In United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10 th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 920 (1991), the court cited Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19 (1916), and noted the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the "Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a direct nonapportioned tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves".

(This paragraph is taken from this IRS website )


This statement and claim is a lie.The Courtís decision taken in the Brushaber case absolutely did not say that the 16th Amendment authorizes a direct, nonapportioned income tax. The government is lying to you when they say this, blatantly lying!

What the Brushaber Court really said was that belief is an erroneous assumption that is the cause of all the confusion!Hereís what they really said in prefacing the rejected logic referenced above by a moronic 10th circuit that canít even read the Supreme Court decisions correctly without confusing the rejected claims (itís direct), with the accepted and applied reasoning (itís indirect):


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 regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clearÖ [Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 11]


And the very next case they took proves it.


The Court understood perfectly then, unlike todayís moronic communist judges, that the 16th Amendment cannot be legitimately interpreted, applied or accepted as authorizing a new power to tax directly because that would have engineered a direct and inherent conflict within the Constitution with pre-existing Article I clauses, and the Supreme Court doesnít do things that stupid.In fact, in rejecting the argument the Supreme Court itself identifies this problem with interpreting the 16th Amendment as a direct tax:


ďit clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12]   under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. ... This result, Öwould create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusionĒ

[Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12]


How prophetic!Boy, did they see it coming or what?The government now takes advantage of your ignorance, and intentionally uses that ďconfusionĒ, that they themselves have created, in order to try and force all American citizens to pay an income tax that they donít owe, are not liable for the payment of, and in fact, which cannot be imposed upon them under the Constitution.


But donít let me tell you, anymore than you should let them tell you, either what it says, or what it means.Read the whole case yourself and decide.