Talk:Springer v. United States

More detail to be added

Although it's not mentioned in the Supreme Court's opinion in this case, the taxpayer was a practicing attorney. Technically, an attorney is an officer of the court. An attorney in private practice like Springer is not, however, a government employee (not an employee of the judiciary). I don't recall for sure, but some tax protesters may have falsely claimed that Springer was a government employee and that the Court's holding in the case was limited to income of government employees. That would be false.

Many people who read the phrase "officer of the judiciary" (which I have removed) might make three erroneous conclusions: (1) That the Court mentioned that fact in its opinion; (2) That the Court limited its holding to "officers of the judiciary", and (3) that an "officer of the judiciary" is always a government employee.

Judges, bailiffs, court reporters, and court clerks are government employees. Attorneys engaged in the professional private practice of law are not government employees.

More to come. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added some detail on the case itself. First, this case was not about the "1862" tax law. It was about the Revenue Act of 1864. In fact, Springer had correctly pointed out that there was no such Act of "July 1, 1862" on the books. The Court agreed with Springer, but rejected Springer's argument that under the 1864 Act the tax collector's sale was not valid. The Court also rejected Springer's argument that the income tax on Springer's income was a "direct tax".

The Court in this case never actually mentioned how Springer received his income in the year 1865, the tax year in question. Later, in the Pollock case, the Court mentioned the source of Springer's income (which was income from the practice of law). I'll be adding more sourcing and details to the article soon. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the 1864 Act imposed the tax on "the gains, profits, and income of every person residing in the United States, or of any citizen of the United States residing abroad, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, or salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation, carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatever [ . . . ]" Revenue Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 223, sec. 116 (June 30, 1864). Contrary to what some tax protesters may argue, Springer never contended that the Constitution prohibited the 1864 Act from taxing the income from a "profession, trade, employment, or vocation," or that the 1864 income tax was limited in its application to "government employees" rather than "every person residing in the United States" and "every citizen of the United States residing abroad." Yours, Famspear (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There's one thing I'm confused about though. The article on the Revenue Act of 1862 does cite the date as July 1, 1862. I'll check on this. Famspear (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found it. It was the date of the amending act that was incorrectly cited on the tax collector's deed. I will make the appropriate changes. Famspear (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line on the tax collector's errors on the dates: The tax collector's deed incorrectly recited the main statute as being dated "July 1, 1862" when the main statute was really the Act of "June 30, 1864." The deed incorrectly recited the amending statute as being dated "March 30, 1864" when the amending statute was actually dated "March 3, 1865." Springer pointed all this out to the Court, but unfortunately these kinds of clerical errors were not sufficient to invalidate the conveyance evidenced by the deed. Famspear (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make so many changes without discussion. You've completely rewritten the article and left out vital information. Mpublius (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: I'm sorry, but you had inserted lots of false information in the article. I corrected the information. If you have a problem with my edits, then be specific about what you believe violates a Wikipedia rule; state the rule; and show how the information violates that rule.

I notice that you have now re-inserted the false information about the Springer case in the article on Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. I do not know where you are getting this false information about the Springer case. The Springer case was not about a tax on "people connected with the government", etc. It was not about the 1862 tax statute. It was about the 1864 statute, which specifically taxed all income of all U.S. citizens and all U.S. residents.

I and other editors have given you several weeks of leeway on this article and the Flint v. Stone Tracy article. As in the past, you have been adding unsourced and obviously false information that appears to be coming from tax protester sources, even to the point of citing sections of a tax statute that wasn't even the issue in the case.

All you have to do is read the actual text of the Springer case -- which I believe you yourself may have linked to at findlaw.com. And the 1864 statute that Mr. Springer himself referenced in the case clearly taxed income of U.S. citizens and residents (section 116 if I recall). Indeed, Springer himself never even tried to argue that the statute did not tax his income. He just argued that the statute was unconstitutional (that the unapportioned income tax was direct), etc., and so on. He lost. I'm sorry. but that's it.

The Wikipedia rule on editing is "be bold." Yes, there are times when major changes should be discussed first in the talk page. This is not one of them -- especially where the information you provided is so blatantly false, and especially considering your past history of pushing this kind of tax protester urban myth. I and other Wikipedia editors are not going to negotiate with you in the talk page over which obviously false and unsourced information you would like to keep on the Springer case, especially considering your history of pushing pro-tax protester points of view. If you were a brand new editor without the history you have, we would be assuming good faith. At this point, however, more than one editor has complained about what we maintain has been your abuse of Wikipedia processes and your obvious tendency to use Wikipedia to push frivolous tax protester nonsense (of which the Springer case is a classic example).

Again, if anything, I have held back for several weeks watching while you added the false information to this article. I note that you again today added the false information on Springer to the Flint case article.

If you have a problem with one of my edits, please be specific, just as I have done in exposing why your information was incorrect. Thanks. Famspear (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Mpublius

Here we go again.

Dear Mpublius: I see that you are again removing the correct information and re-inserting your false, unsourced information. Please explain why you are doing this. Famspear (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments left on talk page by Cheeto255

The following comments were left on the article which I've moved here to the talk page:

Edit: I'm not sure who wrote all of this, but it is very incorrect information. In the real case the Supreme Court rulled in favor of Springer, stating that a tax on a persons private wages is clearly an unproportional direct tax which is also clearly a violation of the American Constitution. That is why to this day a law has not been found to support this made up law by the lower courts and IRS. In fact, the IRS is not a government law enforcer and dosent have the power to demand anything from anyone. Even in the IRS code book it states that it is voluntary compliance to file for taxes, real laws are mandatory compliance.

Also at the bottom, i'm not sure where the web page came from, but here is my refference from an education research site. http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/supreme_court/supreme_court.cfm http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/102/586.html --Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The material inserted by user "Cheeto255" is blatantly false. The text of the Springer case is readily available on the internet. Mr. Springer lost his case.

The Supreme Court has never stated, in the Springer case or in any other case, that a tax on a person's private wages is a violation of the Constitution. That is blatantly false. In fact, no U.S. federal court has ever made any such statement. Never. Not even once.

There is no statement anywhere in the Internal Revenue Code (the "IRS code book") that the federal income tax is "voluntary." Some federal courts have referred to the federal income tax as "voluntary." Tax protesters falsely state that this somehow means there is no legal obligation to pay those taxes. That is not what the courts have stated. Again, this is already covered in the applicable articles on tax protesters.

The statement that the IRS is not a government enforcer, and that the IRS does not have the power to demand anything, is blatantly false. All this has already been covered over and over in the talk pages of Wikipedia. The Internal Revenue Service has the legal power to seize assets of taxpayers and sell those assets without even obtaining a court order -- as long as certain administrative procedures are followed. Again, this is specifically covered here in Wikipedia!

The material by user Cheeto255 is tax protester rhetoric. It is false and legally frivolous. Famspear (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, Cheeto255 actually included a link to the text of the Springer case (see above). Cheeto255 thus included a link to the very text that contradicts his/her own tax protester rhetoric! Famspear (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)