The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Aside from the fact that the 16th Amendment (like the 14th) to the US Constitution was improperly ratified which is well- documented by Bill Benson in his Two volume treatis, "The Law That Never Was", there is another argument concerning the 16th. This analysis in no way refutes the established facts in Bill Benson's research. Because the courts rule against this argument, patriots should consider, or least be aware, of other research concerning the 16th Amendment. THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES OF THE UNION AS PEOPLE ARE LED TO BELIEVE. The following analysis of the Sixteenth Amendment adds weight to the fact that we are dealing with the corporate United States and U.S. judges know it. The public just has to understand it a little better. A few definitions are in order critical to understanding this analysis. The supreme Court has stated that the term United States is a metaphor. In other words, it is a figure of speech and can mean more than one thing depending on how it is used. (Cunard S.S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 US 100, at pg. 122). When dealing with statutes, one must decide which of the three (3) ways the "United States" is referred. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of sovereign in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be a collective name of the States which are united by and under the constitution. (Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 US 652, at pgs. 672 & 673). United States of America and united States of America do not mean the same thing. When the US Constitution was written, people knew exactly what they were talking about for there was to be an entity known as the "United States", not to be confused with the united States of America. Art. I, Sec. 8 deals with the United States, Sec. 10 deals with the States of the Union. The phrase "throughout the United States" in Sec. 8 means District of Columbia and all of it's territories. It does not mean any of the States of the Union. The definitions of "State" and the "United States" in tax law (26 USC or 26 CFR) are very clear. 26 USC Section 3121 (e) (1) "State. The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." 26 USC Section 7701 (a) (9) "United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographic sense includes on the States and the District of Columbia." With this understanding, it is clear the 16th Amendment does not apply to the States of the Union as people are blindly lead to believe. In 1901 a series of cases appeared before the supreme Court called the Insular Cases. The Court ruled in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 1, that Puerto Rico ceased to be a foreign nation at the formal close of the Spanish American War. Duties could no longer be levied upon goods imported from Puerto Rico without Congressional authority. Goods that were shipped into Puerto Rico were also duty free so stated the Court in Dooley V. U.S., 182 U.S. 222. But Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 224, said the Constitution did not automatically and immediately apply to the people of the territory, not did it confer upon them all the privileges of U.S. citizenship, but that is was for Congress specifically to extend such Constitutional provisions as it saw fit. In 1909 Congress wanted to tax corporations, but it could not tax corporations (ie., foreign corporations) that it did not create. Foreign corporations include corporations chartered "without the United States" but within a State of the Union. Congress can regulate corporations involved in interstate commerce but it cannot tax them. See Art. 1: Sec. 8: Clause 3. Congress cannot have a State (Union) create a corporation in a Union State for the purpose of taxing it. This would be like Arizona telling Florida to create a corporation in Florida so Arizona could tax it. With this dilemma, Congress had to devise a way to tax the corporations that were chartered by the various States of the Union and to tax it's possessions such as Puerto Rico. So they used a play on words (syntax, if you will) to make people believe one thing while Congress actually meant something else. To make the Income tax statute constitutionally correct, Congress called the corporations chartered in the States of the Union, Foreign corporations, which is true. But people assume "Foreign" and "Alien" means from another country. Congress also called the federal territories, (ie., Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, etc., state of (belonging to) the United States of which there were seven. This understanding is needed in my explanation of the 16th Amendment. The term "several States" in 1776 meant only the thirteen States and others soon to join the Union. But Congress meant the term "several States" to be something "other" than the 48 States of the Union in the 1913 income tax statute. Those "other states" were all acquired between 1867 and 1899 and were called states of (belonging to) the United States. But how to tax the trade of import/export among these states when the Constitution did not provide for it, even though Congress had exclusive jurisdiction? Create the 16th Amendment without an enabling clause, as the power was already there in 1:8:1, so as to get consent of the States of the Union to tax its newly acquired possessions. Why? Who created the United States, and are they not liable to the Sovereigns who created it? Although the 16th Amendment did not define the term "several States", the Congress did that in the 1913 tax statute. Here is a simple, concise explanation based on the true meaning of the words which is backed up by 16 Am Jur 2d Sec. 111: "the sixteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, providing for an income tax, is to be taken as written, and is not to be extended beyond the meaning clearly indicated by the language used." THE CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO LAY AND COLLECT TAXES ON INCOME Only Congress, not the executive branch, can lay and collect taxes on income (from what or whom not yet defined). FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED This means the tax cannot be applied to the source but only to the income from the source which is still not defined. WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT Here is the definition of the tax. It is an indirect tax as explained by Hamilton in Federalist Papers No. 21 as it applied to 1:8:1, and now the 16th Amendment, that did not change the rule of taxes, only where they came from, ie., the newly acquired possessions. AMONG THE SEVERAL STATES The term "States" in "among the several States" does not mean the 48 States of the Union, but the seven States belonging to the United States. Does this phrase state "among the citizens of the several States"? Absolutely not! Citizens is not even implied. Why use the term "the several States" and not refer to the Union unless they were referring to the seven States belonging to the United States. Since the Internal Revenue Code in 1913, and up to 1954, defined State and United States to be the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Alaska, Hawaii, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Northern Marianas Islands, and the government contends that the 16th Amendment gave them the power to tax you, is conclusive proof, even above prima facie proof, that the several States means those mentioned above, and did not include Citizens (people) to be taxed. So the income tax is an import/export tax on commodities, not a tax on labor, as labor is not an article of commerce nor is it an article of consumption, therefore, no excise tax can be applied to one's property (called earnings, wages, etc.,) unless they worked for Government in those States mentioned above. AND WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY CENSUS OR ENUMERATION This proves it was not a direct tax and was not to be applied directly to the people of the several 48 States of the Union (as it was and is currently being done), but rather to be an Indirect (excise) Tax. It is among the states of the United States and not among the American Citizens of the now 50 Union States. The 16th is nothing more than a Statutory Law rather than an Amendment to the Constitution. All Congress had to do was to link the phrase "among the several States" in the 16th to the Income Tax Statute term "United States" leading people to assume the term meant the 48 States of the Union. Why do you think teachers were granted exemption when going to Hawaii and Alaska (before they were admitted to the Union) to teach? They did not pay an income tax while teaching in the 48 States of the Union. When going to the states of the United States they would have to pay a tax instituted by the 16th, for then the income would be from a source within the United States, as they would be effectively connected with a profession or business, with the United States paying their salaries. This proves the 16th Amendment income tax was not paid by State of the Union employees nor the people of the States of the Union. The case of Graves v. New York Ex Rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, eliminated this intergovernmental tax immunities, stating that a state tax on Federal employees was no unconstitutional burden upon the Federal Government. Hence, the misconceived idea was born that all "employees" were to be taxed when it only applied to government employees. It also applied to corporations created by Congress and the employees of such in only certain circumstances, that being, "The term 'employee' ALSO INCLUDES [includes in an expansive form] an [meaning one] officer of a corporation." 26 USC 3401 (c). This clarifies and conclusively proves the "employer" in 26 USC 3401 (d), to be only the government or its created corporation. By words of construction the 16th Amendment is constitutionally correct when applied to the proper subject. But are you the proper subject? Therefore, the Statute enacted is also constitutionally correct when you know the correct definition of the terms. The 16th Amendment neither repealed 1:9:4 of the Constitution nor overturned Pollock v. Farmers Loan. If it did repeal, then where is the repealing Amendment equivalent to the repealing Amendment 21 for the 18th Amendment?