- 12 -
the same confidence. But where it is a recent dictum
that considers all the relevant considerations and
adumbrates an unmistakable conclusion, it would be
reckless to think the Court likely to adopt a contrary
view in the near future. In such a case the dictum
provides the best, though not an infallible guide to
what the law is, and it will ordinarily be the duty of
a lower court to be guided by it.
So much more so in the case at hand, as in the countless other
cases in which misguided taxpayers such as petitioners have
repeated the fruitless arguments that the income tax laws are
ineffective or inapplicable in accomplishing their intended
objective of raising governmental revenue from individuals
who receive wage, salary, or other compensation income. The
invariable practice of this Court and the Courts of Appeals in
rejecting those arguments confirms that petitioners' arguments
are frivolous. By enacting and amending the Internal Revenue
Code, Congress, the people's elected representatives, has
accomplished the purpose of providing the primary means of
financing the costs of the Federal Government. This is the
system under which both individuals and corporations will be
required to pay their shares of the burden, at least until such
time as Congress decides to repeal the income tax and try another
way to raise the necessary revenue.
Petitioners' descriptions of the Federal income tax as a
voluntary system that they and others who don't like to pay taxes
can elect to participate in or not as they choose are based on a
gross misunderstanding that can only be attributed to willful
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011