You can come up with a few zillion cites that apply within the federal zone, under article 1 section 8, clause 17. Now present one that is operable within any of the several (now 50) united States.
Ahhh the "federal zone" argument. The claim that somehow the power to tax applies only in the District of Columbia and the territories. The argument seems to be based on a tortured reading of the word "includes" from 26 USC 3121(e). That one has been debunked too. Here are your cites to real cases, from real courts (there are lots more than these few, btw):
Valldejuli v. US (SD Fla unpub 12/20/96) 78 AFTR2d 7492 (this argument "routinely" rejected);
Powers v. CIR (12/12/90) TC Memo 1990-623 (refuting argument that IRS can only tax in Puerto Rico and DC);
US v. Sloan (7th Cir 1991) 939 F2d 499 (Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves," such as postal offices and Indian reservations.) cert.den 502 US 1060.
Onkka v. Herman (D Neb unpub 9/19/97 & 10/17/97) 80 AFTR2d 6860; "All United States citizens, irrespective of where they reside in the US, are subject to the IRC. All individuals are subject to federal income tax on wages."
J.B. Smith v. US, IRS, et al. (D. Ida unpub 7/30/93); ("Nor does the seat of govt clause, US Constitution art.I, sec. 8 clause 17, provide a limitation on the exercise of federal power under the commerce clause. Rather this clause states that the federal govt has the full panoply of sovereign powers over those areas used for federal purposes over which states have ceded their authority. Zubkis appears to argue that federal power can only be exercised in Washington, DC, and other federal areas but not over him in California. This argument is frivolous. The clause gives the federal govt power over certain geographic areas. It does not prevent the federal govt from exercising powers under other provisions of the Constitution, such as the commerce clause, in other other geographic areas.")
So, there you go. Not one but several.
Show me a law that REQUIRES anyone to obtain an SSN with the possible exception of federal employees, and what the penalties are for NOT applying, say, for your newborn. You simply will not find one.
Here you go:
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(a) & (b)(1)(i), 8 C.F.R. § 274a.10(b)(2); Immigration Form I-9; and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 6109(a)(3) & (d); E.E.O.C. v. Allendale Nursing Ctr., 996 F.Supp. 712, 717 (W.D. Mich. 1998) (requirement that employee obtain SSN is requirement imposed by law and is not employment requirement); United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 261 (1982) (upholding the constitutionality and uniform application of the Social Security Act, which requires employers to withhold social security taxes from employees’ wages, even when such withholding conflicts with an employer’s or employee’s religious or other beliefs) (plaintiff was fired by her employer, State Stores, after refusing to provide a signed Form W-4 with her Social Security number.); Damron v. Yellow Freight System Inc. (ED Tenn 1998) 18 F.Supp.2d 812 (which noted that the US Supreme Ct had held "individual participation in the Soc.Sec system is mandatory rather than voluntary", citing US v. Lee, 1982, 455 US 252); (that the US Constitution is a contract and only certain federal officials are obliged to observe it).
There's more, if you need it. I have no idea what the penalty might be for not getting your child a SS#. Not sure that's relevant to anything anyway.
Again, if your position is correct, the tax code would have abrogated some of the most fundamental and inalienable rights such as the right to own property and the right to exchange your property (time, labor) in exchange for remuneration
Well, you have the right to own property as do I. Are you saying that the fact that this bad thing (not being able to own property) has NOT happened means that you must be correct in your analysis of the law? There's a logical fallacy in there somewhere. I pray daily that the moon will not fall to the Earth. The moon has not fallen. Therefore it's my prayers that are holding it up?
Even if your labor is property, you are taxed on the income you receive for your labor, not the labor itself. You can work in your backyard all day long and not pay any tax. Congress cannot tax property directly (at least not without apportionment) this is true, but it can tax transactions involving transfers and exchanges of property. The income tax is, then, a tax on the receipt of income arising from a transaction; the sale of your labor. As for the idea that the wages, or remuneration, you receive for your labor is property, see below.
One last court case for you:
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985)("Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned.")
The Court also whacked the taxpayer for $2K in sanctions in that case.
Pete, I wish you the best of luck, but I think you're tilting at windmills. I'm done with this debate, it's not on topic for this board anyway. I enjoy your scn related posts greatly, but I reserve the right to correct what I believe are your misconceptions about tax law when you post them. If and when you do have to deal with the IRS, get yourself a real lawyer.
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. - The Talmud