR (the foreigners') US (withholding) AGENT.

FRANK WAS TOLD TO PAY THE TAX ON THE INCOME OF FOREIGNERS, NOT HIS OWN INCOME. If you don't believe me, please check the (entire text of the ruling) and be sure to note carefully in the first sentence of the first paragraph where it says:

the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913"

You do know what TARIFFS are, don't you ? And Treasury Decision 2313 clearly shows the orders resultant within the IRS as a result of this Supreme Court decision.

THIS IS A CASE ABOUT THE TAXATION OF FOREIGNERS, WHO HAVE NO RIGHTS and enjoy a government granted PRIVILEGE in being allowed access to the American markets to earn money. IT IS NOT A CASE RELATED TO THE TAXATION OF A CITIZEN'S OWN INCOME EARNED BY RIGHT.

IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FRAUD TO MISREPRESENT THIS CASE AS APPLICABLE, OR RELATED, TO THE ISSUE OF TAXATION OF CITIZENS, AS THE IRS HAS DONE FOR OVER 60 YEARS !!!

According to the Supreme Court in 1916, even after the 16th Amendment:

INCOME TAX IS STILL A FOREIGN TAX !

(now it is an EXCISE tax (no longer a duty), imposed on the privileged income of foreigners in America, and on the privileged income of citizens - earned in FOREIGN countries under tax treaties)