Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Ron Paul News Update 4-15-2009 | Main | Idaho Plan Could Exterminate 26 Wolf Packs »

Tax Liability: Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)

From: Paul Andrew Mitchell <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959)
To: "Chester Lee McWhorter Sr" <chetmcwhortersr@embarqmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, April 15, 2009, 11:11 AM

You have made a reference to a passage from our 31Q&A here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm#Q8


Start here, in this excellent abstract we found in the prior version of American Jurisprudence:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.htm

That abstract was later REMOVED from the latest edition of American Jurisprudence, so we archived the original page here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/2amjur2d.gif

Further historical background is here:

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/subpoena.htm

Here's Commissioner v. Acker:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=361&invol=87

Here's the crucial holding in that standing decision:

But the section contains nothing to that effect, and, therefore, to uphold this addition to the tax would be to hold that it may be imposed by regulation, which, of course, the law does not permit.
United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 359 ;
Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446 -447;
Manhattan Co. v. Commissioner, 297 U.S. 129, 134 .

[end quote]


Please note that this holding was not a precedent, as such, because of the 3 supporting authorities cited above.

Now, pick up here, to elaborate the consequences of attempting to create a tax liability with Regulations published in the Federal Register, but withOUT any Act of Congress creating that specific liability in the first instance:

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.htm
(cites Commissioner v. Acker, in chief)

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/fox2/insolvency.explained.htm


I hope this helps.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice




On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Chester Lee McWhorter Sr <chetmcwhortersr@embarqmail.com> wrote:

23.       “The US Supreme Court correctly held in Commissioner vs Acker, that a tax liability may not be created by administrative regulations, absent an act of Congress creating that specific liability.”  (Try to find that case anywhere at the IRS website, or anywhere in their internal revenue manual!!) Chester Lee McWhorter Sr, 15 April 2009. Not provided by others.

 

April 15, 2009 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e201156f2b1eed970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tax Liability: Commissioner v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87 (1959):

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.