Ritegov.com
Reporting Information To Ensure Government Of Value

HOME     ABOUT US     TAXATION INFORMATION KIT      CONTACT      UTAH News

Are Property Taxes Constitutional?

In transliterating certain terms such as “understand,” or to “stand under,” and “knowledge,”

or a “ledge” upon which we “know,” we are able to gain insight of the source that creates the

basic meaning of them, and such is the transliteration process of many, many words.


In review of the term “income” and by the defining transliteration thereof, we learn that it

means – to “come in,” and recognizing that this includes all things that come in to one who

starts, at a point, with nothing, all things are counted, one article at a time, until every article

that “comes in” has been counted and included, moment by moment in time so that

everything, without exception, has been accounted for by the process of confirming them,

each, as they “come in.”


This process of determining each item as they “come in” recognizes such process of

movement and confirming as an “activity,” for it is without question that each item must

move toward the objective source in order that they may “come in” to the objective source

itself by such movement, or travel, or “activity.” Even those things that travel at electronic

speeds or like speeds, appearing to move instantaneously are recognized to “come in” as a

matter of movement, or “activity” in their doing so.


The movement of each item that is to “come in” makes the process an “activity,” and the

process of “confirming” and “counting” makes the “activity” a “transaction,” even though

nothing may have been exchanged for the article or item to “come in.”


Consequently, a tax on an “activity” is an “activity tax,” and a tax on a next-step

“transaction” is a “transaction tax.” A “transaction tax,” whether regarded from the

standpoint of the purchaser or the seller, is commonly known as a “sales tax,” and is

generally expected to be paid, or collected, at the point of the transaction or sale itself.


It is for this particular reason that the “Internal Revenue Service federal agency” has avoided

officially defining “income” at all, for if doing so, would find themselves incapable of

collecting it in the capacity as “sales tax” is to be collected, even though a State is generally

equipped to do that, the reason that the aforementioned “federal agency” moves to push State

agencies to collect, or cause to be collected, an “income tax” for them, because they cannot

actually do it for themselves.


However, the matter does not end there in regards to a “sales tax” or “income tax,” for as we

look at the travel of the item(s) of income past the point of the transaction itself, we discover

that such item(s), minus the amount required to be set aside for the benefit of the local or

State government under whose governmental umbrella the item(s) continue to travel, as a

natural process or occurrence, becomes converted to “property,” having now “came in,”

coining, for this purpose only, the word “incame,” past tense, for its controlling possessor

claims or signifies, either by putting the item(s) into the one’s pocket, purpose, etc., or if

one’s money only, then into one’s bank account, etc., “I have it, and it is mine,” signifying

that the incame is now property, the property of the one who possesses and controls it, or

owns it as the result of the “transaction” that came before it.


By placing a tax on incame, or property, we create the “property tax,” so called and known

by that term, to be made the subject of collection at some time thereafter, bringing all known

laws on the subject of “property” forward to bear on it in order to determine when, how, how

much, and the consequence of the lien of the “property tax” itself.


If the property now owned is considered to be “public,” then anyone and everyone has the

right to question or have concern for its existence, and to require an ongoing accounting of it

during business hours, and to come to where such “public property” exists in order to support

its continued secure value to the public which the “any one” is a part of.


Ordinarily, people such as business owners, merchants, or as individuals who are made the

owners of incame are not considered to be owners in the public sense, but are owners of the

incame, whatever it is, in the private sense only, or that is, owners of private property.


Recognizing that money, as incame, or property, exists only as a universal substitute for

private property for instant exchange purposes only, money itself, when being made a part of

the incame state and no longer a part of the income, or transaction, state, becomes cognizable

as the private property of the one who comes to own it, as before described.


Were it not so, the laws that apply to public property would make it unbearable for everyone

possessing any increment of “money” to even possess it for any amount of time, for they

would be subject, legally, to continuous scrutiny on where, how much, and with whom such

money was “spent” at any time it was so “spent,” and what the condition of the money was

each time it was spent, coming with the incorporated right for everyone to get into

“everyone’s” business, where money possessed or owned is not considered to be “privately

owned” and not “publicly owned” on a case by case basis.


It is when we begin to thoroughly expose the question of the “property tax” to a closer

scrutiny that we run aground of the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, last

phrase therein, as to why, except that politicians have made it so, “property tax” is purely

unconstitutional, and has always been so from the date that the people embraced the

Constitution and its Amendments for themselves.


For according to the particular applicable language of the Fifth Amendment as it applies to

the taking of private property (which comes under the newly recognized area of law known

as Takings Law”) for public use, that which is being taken must be paid for in its full or

actual, not speculative, value, value paid for value received, even if it may be taken – for

public use only – against the private property owner’s will.


Consequently, while the value of a property such as a vehicle may have lesser actual value

than that which its owner holds subjectively over the private vehicle/property, the actual

value and not the owner’s proposed value, where a public use of such property is duly

deemed to be necessary, will be what the owner of the private property in question will

actually receive.


In the case of incame-money as private property, however, the value of each monetary

increment is exact, and no lesser value than what each bill expressly shows may be claimed

for a tax on private property purposes. As such, when polls have been taken that ask the

question, How much do you want for a hundred dollars, the answer is always, invariably, a

hundred dollars. This realization, and right, voids out what we currently call the “income

tax,” recognizing it for what it is because of how and when it is collected, as actually being

an “incame” or property tax, not actually taxable under the Fifth Amendment’s “private

property for public use” to be paid for by government value for value, or dollar for dollar, so

that the effect of proposing any property tax and lawfully collecting it is made moot.


Whether or not the Constitution’s Framers knew this when they constructed the Fifth

Amendment in 1789, it is the result of “findings of fact and conclusions of law” that makes it

just this exact thing regardless.


The theory of the “income tax,” an actual “activity tax” and “transaction tax,” being a “sales

tax” and not otherwise, is defined by when it is due to be set aside in escrow or trust for the

State government to whom it is owed, as an immediate requirement, not a delayed after-the fact

one, and may not be collected, or accounted for collection purposes, after the receiver

thereof has said, in effect, “I have it and it is mine,” signifying that the transaction period has

past and that which has been received is now “property,” “private property,” the collection

upon, for the minimal reasons indicated, is unconstitutional, and, politicians’ unlawful acts to

the contrary notwithstanding, always has been from the beginning.


As to property tax liens placed on private property for “uncollected private property

overdue,” the concept of damaging private property in order to “take it” for an incremental

amount alleged to be owed on it, recognizing that you cannot separate the intrinsic value of

the property from the property itself, which recognition has brought about the area of

“takings law” and its involvement of government taking private property (for “public use”)

when damaging it, which deceptive form of “taking private property for pubic use” was

suspected and remedies by our neighboring State of Utah in its own State Constitution in

1896, wherein its Article I, Section 22:

Article I, Section 22. [Private property for public use.]

Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just

compensation.


NOTE here that the words “or damaged” tie into the “for public use” the same as the word

“taken,” for it is known that a government may deceptively, or politically, “take” a private

property for public use by damaging or diminishing its value, thus taking its value, increment

by increment, by way of each act that “takes the ‘value-property” away from the property

value of the tangible property itself, both of which were bought, inseparably, by the owner

thereof at the time the private property was purchased for a private property use, the total

taking of private property by way of damaging the same for public use being known as

“trash,” which we set by the roadside, being lost to us because of its being damaged/taken to

just that extent.


Volumes could be written on the subject, demonstrating how corrupt politicians began the

unlawful process of the “property tax” long ago, by which innumerable estates have been

devoured, unlawfully, because the public did not have sufficient understanding to oppose it at

the polls, and to seek redress and punishment upon the very politicians who imposed it upon

them in the first place.



IDENTIFYING THE TYPE OF TAX.


The type of tax that pertains to any taxable issue is determined, primarily, by when it is

collected, for it cannot be denied that if a tax is due when the item upon which the tax is to be

based first appears on the scene of exchange, if the debt for the tax is considered to arise at

that moment of time, and not later, it exists, from such activity, as a Transaction Tax, or that

is, a Sales Tax, and if it is determined that the Tax upon such item is not to be due the instant

it first appears for an exchange purpose, but is to be due later after the person receiving it has

the ability to possess it indefinitely, or that is, to own it, then it is not and cannot be a

Transaction Tax or Sales Tax, but is regarded as a Property Tax instead.


For there are only two (2) times when a Tax may be determined as a Tax; (1) at the time

when the item to be taxed first appears and may be comprehended for that purpose (or

“now”), and (2) at a later time, and not “now,” signifying that it is not important to determine

the tax (not being a Transaction Tax, or Sales Tax) at the time of Transaction, but may be

applied later, when the ownership of the item or items to be taxed have been more definitely

confirmed as to the owner of it, or that is, a Property Tax, and not otherwise.


COVERING THE ISSUE OF “PENALTIES.”


While the term “penalty” seems to be a benign term that government administrative powers

can throw around and use anytime it suits them, there is an alternative term which better

describes what a “penalty,” from which the word “penal” is drawn, actually is under the law,

and that word is “punishment.”


Under the United States Constitution, it is not lawful, and in fact it is illegal, for one to take

upon himself/herself to punish another where no court jurisdictional authority was first

involved, by which due process it was determined that an offender was found worth of such

punishment that a court of law provided for, excluding the other two branches as having any

authority to punish except a court’s own authority was first extended thereto before a single

bit of punishment can be imposed upon an accused, except it be an abuse of process, a

misuse of process, and contemptuous conduct, as well as a violation of law, if doing so.


While civil contracts may provide for the use of an agreed to “penalty” or “punishment” due

to some breached condition, government, any branch thereof, does not possess the lawful

authority to enter into private civil contracts with private citizens in order to effectuate any

“breach of contract” civil penalty against them (is not entitled to use them, civil contract

provisions); the authority to do so just isn’t there, and never has been.


Under the United States Constitution’s Article IV, Section 4, a guarantee for Republican

Form of Government requires three (3) distinct and separate forms or branches of

government within that Government itself, and one of those three branches is the judicial, or

court, branch. Because the judicial, or court, branch, is the branch that is to determine

whether or not any citizen should be or must be “punished for even the most insignificant

detail of offense imagined, and neither of the other two (2) branches have the right to

circumvent the judicial branch power to be the one and only branch to make such a decision

as that, then all forms of claims by an administrative or executive department for any

“penalty” or “punishment” to be imposed upon any citizen for any reason constitutes and

suggests a “bootleg” form of punishment as being imposed upon the citizens, for which the

executive department imposing it has no lawful accountability as to how it reached the

conclusion of who was to be punished (by it), and why and when and how.

This being the matter of the fact, for it is literally incontestable to propose that the words

penalty” and “punishment” are not related terms, before a taxpayer must concur with the

State Tax Commission’s opinion that such taxpayer is to be “Punished” by it for any

unintentional failure to timely pay a Sales Tax on a particular transaction on any tax matter, it

would be reasonable for the taxpayer to require of the  State Tax Commission the

answers to the following questions, by which such taxpayer’s civil rights to not be punished

except by exact due process of law, does lay (in the United States):


1) When was the case filed against the taxpayer in a District Court

concerning the idea that the same be punished, or made to pay a penalty, for

such taxpayer’s unintentional, unknowing, late payment of a Sales

Tax/Income Tax?


2) What was the address of the District Court where the penalty or

penalties in question were submitted for case trial or hearing and thereafter

determined by the court in accordance to fact and law?


3) What was the case number for such case?


4) What was the name of the judge for such case?


5) What courtroom was the trial or hearing of held in?


6) Since any form of debt owed, inclusive of a tax debt, is not a matter of law,

neither a matter of claim, but exists only as a matter of fact and must be tried

by a trier of fact, or jury, what was the name of the fore-person of the jury, if

known? And was a trial by impartial jury waived at any time?


7) What was the verdict of the Jury? and did the named judge in the case indicate

any opposition to it?


8) And how was the citizen, as named taxpayer, directed, by either judge or jury,

to go about being subjected to the punishment prescribed for him by that

court, under that case number, in that courtroom, before that judge and jury,

on that date, at that time?


These questions are posed as a hypothetical demonstration of the error of claiming the right

to impose any “penalty” upon any taxpayer from an administrative department standpoint

only, and the countless number of times that it has been unlawfully committed against the

people does not diminish the liability of doing so for the State, but adds to it exponentially in

the event that the people ever come to understand what was done to them, even if it is

believed that this will never happen in one’s lifetime. Obviously, bad counsel-giving

attorneys for the legislature, pretending that they knew what they were doing, or else not

pretending at all, were much responsible for the legal dilemma that this practice creates the

longer it is engaged in, any opinion that it is “okay” not-with-standing (notwithstanding).


If these questions cannot be answered by the  State Tax Commission, then no “penalty”

or “punishment” can be claimed to be owed by any taxpayer for any penalty amount at all,

and any charges of “penalties,” being “punishments,” not going through a lawful court of

the state has always been in executive department error, no matter to whom it has applied them.


COVERING THE ISSUE OF “INTEREST.”


While interest is lawful, it may not be applied to “penalties” or “”punishments” that have not

been pre-approved by a court of law, and the fact that it has been “gotten away with” for

many decades is not a justification or approval by society or government that it does not

constitute an offense against the people of the State, at large, and is not actionable in its own

due time.


And even though interest on an owed, unpaid balance is lawful, such interest cannot be

actually charged and mandated that it be paid until it has been ascertained by a court hearing

or trial by a trier of fact (debt owed is a fact, not law or claim) that the debt itself is factual

and that there are no conditions that would deny any exception to the debt alleged before any

balance of debt owed could be reached, by verdict or otherwise;


The complexity of which (due process is not excusable due to its complexity) does not

constitute a release of duty to comply with every aspect of procedure required on the matter,

another aspect that the Constitution’s framers recognized as making a sales tax a more

desirable, more honest, form of taxation over a property tax (see The Clause 5 Exhibit,

accompanying herewith).