The Income Tax is EITHER a Direct Tax, or an Indirect Tax,



          Under the Constitution the income tax must be either an indirect tax, OR a direct tax.  IT CANNOT BE BOTH.  Under the Constitution, no tax can be both direct – collected by apportionment from the State governments, and indirect – uniformly collected from parties involved in taxable activities.  IT’S GOT TO BE ONE OR THE OTHER, NEVER BOTH.   We have found very clearly in the law an indirect implementation for the collection of the tax through the legislatively created duty of the Withholding Agents toretain and pay the sum of the tax, precisely as identified by the Supreme Court in 1913. 


            The injection of this third party, the Withholding Agent, into the implemented scheme for the collection of the income tax, is a classic sign of an INDIRECT tax.  By virtue of the injection of this third party into the scheme for collection of the tax, the burden to pay the tax is shifted from the tax collector (the Withholding Agent and payor of the tax), to the actual taxed subject "taxpayers" (the foreigners) from whom the tax has been collected by withholding by the tax collector.   This shifting of the burden of the tax keeps the income tax indirect and is part of the reason why the Supreme Court said this tax and taxing scheme is constitutional.  Under the actual letter of the law, it is the collector of the tax, the Withholding Agent, who is actually made liable for the payment of the tax.   No other person is made liable anywhere else in all of the Subtitle A income tax laws for the payment of the income tax.   The reason why is because the tax is indirect, not direct.  How can you tell?  Because the Withholding Agent, of course, does not pay the tax out of his own pocket, or even on his own “income”.  The Withholding Agent  is only made liable for turning over the tax that he has withheld from other subject (foreign) persons.   He never pays his own money, only the money that he has taken from the subject foreign persons, after he told them it had to be taken for tax.  Having taken it from them as tax, he is now liable for turning those “collected” tax dollars over to the Treasury.  There is never any direct taxation of one’s own income imposed, or required anywhere in the law, because that’s not part of the indirect scheme of the tax that is actually in the law and that  was actually tested by the Supreme Court.


             Since this is clearly an indirect scheme implemented in the law for the collection of the income tax, it does not make any legal sense at all, and in fact is ridiculous to argue, that there is also a scheme of direct implementation of the tax imposed through mandatory direct assessment by Return (Form 1040) with direct payment to the Treasury, enforced by direct collection from the subject taxpayers by the I.R.S.  It is just not in the law, and under the Constitution, cannot exist in the law for all of the reasons explained.


             The tax can ONLY be either direct or indirect, it CANNOT BE BOTH.  That is why there is no liability for tax established anywhere in the Subtitle A statutes except for Section 1461, which indirectly establishes the liability of the Withholding Agents for the tax that they have withheld from the subject foreign taxpayers.  That is why there is no IRS authority to assess any income tax under Subtitle A, that is why there is no IRS jurisdiction to investigate citizens in America, and that is why Form 1040 is not actually required by law to be filed by any American citizen to pay the tax on income  derived from domestic activities, and that is why the IRS cannot show any law that makes an American citizen liable for income tax on his own income – it doesn’t exist – it would be unconstitutional because the Constitution of the United States of America and the Communist Manifesto are mutually repugnant to each other. 


Where one exists, the other cannot (be allowed to) live


Under the unrepealed and unamended Constitutional provisions regarding, and limiting, the federal power to tax, there can be no arbitrary and non-uniform, or continuous and unlimited taxation of We the People, by the federal government.


“There is no such thing in the theory of our national government as unlimited power of taxation in congress. There are limitations, as he justly observes, of its powers arising out of the essential nature of all free governments; there are reservations of individual rights, without which society could not exist, and which are respected by every government. The right of taxation is subject to these limitations. Citizens' Savings Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655, and Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U.S. 487, 1 Sup. Ct. 442.”   Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 599 (1895)


Hamilton says in one of his papers (the Continentalist): 'The genius of liberty reprobates everything arbitrary or discretionary in taxation. It exacts that every man, by a definite and general rule, should know what proportion of his property the state demands; whatever liberty we may boast of in theory, it cannot exist in fact while [arbitrary] assessments continue.'” 1 Hamilton's Works (Ed. 1885) 270.   Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 596 (1895)


“The inherent and fundamental nature and character of a tax is that of a contribution to the support of the government, levied upon the principle of equal and uniform apportionment among the persons taxed, and any other exaction does not come within the legal definition of a 'tax.'Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 599 (1895)


There is no safety in allowing the limitation to be adjusted except in strict compliance with the mandates of the constitution, which require its taxation, if imposed by direct taxes, to be apportioned among the states according to their representation, and, if imposed by indirect taxes, to be uniform in operation and, so far as practicable, in proportion to their property, equal upon all citizens. Unless the rule of the constitution governs, a majority may fix the limitation at such rate as will not include any of their own number.”  Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 607 (1895 (emphasis added)


            So having found an obvious and clearly INDIRECT implementation in the statutes for the collection of the income tax by  a federal tax collector, through a scheme of collection at the source effected by withholding, and a specification of liability in the name of that third party Withholding Agent, the tax collector (but not in the name of any other party, not even the subject foreign taxpayer), and knowing that the tax cannot be BOTH INdirect and Direct, we can all stop imagining that there is any direct implementation of the collection of the income tax imposed elsewhere in the statutes involving a requirement for any citizen to perform a direct self-assessment of domestic activities using a Form 1040.