[flagged]
Not according to the Supreme Court, and they have the only opinion that matters.
> that’s why they never actually address it
26 U.S.C. defines an actual crime called 'tax evasion'
Regardless of the scandals there, simple question — does my 5th amendment right disappear because of a tax levy? No. Read the amendment:
> 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.
This doesn’t say I give up the right to self incrimination, nor the 4th amendment.
So what? You could certainly make the argument that any taxes collected prior to the 16th's ratification should be returned (courts may not agree with you, but I think it's a reasonable argument to make), but everything since then is legally free and clear.
> They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc
Not sure what you mean here. Congress is absolutely constitutionally allowed to propose amendments, and it was then ratified by the 36 states necessary at the time to trigger its adoption. Ultimately, only six states never ratified it.
It doesn't matter if all the previous amendments had been proposed by state legislatures; the way 16A was proposed and passed is explicitly outlined in the constitution as a valid way to amend it.
The only thing approaching a "scandal" around 16A is that there was a bunch of opposition at the time, mainly in the northeastern states. Which... so what? Bottom line is that it was ratified by the required number of states.
Really, it just sounds like you don't personally like the income tax, and are making up fantasy reasons for why the US government should not be allowed to tax you. If it really bugs you that much, you're of course free to renounce your US citizenship, and go live in a country where they don't have an income tax, assuming they'll have you.
That doesn't matter in 2023. And it doesn't matter if the tax is applied retroactively -- its not a punishment for the crime of being rich or having income.
> They then effectively didn’t pass it by the states in a way that they’d done previously, etc etc
Who cares? It's literally enumerated in the constitution that amendments can be introduced by the legislature and ratification completed when Delaware ratified February 3, 1913. These are absolute non-issues, and the court filings from the 70's, as documented in Wikipedia, are clearly motivated reasoning and dismissed by judges.
Moreover, if there were any legitimate foundation to overturning tax law, it would be fixed by constitutional amendment instantly.
That's a fairly novel legal theory that I'm pretty sure has no actual precedent to back it up. Sounds more like "sovereign citizen" nonsense.
Yes, it is quite amusing that the IRS does expect you to report income earned through illegal activities, but you don't need to put down on your return "income of $50,000 through extortion" or whatever. Of course, it's no surprise that the kinds of people who make money through illegal means have no problem with avoiding paying tax on it.
> The income tax itself is on somewhat shaky legal ground
No it's not. Since you're so interested in constitutional amendments, you may want to read the text of the 16th.
My personal conspiracy theory is that the current librarian of congress hasn't put the equal rights amendment into the constitution to avoid the 16th amendment being overturned in the inevitable legal challenges.
Pretty sure that's not a thing. You can't say "we ratify this, but only if it's fully adopted by X date". But hey, legislatures can argue whatever they want, and it's up to the courts to decide.
And the amendment itself included no expiration date (unlike the equal rights amendment, so there's likely no connection there).
> or possibly been revoked (if they can really revoke ratification)
This is certainly contentious, and sure, is similar to issues around the ERA (though I think the issue with the ERA expiring is more serious than arguments around states revoking their ratification).
My argument on this is that if a state could rescind ratification for an amendment that hasn't yet been adopted, why wouldn't they also be able to do that for amendments that have been adopted? The latter is (hopeflly) clearly absurd, so the former shouldn't be permitted either.
Personally, as a matter of avoiding chaos, I think the system should be set up so there are no take-backsies, but unfortunately the constitution doesn't clarify that point. I think putting expiration dates on amendment proposals is a much more sane way to ensure that amendments aren't ratified and adopted mainly through inertia and long-term political games.
But in the ERA's case I believe the argument that the expiration is not valid is because the expiration doesn't appear in the proposed text, just in the "foreward" that introduces the amendment. On the other side, there are some who believe that Congress doesn't have the power to extend the expiration date, as doing so would be effectively a new amendment proposal with zero ratifications. (I don't know where I personally stand on that from a legal perspective. I certainly want the ERA to be adopted -- I think it's patently disgusting that all 50 states wouldn't immediately ratify it without question in this day and age -- but not in a divisive way that reduces trust in the political system even further.)
I’m sure we all agree it judges are humans and apply laws in bias ways. There are plenty of Supreme Court cases we would consider insane today.
You’re not going to get any government official to claim “yes take my salary”.
Not going to happen.
I can read the bill of rights.
Personally, I'm not so convinced by the 5th amendment vs tax returns argument, but that's not because a bunch of government lawyers are telling me that the 5th amendment doesn't apply.
Note: this is meant to be an introduction, each claim is debated all over the place.
What’s not up for debate is the 5th amendment.