cap-i-ta-tion (ka-pə-ˈtā-shən), n.  1. one of the most important terms in American tax law. 2. the tax-law term your attorney, judge, accountant or advisor is least likely to know or understand.

 

Black's Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910)

"[W]ithout any reference to..." Thus, to NOT be a capitation, an earnings-related tax can't be demanded merely in consideration of a person's labor or industry (which is to say, on or in respect to what he has produced or acquired). Instead, in order to NOT be a capitation an earnings-related tax can only be demanded from a person WITH reference to (that is, as a consequence of) a (somehow distinguishable and distinguished) business in which he may be engaged, or employment which he may follow.

Here's how Ballentine puts it in his Dictionary of Law (1969 edition):

Here is how the US Supreme Court puts it.

Clearly, for a tax demanded from someone to NOT be a capitation, it must be based on something external and not merely on working or making or being paid money. It is axiomatic that a taxable or tax-legitimizing externality can only be true of some circumstances and not of others (since a tax based on a purported "externality" which is administered as though it applies to everyone simply for earning money would be a tax merely in consideration of a person's labor or industry, and would not, in fact, be based on an actual externality in anything but name).

Capitations can only be administered by the federal government through the mechanism of apportionment, per Article 1, §§ 2 & 9 of the US Constitution. The unapportioned income tax therefore cannot apply to anyone merely in consideration of his labor or industry.

Instead the tax must apply, when it does, only in consideration of a distinguished externality which is only true of, or relevant to, some labor and industry. By the same token, such taxable externality is not true of other labor and industry, which is therefore irrelevant to, and not an object of, the tax.

THIS IS ALL, OF COURSE, THE MOST ELEMENTARY APPLICATION of logic and clear thinking, and is obvious to anyone who knows the meaning of the terms involved.  Further, of course, a competent examination of the existing income tax structure reveals that the tax is designed in perfect harmony with, and scrupulous conformance to, this logic and its conclusions (although it is also true that the administrators of the tax are thoroughly unscrupulous in exploiting widespread ignorance of all this to the greatest degree possible).

This body of logic and conclusions has also been exhaustively laid-out many times in my books and on this site-- most accessibly, perhaps, at http://losthorizons.com/Documents/The16th.htm, for those who would like to review the subject in greater detail. It might seem like there is no good reason to re-state all of this.

However, despite the inarguable truth about the tax, and the clarity of that liberating truth to anyone with open eyes, those who would rather it were not understood (and therefore not enforced upon them) persist in efforts to conceal it from view. The campaign of carefully-evasive (and systematically-misrepresented) assaults on CtC, on me personally, and, most recently-- in truly thuggish desperation-- on my wife by corrupt elements in the DOJ and the federal judiciary are part of those efforts.

Another part is the stationing of trolls throughout the internet and within the "tax honesty" community. These mendacious creatures do their best to sow confusion, doubt and fear in the minds of anyone foolish enough to pay them heed.

The trolls systematically misrepresent the assaults on me and CtC, and they also do what even corrupt judges and DOJ attorneys never will, which is make outright declarations about the nature of the tax that are untrue. Because this is so, and because these trolls often represent themselves as being lawyers (which the naive mistake as reason to imagine them knowledgeable of tax law, or diligent and honest researchers and commentators, when neither can or should be assumed), it is unfortunately necessary to periodically re-state even the most well-established facts.

Just this week I learned of a new such troll, who purports to be a "professor of law" and yet who takes the trouble in his spare time, we are to believe, to erect and maintain a website devoted to attacking CtC and me. This fellow argues that the tax is not as CtC teaches (and as the federal and 34 state governments have been routinely admitting for more than eleven years now).

This troll (like all of them) avers that the eleven years of government acknowledgements are merely a sustained and tens-of-thousands-of-times-repeated "slipping through the cracks". He further declares that the law says (and the courts have held) that gross income in regard to the tax means "all that comes in".

The troll points, of course, to what I (and now Doreen) have been subjected to as proof that this is so. As the government's playbook dictates, this fellow invites his victims to imagine that whatever the state and its operatives act against should therefore be presumed to be legally in the wrong, in the obverse of Nixon's famous reasoning that whatever the state favors must-- by that very fact-- be legally right.

As is also true of all troll-bilge, terms like "capitation" never make an appearance and the targets of the bilge who are unaware of this key legal element can thus be sometimes successfully misled into turning around and walking away from the truth about the tax. Therefore I am obliged to repeat myself like this in the hope that you folks will help see that everyone knows what "capitation" means, and why it matters.

So, please forgive me if this has been a tedious re-hash of what is already well-known to you, but more, please help spare me the need to say this all over again anytime soon by sharing or saying it yourself, often and everywhere. That's how the good guys will win the big battle.

P. S. On the subject of trolls and the overall effort to suppress CtC, I've been told this week that whoever runs Wikipedia will not allow links to losthorizons.com-- even just to posted documents. Clearly, Wikipedia is no longer a reliable source of information on at least some issues, and that means all its posts should be viewed skeptically. This is quite a shame, but what is, is.

Care to post a comment on this article?

Set a brushfire-- E-mail this newsletter to a friend

Return to contents

'Now, Here's A Curious Thing...'

WERE YOU AWARE THAT OUT OF A POPULATION OF 122 MILLION+, with more than 45 million gainfully-occupied, only 4.171 million tax returns were filed by Americans of 1925-- the same Americans who had adopted the 16th Amendment 12 years before? Were you aware that this was the generally-consistent ratio of earners to return-filing and tax-paying during all the years from 1862 until the early 1940s and the enormously successful "ignorance tax"-implementing scam of the 'Victory Tax Act' and the 'Current Tax Payment Act of 1943', by which an historical average filing rate of less than 9% was snookered up to more than 90%, even though what qualifies for the tax has never changed?

If you DID know about the low number of filings compared to earners for all those years, did you keep its implications at bay with the absurd myth that exemption rates were simply kept so astronomically high compared to earnings as to shield most folks from the tax-- even while the government slogged through year after year of the revenue-demanding exigencies of World War I, the Great Depression, and most of World War II? Really?

Watch this new film about Americans who ALL knew the meaning of "capitation", and get the liberty-enhancing facts, Jack...

SHARE THIS VIDEO WIDELY!! You've got to be the teachers, my friends-- or the lessons will not be taught. Share this page, or at least the video link at: http://youtu.be/qd46hg4Wj0Y, and when you do, direct your correspondent to follow-up by taking in the all-important big-picture context for these revelations.

Here are links to other recent educational films: 'Educated Americans Love The Income Tax' and 'Busting The Myth-Mongers'. And don't forget this one: 'Now, More Than Ever, It's Time To Learn The Truth About The Income Tax'.

"All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should be believed."

-I. F. Stone

 

*****

 

IRS Commissioner To Congress: "Wherever we can, we follow the law..."

Wow! What a great example of why it's up to the People (you and me, not some vague abstraction described as "The People") to follow and enforce the law, and thereby shrink criminals like Koskinen down to harmless dimensions.

***

Cracking A Smile And Opening A Crack In An Ugly Stone Wall

BY HAPPY CHANCE, THE SAME DAY I SAW the video above of the IRS Commissioner blowing off the rule of law, I was also looking at an amazing batch of victories secured by American grown-up Scott Reese's scrupulous fidelity to the rule of law. Before we get to those victories, though, Scott also happened to include a little bit of comedy snarking off the dodges and evasions some educated filers have had to deal with over the years (and especially Scott himself, as you will see).

Scott's submission is serendipitously timed for posting with this video in light of the last line of the former and the money-line of the latter. (Some of you will not be old enough to remember the scene from the long-running TV show M*A*S*H on which Scott draws-- too bad for you. You've got your youth instead, so no complaints.)

M*A*S*H — Mail Call   [Klinger reads Henry a letter from his mom that says his dad is dying]  Henry Blake: “The father dying, right?” Klinger: “Yes, sir.” Henry Blake: [takes out a stack of papers and reads them] “Father dying last year. Mother dying last year. Mother AND father dying. Mother, father, and older sister dying. Mother dying and older sister pregnant. Older sister dying and mother pregnant. Younger sister pregnant and older sister dying. Here’s an oldie but a goodie: Half of the family dying, other half pregnant.”                                                      [slight pause] Henry Blake: “Klinger, aren’t you ashamed of yourself?” Klinger: “Yes, sir.  I don’t deserve to be in the Army.”  .......................................................................................................... I*R*S — Mail Call [IRS sends letter from one of their various centers that says “We didn’t receive your tax return”]  IRS “Customer”: “No return filed, right?”  IRS: “Yes, sir.  Oh, most definitely not.” IRS “Customer”: [takes out a stack of papers and reads them] “No return filed. You’ve filed a frivolous return. No return filed AND the one you’ve filed is frivolous. We’ve changed your return, the one you’ve filed is frivolous, BUT there was no return filed. There was no return filed, the one you’ve filed is frivolous, we’ve changed your return, and could you please agree to and sign these “changes” we’ve made? Here’s an oldie but a goodie:  There was no return filed, the one you’ve filed is frivolous, we’ve changed your return, AND we need 45 days to respond.”  [slight pause] IRS “Customer”: “Service, aren’t you ashamed of yourself?”  IRS:  “No, sir.  We have no shame, or respect for the law.”

NICE RIFF, SCOTT!  But as I said, that's not all Scott has to share. This dedicated warrior for the truth has also shared the evidence of what looks to be a big crack opening up in the "frivolous" stonewall the IRS presents to some unfortunate folks singled-out for targeting with bad agency behavior.

In late 2004, Scott became CtC-educated after many years of non-filing and a certain amount of attention from the IRS. In early 2005, he acted on his new knowledge, simultaneously filing educated returns regarding 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 (here's an example: Scott's return for 2000). The filings were preceded by this wonderfully clear and stand-up letter to the service:

Not too surprisingly, since Scott was already on someone's "herd 'em back into the corral" list (and, in at least several cases, perhaps because the returns claimed refunds despite being well past the statutory window in which refunds can be claimed, making them literally "frivolous" in a legal sense),  all Scott's filings were summarily declared "frivolous".

Related "penalties" were recorded against Scott's "account", and eventually notices of federal liens totaling more than $23,000 were filed. Over the years Scott was inundated with an amazing volume of threats, reminder notices, and other scare-paper. (I'll get around to posting a representative sampling of the blizzard when this whole tale goes into the 'Every Which Way But Loose' collection where it belongs.)

But Scott stood fast.

On July 7, 2014, the ice cracked and Scott's vindication began. But it's not just the long delay that's of note here, because Scott has gotten not just got a collapse of agency balkiness, but has actually gotten credit for amounts assertedly claimed by the government as "frivolous penalties"! This is definitely a new and fascinating twist in the IRS's long-running "frighten them with frivolous fictions farce".

To top it off, Scott also got his 2002 and 2012 refunds the same day...

Enjoy:

Scott still has some brush-clearing to do, since all of these refunds just got credited around to other years for which his filings have yet to be honored. But his perseverance has clearly popped a new blood vessel in Auntie Iris's evil little law-defying brain!