Do you know the Republican President who started personal income taxes?

Abe Lincoln. Nope its a fact. Do a little more digging Yes Patrick it was 1861 and who was the President then?

Public Comments

1. Yeah... you're wrong it was actually congress in 1862 who passed the Revenue act of 1861 that established the personal income tax. {edit}Learn governmental procedure... the president does not pass legislation.... congress does. No president has ever.... ever... passed legislation. Lincoln opposed the tax as unconstitutional.... because it was. The 16th amendment had not yet been passed. However, he was threatened with a veto and further resolutions that would have limited his ability to prosecute the war. So he signed the law. History is amazing for those who actually take the time to study it. {edit}For Anarchist below.... while the 16th amendment gives congress the power to enact an income tax... the power was abused by congress in the passage of the Revenue act of 1861 before they had the legal authority to do so.
2. Patrick G wins this one. Sorry man, you failed. Get over it.
3. Woodrow Wilson March 4, 1913 to March 4, 1921 Democrat Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "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" Until than there was no INCOME TAX on personal income........I am talking about ones labor....... Not investments, not land. LABOR.... Check your facts...... Sorry NGC6205, but I will say it again: CHECK YOUR FACTS......... Being an "Accountant" doesn't mean you know the law......... This explanation does not deal with the 16th amendment question and the constitutional problem of a direct tax without apportionment or the view that the income tax is in the nature of an indirect excise tax, which, of course does not have to be apportioned. The approach is not dependent on the resolution of those questions one way or the other, as it avoids them altogether.] The statutory trail starts with 26 USC 1, which imposes the income tax on "taxable income," and with 6001, 6011, and 6012, which the IRS uses as the all-encompassing filing-requirement statutes. 6001 says: "Every person liable for any tax imposed under this title...shall keep such records...make such returns...and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may prescribe." [Secretary refers to the Secretary of the Treasury or, more realistically, to the IRS Commissioner]. 6011 says: "When required by regulations...any person made liable by any tax imposed by this title...shall make a return." 6012 says: "Returns...shall be made by...[e]very individual having...gross income which exceeds the exemption amount..." Now we take the trail to find out what "taxable income" and "gross income" are. 63 says that the term "taxable income" means "gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter..." So the definition mainly depends on the definition of "gross income." We then see in 61 that "gross income" is income from "whatever source," and we see a list of 15 items which we take to be the sources and that we have been led to believe we must pay taxes on, such as: compensation for services, fees, commissions, benefits, gross income from business, interest, rent, dividends, gains from property dealings, etc. It is crucial to be aware, however, that the term "item" does not mean the same as "source." Therefore, the list does not identify any sources upon which we must pay a tax. This is most deceptive. Another stop on the trail towards finding out what gross income is and the sources of it that can make one liable is at 861, which lists "items" of gross income which are to be treated as income from sources within the U.S. There is no other part of the Internal Revenue Code that deals with tax based on income from sources within the U.S. (We can assure ourselves of this by using a computer search engine to look through the code.) Therefore, all else not on the list must be excluded as being outside the purview of the law. If one wonders how, given the wording of 861, one can avoid equating "items" and "sources," take note that 861 is a statute and that the IRS is bound by the regulations promulgated by the Secretary (or Commissioner), which actually implement the statutes. The pertinent regulation is CFR 1.861-8(f)(1), which contains the only list of "sources," from within or without the U.S, from which income must derive in order to be taxable. The list consists of: overall limitation to the foreign tax credit, DISC (Direct International Sales Corp) and FSC (Foreign Sales Corp.) taxable income, non-resident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in business within the U.S., foreign base company income, and other operative sections (the list of which consists of 13 sources outside the U.S.). Note well that one source in the list under "other operative sections" applies to U.S. citizens, albeit only to citizens who are entitled to the benefits of 931 and 936 tax credit (which pertain to Guam and Puerto Rico). This inclusion of a group of U.S. citizens here is very important, because it must therefore include all citizens with taxable sources of income from within or without the U.S. In other words, if there were any other citizens whose sources of income were taxable, they'd have to be included on this list, and there are no others listed. As you can see, none of this liability applies to the vast majority of citizens, who have been misled into believing they must file and pay income taxes on the "items" of income noted in 61, above. Instead, it applies to U.S citizens only insofar as they have foreign earned income. The tax also applies to aliens and foreign companies doing business in the United States. In fact, only a few years ago, the Secretary acknowledged that Form 2555 was the form most frequently required to be filed by citizens under 1, and only if they had foreign income as noted above. Now let's go back and review 6001, 6011, and 6012. We can see now who these sections are talking about when they refer, respectively, to "Every person liable," "any person made liable," or "every individual having...gross income..." We can see that the government, by means of such a circuitous and disconnected trail of rules and regulations, has made it extremely difficult for most ordinary people to figure out that they are not liable for the income tax. We can see that the government is duping most people into voluntarily filing returns, assessing themselves, waiving their 5th amendment rights, and erroneously paying an income tax for which they are not liable. By comparison, the statutes and regulations for excise taxes are straight-forward, clear, and unambiguous, proving that the Congress and IRS are capable of making the rules simple and easy to understand if they want to. This trickery and deception serves a function of avoiding violations of the Constitution which would be more transparent otherwise. But beyond the deception there is also the practice of illegal misapplication of the laws and regulations and denial of due process, which we will look at in a few minutes, after discussing a couple of other aspects of tax liability. First, let's look at the withholding aspect of tax liability to see whether it reinforces or adds anything further to our understanding of tax liability or what kind of income is taxable. If withholding is applied properly, it should reveal what is taxable. Will an examination of withholding yield results consistent with the conclusions drawn above? 26 USC 3401(a)(8)(A)(1) defines "wages" for purposes of withholding as all remuneration for services performed by an employee for his employer; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid for services for an employer performed by a citizen of the U.S. if it is reasonable to believe that such remuneration will be excluded from gross income under Section 911. And pursuant to CFR 1.861-8(T)(d)(2)(ii)(A), all income that is excluded or not listed is exempt. So the only sources of income U.S. citizens earn that is "gross income," and thus taxable and subject to withholding, are found under 911, which relates to U.S. citizens living abroad or foreign earned income, the same conclusion we came to above. So withholding law, properly applied, reinforces our earlier conclusion. It is apparent that employers are being duped into submitting false information about most employees, withholding their money, making it appear they are liable, and thereby putting them on the defensive, since they must then dispute that their wages are taxable. Next, if we look at the laws regarding liability for the Social Security tax, we will find that they derive from the International Labor Agreement of the 1930s, and that once again, they do not apply to most U.S. citizens, but to aliens and to some citizens based on foreign income or income from U.S. overseas possessions. So, three sets of statutes and regulations all lead to the "foreign liability" conclusion, not to liability by most citizens. NOTE: It is not practical to reproduce here the entire text of each of the various statutes and regulations to which reference has been made. They are, however, quite easily available to anyone in the law library of most any county or state court. EDIT: Dear NGC6205: "The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year." http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html You keep disputing everything I say, I like to see the link to a document, that was approved by Congress, that require any US citizen to pay Personal Incom Tax on their LABOR prior to 1913 or 16th Amendment. Please do not quote IRS manual to me. Written LAW, that is a part of the constitution.... B-4 16th Amendment..... One more thing Please don't Quote this source ether... it's one man opinion. "Daniel B. Evans Not all citations and quotations have been confirmed.............." http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#purpose
4. Nice try to discredit Republicans, but the facts are not on your side. Presidents don't enact any legislation, including that which pertains to taxes. Congress does. .
5. More importantly..do you know the Republican Presidential candidate who wants to END them?
6. Patrick G is correct when he says that the legislature enacts laws and not the President. However, he is incorrect when he says the income tax laws of the 1860s were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court in Springer v. U.S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) stated, "Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty." Springer was a lawyer who refused to pay income taxes under the tax law that was in effect in 1865. The case came before the Supreme Court to determine several issues. The main issue was whether the income tax was an unconstitutional direct tax or not. The court said it was not. In 1895, the Supreme Court in Pollock vs. Farmer's Loan determined that a tax on income from wages was O.K., but that a tax on income from property (i.e. rental income) was the same as a tax on the property itself. At the time, the tax law did not contain a severability provision so the entire law was declared unconstitutional. That was the purpose of the 16th amendment. To make a tax on income, regardless of the source of the income, an indirect tax. EDIT: A portion of the text from the Internal Revenue Act of 1861 which can be read at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=504 Section 90 of that act states, "That there shall be levied, collected, and paid annually, upon the annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, SALARIES, or from ANY PROFESSION, TRADE, EMPLOYMENT, OR VOCATION carried on in the United States or elsewhere..." So, there was an income tax on labor before the 16th amendment. BTW, before admonishing someone to check their facts, it would be a good idea to check if the Internet video contained any facts. (America: Freedom to Fascism contains very few actual facts) EDIT: First, I was replying to you claiming there wasn't a tax on income prior to 1913 and the 16th amendment. AS CAN BE CLEARLY SEEN in the Internal Revenue Act of 1861, there was a tax on personal incomes from labor from 1861 to 1872. Read the statute from 1861 again. Notice the words, EVERY PERSON, SALARIES, ANY PROFESSION, etc. Second, the '861' argument is a tortured reading of the tax code. See Kaetz v. Internal Revenue Service, 225 F.3d 649 where the court states, "Through linguistic gymnastics, Kaetz contorts the relevant sections of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations to deduce that he does not have taxable income for the years 1991-1997. He premises his argument, inter alia, on the belief that United States citizens only earn taxable ‘gross income’ when living and working outside the United States, and that the ‘Foreign Earned Income Form 2555 is the only form required to be filed[ ] by U.S. Citizens.’ Appellant’s Brief at 16-17, 18. He concludes his intricate deductive argument quite bluntly: ‘Goodbye Income Taxes on Citizens with domestic income.’ Id. at 18. The problem with his deduction is that it is based on false premises. Income earned in the United States, including salary, is taxable, see I.R.C. section 63, and ‘Gross Income’ can be quantified." The IRS has prepared a document explaining the fallacy of the '861' argument and others like it. http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159853,00.html http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html#_Toc153765510 Finally, you obviously don't know the amount of education that an accountant is required to take. I'm discussing a real accountant and not the community college AS degree accountant. An accountant who becomes a CPA is, in most states, required to complete 150 semester credit hours of education. (A Bachelor's degree is only 120 semester credit hours). Six credit hours are dedicated to business law. Typically another six to twelve hours is dedicated specifically to tax law. EDIT: Anarchist: I DID POST A LINK TO THE LAW THAT WAS PASSED IN 1861. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=504 That link points to the U.S. Statutes at Large, volume 12, beginning on page 432. Here is the link to the title page of the volume. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=4 Here is the table of contents page showing the tax act. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=18 Here is the page showing the beginning of the act. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=463 Notice the first line which is typical of laws passed by Congress at the time. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled..." Section 90 of that same act can be found at http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=012/llsl012.db&recNum=504 which is the same link I provided earlier. Why don't you go read it? That is the written law. I haven't linked to Dan Evan's site in this post, nor do I have to. Try this site instead. http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/cf7c9c870b600b9585256df80075b9dd/2b34c7fbda41d9da8525730800067017?OpenDocument Here is a direct link to a tax court decision proclaiming the 861 argument as 'frivolous'. http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Takaba3OPN.TC.WPD.pdf