NYT: I.R.S. Letting Tax Lawyers Write Rules: "Fox not guarding hen house; fox designing hen house."

[DeepModem Mom]

I.R.S. Letting Tax Lawyers Write Rules
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: March 9, 2007

The Internal Revenue Service is asking tax lawyers and accountants who create tax shelters and exploit loopholes to take the lead in writing some of its new tax rules.

The pilot project represents a further expansion of the increasingly common federal government practice of asking outsiders to do more of its work, prompting academics and other critics to complain that the government is going too far.

They worry that having private lawyers and accountants draft tax rules could allow them to subtly skew them in favor of their clients.

“It’s not the fox guarding the hen house; it’s the fox designing the hen house,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of political science at New York University, who studies the federal work force....

***

...John D. Graham, the official appointed by President Bush to streamline the federal rule-making process and give private interests a greater voice, said even he was surprised by the I.R.S. plan.

“Whoever’s pen the first draft comes out of has a big advantage,” said Dr. Graham, who ran the Office of Regulatory and Information Affairs for the White House before becoming dean last week of the graduate school at RAND, the nonprofit research organization....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/business/09tax.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[razors edge]

1. Whole damn thing is illegal anyway,

they have been making it up as they go along for 94 years, why stop now?

[RPM]

2. the whole internal revenue code is illegal?

Please elaborate; I'd love to hear why.

[razors edge]

4. Here is a basic review

of the ratification process regarding the 16th amendment.

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

This is a more in depth review of the origins and motivations behind the whole endeavor through the history of the nation, with in depth referencing.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Even if the damn thing were legal, it is still the instrument of enslavement our founding fathers fought to rid themselves of in the revolutionary war.

It all goes back to the old saying about a country being dumb and free, never has happened, never will.

[happyslug]

5. Nonsense, the only questionable Amendment is the 15th.

And since the 15th gives the Federal Courts review of State Due Process and with it the right to strike down almost any state law. Given that power the Supreme Court has always ruled the 5th amendment.

The issue for the 15th is complicated but at one point more 1/3 of the states had REJECTED it. Subsequent to that date some states that had rejected the 15th ratified it, but others that had ratified it rejected it. The court ruled that once a state ratified an amendment the State could NOT withdrew that ratification, but also once a state rejected the amendment it can withdraw that rejection and ratified the proposed amendment.

As to the Income Tax amendment itself, you must understand in 1862 the US Supreme Court ruled the Income Tax constitutional, that income tax stayed on the books till 1874. In 1864 the Court relying on the 1862 Supreme court decision upholding the Income Tax, ruled inheritance taxes also constitutional (This was also repealed in 1874).

In the 1890s Congress again passed an Income tax. In 1894 right after the Homestead Steel Strike and the Railroad strikes of the 1890s the Supreme Court again faced the issue of the Income tax, striking it down (The brief that convinced them sited the fact that the Communists also supported Income Taxes as a why to redistribution). In 1896 (These dates are from memory I may be off 1-3 years) the court faced the issue of inheritance taxes, approving it based on the fact the Court had approved the inheritance tax in 1864 (Which remember was based on the law that the Income tax was Constitutional).

The 1896 decision gave everyone the impression the Court thought it made a mistake in 1894 and wanted to reverse that mistake. In 1909 the populist and Democrats had enough votes to get an Income Tax passed. To delay this the Republicans offered to pass an constitutional Amendment to make it clear that Income taxes was constitutional. The sole purpose of this was to delay passing an Income tax (The GOP was hoping that by the time the Amendment would be ratified it would have won back enough seats to defeat an Income Tax when it came to a vote). By 1912 the Amendment had been passed and Congress then passed a new Income tax. It was challenged at that time but the Court ruled THAT THEY WAS NO NEED FOR THE AMENDMENT, AN INCOME TAX IS CONSTITUTIONAL EVEN IF THE AMENDMENT HAD NOT BEEN PASSED.

Thus every time I see articles like this one, that the Income Tax is unconstitutional, I review the cases from the history of the Income tax and remind people the Supreme Court (except for the 1890s) has consistently ruled the Income tax constitutional.

[razors edge]

6. I am not the fastes reader

but there is no way you made it through the links I posted, in two hours I was not half way finished, and i do believe the 15th is addressed in the second article.

I am highly impressed with your ability to quote case law that spans more than a century and certify it in you own words in less than a few hours, that ability must have taken years of study and research on you behalf. I'm left thinking I have confronted a published historian or constitutional lawyer, and if that is the case, then please let a simple rube in on it so he knows a little about who he is dealing with, it helps in composing a rebuttal.

Just out of curiosity, what are your feelings on the federal government's continuing encroachment on state's rights, in respect to placing the state militia under the command of the president?

Edit: we could back a little further to the lost 13th also, I wonder your thoughts on that as well.

Edit#2: links are very interesting also, they tend to back up assertions. credible ones are best but I'm flexible.

[happyslug]

7. The Original 13th was passed by Congress, but records were destroyed in 1814

When Washington was burned, thus unless the states that ratified it kept records there is NO evidence that it was ever approved by 2/3rds of the states. Now given the Nature of the Original 13th and the fact no one was granting American foreign titles at that time the restrictions under the 13th was moot. In the 20th Century foreign titles were (and are) given (Reagan was Knighted by the Queen for Example). Such honorarily titles have a long history in Europe and often accepted for foreign policy reasons. Thus from the Civil War onward the fear that people in the US could be "brought" by given them a title was no longer a threat so the whole issue died and with it any reason for any state to keep any records of any ratification of the original 13th.

Remember it is CONGRESS that declares an amendment passed. We have NO record of the 13th being so declared (Through such a record may have been destroyed during the burning of Washington by the British in 1814). No record, it was not approved. The burden is on the people who claimed it was passed, and without written record (NOT newspaper articles, actual records of approval by the State Legislature OR written record in Congress's list of actions. So far we know it was passed by Congress, we know some states approved it, but not enough states to say the proposed amendment was passed NOR any congressional record that shows it was passed.

As to the Militia, the Constitution AS WRITTEN, permits the President to call out the Militia. Furthermore the Constitution reserves to Congress HOW the militia is to be formed. Patrick Henry in the Virginia ratification convention (When the Constitution was written it was sent to each state for ratification in a convention called for that purpose, Patrick Henry did NOT attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia but did attend the Virginia Ratification Convention) called these two parts one part of a a chain of tyranny some future despot could use against the American People. Yes, Patrick Henry OPPOSED the US Constitution.

Thus by the terms set forth in the Constitution Congress has the SOLE power to organize the Militia. The President has the POWER to call out the Militia. Furthermore the States are FORBIDDEN to have "Troops" without Congressional permission. The rational for this was the Experience of the Revolution where the need for all the troops, both Regular and Militia to have the same formations and as far as possible the same weapons and equipment. The only way to do that is to have a centralized system of Control.

In my opinion the Second amendment was carefully worded as NOT to interfere with the above powers of Congress, but also to address the issue brought up by Patrick Henry, i.e. what happens if Congress decides NOT to organize the Militia? Patrick Henry said that Congress could leave the Militia die or even worse reduce it to a small force best fit to keep tyrants in place as opposed to representing the people (basically if everyone is in the Militia, the Militia and the people are one in the same and thus no conflict between them, this was the rational for a broad base Militia).

Thus the language of Second amendment, for it permits the States (or the people themselves) to form militia units out of those people who are NOT formed into some other Military unit by Congress (or the state if the State also only forms up some units). Congress can preempt the state or the people, but if Congress does Nothing, the States and the People can do the organizing of the militia themselves (providing the Militia units follow, as much as possible, Congress's lead as to HOW the unit is to be formed and Equipped).

Copy of the case that upheld the Income Tax (Watch the wording, the Court did NOT want to say it was overturning the decision of 1894 but the court Clearly says INCOME TAXES WERE CONSTITUTIONAL EVEN WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=240&page=1

The 1895 Case where the Court ruled Income Taxes were Unconstitutional on the grounds it taxes state bonds and was an unconstitutional direct tax on property (but was also NOT a constitutional excise tax on money):
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=157&invol=429

[anotherdrew]

8. heckuva job we've done keeping tyrants in place

apparently it would seem their place is in control of everything...

[razors edge]

10. Interesting

In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of
Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the
Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass
this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid
move for ratification.

No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of "The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period -
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings.

http://www.apfn.org/APFN/13th.htm

It would seem there was plenty of evidence that not only a majority, but possibly unanimous ratification took place and was documented.

You posed this.

"Thus from the Civil War onward the fear that people in the US could be "brought" by given them a title was no longer a threat so the whole issue died and with it any reason for any state to keep any records of any ratification of the original 13th."

How does that square your sketchy reference to 15th being the article giving power to the central government to ignore state sovereignty when

a) the 15th clearly states:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

(pay particular attention to the enforcement part, as it says "this article", not this article and some others as well. It doesn't get much clearer than that and words do mean things.)

and,

b) No state in 130 years has enacted legislation clearly restricting the right to vote based on the listed criteria that has withstood Supreme Court scrutiny or public approval. Thus making the dangers protected against by the 15th as you say, "no longer a threat" and therefore moot.

As a side point, I beg to differ that foreign emoluments is no longer a threat to this nation's best interests, Dubai Ports World and several other back room deals of similar origin clearly show that tyrants will take favor from other entities over our own.

You have said much about the history of the income tax being legal, and to this I have no doubt. But until the 16th is clearly shown to have been properly ratified there is still no evidence that a direct un-apportioned tax is backed by congressional law, quite to the contrary in fact.

To continue twisting and contorting law to prove that which is not supported will not change the facts.

"Thomas Jefferson’s vision of America was quite straightforward. In its simplest form, he saw a society where people were first, and institutions were second.

In his day, Jefferson saw three agencies that were threats to humans’ Natural Rights. They were:

Governments (particularly in the form of kingdoms and elites like the Federalists)

Organized religions (he re-wrote the New Testament to take out all the “miracles” so that in “The Jefferson Bible” Jesus became a proponent of God-given Natural Rights),

Commercial monopolies and the “pseudo aristoi” (pseudo aristocracy) in the form of extremely wealthy individuals and overly powerful corporations."

http://www.thomhartmann.com/jefferson.shtml

There is no way the formation of a private central bank with its own collection goons is not considered a monopoly, and a violation of the most basic protections afforded under the constitution.

Taxes need to be collected in a fair manner, but this system we have is not fair and it is not legal.

Edit:spelling

[razors edge]

12. My mistake

I posted "It would seem there was plenty of evidence that not only a majority, but possibly unanimous ratification took place and was documented."

That is not correct, damn this hangover.

Regardless of this mistake the point is, great concern for this problem was expressed and being openly addressed "in order to form a more perfect union".

[razors edge]

11. Please

take the time to read the second link in reply #4.

Even if this does not change your mind on the legality of the 16th amendment, you will see how and why it was rammed through the system in order to subjugate the masses to the benefit of the few.

Such things are only supported by those who benefit from them.

Such support is not a very progressive stance in my opinion.

[Javaman]

3. This is like asking republicans to write the ethics rules. nt

[Vinca]

9. I want to be in charge of the FDA. First order of business,

make Doritos health food. Second, legalize marijuana. Why do we have federal agencies if private citizens get to make the rules to the advantage of a select group of people?

[razors edge]

13. My appologies

for this thread being so redirected. At this point I feel we are watching the vultures picking at the carrion we used to recognize as the USA.