license dmca the financial system in america is a scam of world proportion. all of our lives, we've been taught, and often reminded, that the so-called "income" tax originated with the 16th amendment in 1913, and authorized a tax on our earnings. the irs repeatedly claims this as their authority to tax american's wages, but is this true? have you ever looked into the evidence and history of this tax to see if you actually owe such a tax, or actually even receive "income"? most americans will have to say, no they haven't. so, we simply plod on taking what we've been told as true and factual, and comply by voluntarily assessing ourselves every year without another thought... except that we hate having to do it unless it is to get back some or all of what should never have been taken in the first place. with the advent of the personal computer and the internet, things have changed. what once took many months or even years of research in law libraries and other sources of actual documents now takes days or weeks... perhaps months, and what is being discovered is not only revealing, it is shocking. is it possible that we have been deceived for over 100 years on the topic of our financial system and "income" taxes? let's start with in "income" tax. what does the 16th amendment actually tell us? "the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." the key words in this amendment are "incomes" and "whatever source derived". "income" is the one which is grossly misunderstood. we will come back to what this amendment is actually speaking to further down in this article. first, we must realize how millions of people can be deceived... "when a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic." dresden james. it's time we look carefully at the evidence of historical records and decide if this is the ravings of a lunatic, or simply a message based on actual evidence that has, at best, been misunderstood, or at worst, purposefully suppressed and manipulated for many decades. reader beware: this will likely fundamentally change your outlook on things if you are willing to actually take the time to understand this fraud. it may seem boring and of little interest to you right here and now, but i can assure you, if you want truth, you most likely won't want to put this down until you've completed the series. let's begin with the 16th amendment's claimed source for the income tax. if you take a look at page iii of the preface to the 1939 internal revenue code, ( click here ), you will see reference to the now standing tax laws being enacted as far back as july 1, 1862, and carried forward to today. - advertisement - huge portions of our modern body of lawful "income" tax law pre-dates the 16th amendment. congress published a comprehensive "derivation of code sections of the internal revenue code of 1939 and 1954" table ( click here ), dated january 21, 1992, which explicitly identifies the pre-16th origins of these still-current statutes. (highlighted sections within pages 20-76). it must also be noted that the 1986 internal revenue code is based on these enactments and is still in place today. throughout the derivation table, you will see that there are well over 300 examples of the pre-1913 16th amendment throughout, proving that the "income" tax was not "enacted" through the 16th amendment. so, we now have to ask a couple questions and look for the plain answers in the record. the first question is "if there is substantial evidence that the income tax was not "enacted" in 1913, and no such tax on american's wages existed (at least for very long as it was declared unconstitutional) prior to the 16th amendment, what law actually authorizes a tax on american's wages?" the answer is, there is no actual law. is there supporting evidence of this fact? let the u.s. supreme court tell us the facts from those days; "the sixteenth amendment to the constitution has not enlarged the taxing power of congress..." this is brought out clearly by this court in brushaber v. union pacific railroad co., 240 u.s. 1, and stanton v. baltic mining co., 240 u.s. 103. "we are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulations of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. and the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it." brushaber v. union pac. r.r. co., 240 u.s. 1, 11, 12, 18 (1916); "in the former case it was pointed out that the all-embracing power of taxation conferred upon congress by the constitution included two great classes, one indirect taxes or excises, and the other direct taxes, and that of apportionment with regard to direct taxes. it was held that the income tax in its nature is an excise; that is, it is a tax upon a person measured by his income . . . it was further held that the effect of the sixteenth amendment was not to change the nature of this tax or to take it out of the class of excises to which it belonged, but merely to make it impossible by any sort of reasoning thereafter to treat it as a direct tax because of the sources from which the income was derived." ([14-15]; peck & co. v. lowe, 247 u.s. 165 (1917). brief for the appellant at 11, 14-15; see also stratton's independence, ltd. v. howbert, 231 us 399, 414 (1913)." (emphasis added - "derived from" discussed below). "... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation." evans vs. gore, 253 us 245, 263 (1920). "it was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power." bowers v. kerbaugh-empire co., 271 u.s. 170; 46 s.ct. 449 (1926). - advertisement - "... it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th amendment conferred no new power of taxation." evans vs. gore, 253 us 245, 263 (1920). "it was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power." bowers v. kerbaugh-empire co., 271 u.s. 170; 46 s.ct. 449 (1926); so, if there was no "new" tax created by the 16th amendment, as the supreme court has stated over and over again, how can the irs make our wages "income", and how did this tax on our wages begin? the answer comes within the second question we must ask: "what exactly is 'income?'" here is where the deceit so easily enters out lives. u.s. v. ballard, 535, 575 f. 2d 400 (1976); (see also oliver v. halstead, 196 va 992; 86 s.e. rep. 2d 858); "the general term 'income' is not defined in the internal revenue code . . .
what is an "income" tax and where did it come from? not the 16th amendment!
noauthor