Court Finds Man not Required to File Income Tax Returns on Wages

[aksmith]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Nothing a jury decides is precedent in the way you're asking about. And because it is not, you will have to fight this same battle over and over in every court in the country until the end of time.

When a judge or a court (panel) decides, it is precedent. But we peons cannot make precedent.

 

[Mr. White]

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

 

[ionlyknowy]

I will agree that the vast majority of cases have considered labor to be taxable, however, I have yet to see a law that clearly says so. The closest I have seen is what you pointed out earlier when you cited to Title 26.

My area of question is the assessment of profit/loss. Making such an assessment involves calculating a starting value (not necessarily a purchase price) and the selling value. You posit that the starting value is 0, simply based on the idea that nothing was paid to another person for the labor. I question if this is accurate. When calculating the base price of something you have to consider all the expenses involved; for example, if a company manufactored a chair and sold it for $100 dollars, they would first add up the cost of the wood, nails, sandpaper used, amoritize the buildings and machinary used, etc. These expenses would be subtracted from the $100 dollars and what was left would be the profit, aka, taxable income. In the exact same manner a similar trade occurs with labor. Instead of wood and nails being expended to create the finished product of a chair, time and energy are expended to create the labor. These elements do have a value which can be calculated. In the same way that a business assigns a value to labor and expenses for the chair, so too could an individual expense their time and energy against their labor. To calculate the value of those components one only has to look at the fair market value of it, subtract that from what is gained in return for it and you would be left with the resulting profit (income). This would probably be 0 unless someone is unreasonably charging above market rates.

I'm sure that some would disagree with the above argument, however, it does seem to be in line with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles which is all that's necessary for tax purposes and income statements.

If you were wondering, yes, I too am one of those who gets to "eat, sleep, drink, and piss" law....speaking of which I need to get back to pulling my International Business Transactions outline together, interesting discussion though.

Here is the applicable law that the above court used:

http://uscode.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
Prev | Next
§ 61. Gross income defined
How Current is This?
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

 

[ionlyknowy]

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

This makes even more sense though..

 

[jabrownie]

I wasn't wondering since I think it's immaterial what a person's job is when determining the merits of their argument.

As for your theory, I find it intriguing, but disagree with the presumption time and energy would deduct from the market value of the finished labor to equal zero.

The wood and nails used in the construction of a chair have a either a fair market value (if you've fabricated/processed them yourself) or a market value established by what you paid for them. Time and labor however have no distinguishable valuation. What my time or labor is worth to me cannot be determined in itself by another. If I am selling the product of my time and labor, it stands to reason that I would price the item produced with those values to me in mind, therefore I've already deducted for their cost.

Essentially I submit that the value of your time and labor cannot be determined independently of those who would purchase them in a transaction. The final price is bargained for and equates to a mutual agreement of what the transaction is worth, less your labor and time. Therefore the price you charge is your income and your time and labor have already been deducted. therefore the price is wholly taxable income.

Thank you both for the additional insights, especially for the case provided....quite a heavy stick especially with it coming from Judge Easterbrook.

As for the theory I had put forward, I was viewing it from the perspective of a person as a business. In Delaware it's possible for a person to basically incorporate themself. If somebody did that then it would no longer be a question of wages, it'd be a question of profit and loss. While I agree that you would price the product produced with time and labor values in mind, doing so is not a deduction of anything. It's just an acknowledgment of something that will be expensed in the future.

When a business calculates their tax liability they take the total value of all the purchase prices, the sales of the company, add them together, and then all the expenses are calculated, including time/labor costs, and the remainder (the profit) is the taxable income....total sales are not taxed. So, if a person were viewed, not as a person earning wages, but as an incorporated business expensing the labor values from the sales (price of produced items), then we end up with a potentially different anaylsis from the one presented before Easterbrook. Now, I've never heard of anybody trying this, but from the business accounting side of things it seems to fit from what I've seen.

Btw: just curious, which schools do you go to? Anything in Ohio? I'm at Ohio State.

 

[I Am Weasel]

Oh my.. you guys....

This is the ENTIRE reason I found out about Ron Paul. If you want to really dig into the TRUTH of the IRS code, you're getting yourselves into some stuff you may never get out of. Please check out this site for more info...

http://famguardian.org/

Just click on Taxation.

A very indepth site, this is THE ONE AND ONLY site ANY of you should be looking at if you're wanting to start fighting the IRS. Please head my warning.. Chris Hansen has devoted his life to fighting the IRS and is the only person I know of who knows the law like the back of his hand. Clicking on Taxation will take you to a page of info that is so indepth.. it'll blow your mind. All categorized and updated weekly as laws change or mistakes are found.

For those just interested in a taste... go to the taxation page and scroll down to REMEDIES and download the first pdf file called "Flawed tax arguments to avoid" and you'll see just how serious and thorough this site and it's information is. That book alone was last updated on 3-2-1008!

I speak from experience. I've had my IRS Masterfile decoded, something most here have no clue about, I've done all the FOIA stuff... it's almost too much to get into. But, if you are gonna dive in, it is well worth it to spend a year learning before you take that leap...

 

[jabrownie]

Mind if I ask what an "IRS Masterfile" is....and what "decoding" it does? Thanks.

 

[I Am Weasel]

Go to the famguardian side I gave you and look for The Great IRS Hoax. or better yet...

http://famguardian.org/Publications/GreatIRSHoax/GreatIRSHoax.htm

After you get that book and read it you'll have most everything you need to fight the IRS. Oh.. when I did this 6 years ago, the book had to be printed at Kinkos and required 9 different books to be printed. I still have it all downstairs in a box. I'm telling you guys... don't just jump in... BE EDUCATED!

as far as master file decoding, go to the link I gave, and scroll down to "Liberty University" item #7 is the Individual Master File Decoding Course, pdf. open that, and page 14 tells all about the IMF... you'll be amazed.

According to the IRS, I'm a manufacturer of Bus and Truck Chasis living in the Virgin Islands...

lol..you'll never look at the government or paycheck again after reading this stuff.

edit... here's another link... explains about half way down....

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Instructions/0.8ObtAndAnalyzingIMF.htm

 

[tnvoter]

bump

 

[joemiller]

Been there, done that

I have gone through my "NO TAXES ON WAGES" rite of passage and have come to the conclusion that the law is not as clear as it should be, but as clear as it needs to be for the IRS to act.

In other words: True, if you are an attorney with loads of time on your hands, and loads of money, you may be successful in bringing the IRS to court on the "taxation of wages" issue. The IRS figures it can afford the relative few among us who can successfully accomplish this feat. And even in these instances, the IRS will have at least a 50% chance of prevailing in court in each case. These are acceptable odds for the IRS and Congress to endure, especially if the alternative is to try and pass a specific law taxing our wages at the present time -- which is why you will never, every see the IRS appealing these few victories to a higher court.

For some counter reading material, please read:http://www.taxhistory.com/crs/09.html

joe

 

[voytechs]

There's a radio interview that details the case and trial for those interested. A victory for sure. There's a plug for Ron Paul by the Gun Owners Association in the interview also.

I've never followed this movement much but I have looked at their info on the legalities of their claims. Gotta hand it to them....there is no law requiring us to pay income taxes...we pay out of ignorance or fear. Basically the IRS is like the mafia who collects "protection insurance" from the citizen's for the mob boss .

http://www.wtprn.com/

I'm not ignorant, but I pay out of fear. They hold all the guns right now. For everyone one that gets a fair trial, there are 100 that do not. I don't like these odds.

 

[fedup100]

So, is this a precedent? Can we all stop paying income taxes??

Unless you have the same knowledge and abilities as Cryer, I wouldn't try it. They will kick your door in and take you away. Welcome to the real amerika.

 

[joemiller]

fascism, like freedom...

..is only a matter of degree.

IMO, the best way to address this particular issue is to go to Ron Paul's campaign website and sign up to be a "Precinct Leader", even if there is already one assigned to your precinct. Hopefully, at some point, the campaign will ask every precinct leader to insure their names are also on their ballot as a precinct committee man or woman in the coming general election.

Once Paulites have been installed as precinct committee members in every local county precinct of their Republican Party, the issue of taxing wages can be brought up and adopted. After the GOP has adopted this as their platform, things, as they say, will never be the same.

joe

 

[roho76]

for a more in depth look at the whole thing check out

www.losthorizons.com

thousands of people know the law and get every red cent stolen from thier earnings back

I met the author/owner of this website the other day at the Michigan Freedom Conference. He was very nice and informative. He said he has been getting every cent of his money back from the IRS for quite some time now and so have a lot of others. Definitely worth investigating.

 

[Mr. White]

I love how people equate not getting caught with proof they don't have to pay income tax.