Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in recharacterizing the petitioner's right to refute the presumptive evidence of the Commissioner's correctness

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has held that non-apportioned direct ; taxes are Constitutionally prohibited and remain so after the adoption of Amendment XVI to the U.S. ; Constitution (“Amendment”), and that it is erroneous to assume that the Amendment gave Congress the “power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 11 (1916). This Court reaffirmed this holding in its decisions in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US. 103 (1916), Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470, 481 (1929), and So. Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988). This Court further observed that, in its earlier decision in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895), ; [we] recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless. and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. : Brushaber, supra, 240 U.S. at 17. The questions presented are: : 1. Did the Ninth Circuit commit reversible and plain Constitutional error by recharacterizing, without evidence, Petitioner’s right to refute | } | { ii ‘QUESTIONS PRESENTED -— Continued Commissioner's presumptive, and not conclusive, evidence of its correctness, that all of Petitioner’s earnings are excisable gains? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, without evidence and in conflict with Constitutional restrictions on the implementation of Congressional taxing power, err by affirming deficiencies on the premise that all earnings, and not just excisable gains, may be taxed directly without apportionment? 3. Alternatively, under this Court’s decisions, the Amendment notwithstanding, is the income tax, as it is currently administered throughout the country, effectively a non-apportioned tax on the revenue of the people that is prohibited, or subject to apportionment by the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Sections 2 and 9? iii : RELATED CASES ¢ Harriss v. Commissioner, consolidated Nos. 12528-14 and 25358-14, United States Tax Court. Decision entered May 2, 2017. © Harriss v. Commissioner, No. 17-72233, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Memorandum Opinion filed August 27, 2019. . iv