What’s Your Definition?
The following are a number of Supreme Court cases that are relevant when showing that 98% of Americans are not liable to file and pay income taxes
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. (1916)
The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.
But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that, by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…
Gould v. Gould (1917)
It’s not hard to surmise that the government is not keen for the average American to read and understand this ruling.
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt, they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.
Fox v. Standard Oil Co. (1935)
The IRS code contains certain definitions that must be adhered to.
In such circumstances definition by the average man or even by the ordinary dictionary with its studied enumeration of subtle shades of meaning is not a substitute for the definition set before us by the lawmakers with instructions to apply it to the exclusion of all others. … There would be little use in such a glossary if we were free in despite of it to choose a meaning for ourselves.
Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt (1945)
The term “United States” can mean…
The name of a sovereign in the family of nations.
Territories over which the United States government’s sovereignty extends.
In a constitutional sense, the states, which are united.
The term “United States” may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.
Meese v. Keene (1987)
The definition of a term by necessity excludes other meanings.
Nor do we agree with the District Court’s assertion that Congress’ use of the term “political propaganda” was “a wholly gratuitous step designed to express the suspicion with which Congress regarded the materials.” … It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. … As judges, it is our duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it.
Quoted in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) (“It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term”); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S., at 392-393, n. 10 (“As a rule, ‘a definition which declares what a term “means” … excludes any meaning that is not stated’ “)
Helvering v. Morgan’s, Inc. (1934)
While the term “includes” may sometimes be taken as synonymous with “means,” it may be used also as the equivalent of “comprehends” or “embraces.” Therefore, under § 200(a), the phrase “taxable year” may, where the context requires it, be taken to embrace all fractional parts of the taxable year;
Hoffman v. United States (1951)
It is a violation of the Fifth Amendment for the IRS to force an American citizen to provide information that could be used against them in the prosecution of a crime.
(a) The privilege against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment extends not only to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute, but also to those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime. Blau v. United States, 340 U. S. 159. P. 341 U. S. 486.
United States v. Miller (1976)
Banks are not prohibited from providing the IRS with information from checks and deposit slips.
(b) There is no legitimate “expectation of privacy” in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities.
