Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

[ZENemy]

Never mind, Larken replied and informed me about the list and pointed me to the sections he was talking about.

 

[Weston White]

I agree the part you mentioned is pretty well known to be moot (because of liars and thieves no doubt)

In the video, I heard a lot more than what you mentioned, He speaks specially of a LIST of taxable items that were listed that he walked the Jury through, do you know of this list? He said he would provided it if asked and I did send him an email.

I'm not interested in doing this fight myself, the Gov has absolutely abdicated the law and its authority to collect taxes in my mind so ALL of what the courts say is moot, to me, I just like clarity.

Are these to which are referring:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-II

 

[ZENemy]

Are these to which are referring:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-A/chapter-1/subchapter-B/part-II

Correct! It seems that if one new nothing about taxes and followed the law and instructions to a T, went to each section, they would come up with the conclusion that they are not making taxable income.

26 USC Part II - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME
There are 2 Updates Pending. Select the tab below to view.

US Code
Notes
Updates

Current through Pub. L. 113-36. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

§ 71 . Alimony and separate maintenance payments
§ 72 . Annuities; certain proceeds of endowment and life insurance contracts
§ 73 . Services of child
§ 74 . Prizes and awards
§ 75 . Dealers in tax-exempt securities
[§ 76 . Repealed.]
§ 77 . Commodity credit loans
§ 78 . Dividends received from certain foreign corporations by domestic corporations choosing foreign tax credit
§ 79 . Group-term life insurance purchased for employees
§ 80 . Restoration of value of certain securities
[§ 81 . Repealed.]
§ 82 . Reimbursement for expenses of moving
§ 83 . Property transferred in connection with performance of services
§ 84 . Transfer of appreciated property to political organization
§ 85 . Unemployment compensation
§ 86 . Social security and tier 1 railroad retirement benefits
§ 87 . Alcohol and biodiesel fuels credits
§ 88 . Certain amounts with respect to nuclear decommissioning costs
[§ 89 . Repealed.]
§ 90 . Illegal Federal irrigation subsidies

 

[Weston White]

A few quick updates:

1. There is a short discussion in cross-reference to this thread that is viewable HERE and HERE.

2. I just posted a large update, rev. 6 of A Discourse on the Crux of the Federal Taxation of Individuals.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Correct! It seems that if one knew nothing about taxes and followed the law and instructions to a T, went to each section, they would come up with the conclusion that they are not making taxable income.

Incorrect! Totally, completely, incorrect!

It is extremely obvious that they are making taxable income. All you have to do is read the Internal Revenue Code.

Internal Revenue regulations governing practices of the IRS agents are created by the IRS itself. But the Internal Revenue Code is different; it is a law of the federal government — passed by Congress, like any other federal law. Anyone who says that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax is ignoring the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a law passed by Congress.

It is also incorrect to believe that the income tax code applies only to selected people or to selected geographical areas of the United States — or that income isn't defined in federal law. All these topics are covered in the Internal Revenue Code, a federal law passed by Congress and amended nearly every year.

You might decide to refuse to pay tax as a protest; that's your decision. But if you refuse to file or pay because you believe there is no law requiring you to do so, you're sadly mistaken.

At the following link are relevant passages from the Internal Revenue Code spelling out who must pay, how income is defined, what must be paid, and what the penalties are for failure to do so.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InternalRevenueCode.htm

 

[ZENemy]

Incorrect! Totally, completely, incorrect!

It is extremely obvious that they are making taxable income. All you have to do is read the Internal Revenue Code.

Internal Revenue regulations governing practices of the IRS agents are created by the IRS itself. But the Internal Revenue Code is different; it is a law of the federal government — passed by Congress, like any other federal law. Anyone who says that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax is ignoring the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a law passed by Congress.

It is also incorrect to believe that the income tax code applies only to selected people or to selected geographical areas of the United States — or that income isn't defined in federal law. All these topics are covered in the Internal Revenue Code, a federal law passed by Congress and amended nearly every year.

You might decide to refuse to pay tax as a protest; that's your decision. But if you refuse to file or pay because you believe there is no law requiring you to do so, you're sadly mistaken.

At the following link are relevant passages from the Internal Revenue Code spelling out who must pay, how income is defined, what must be paid, and what the penalties are for failure to do so.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InternalRevenueCode.htm

Yeah hi, I see are you all excited. My "correct" was just referring to him finding the information I was asking about, not that any of that information is correct. I'm just in here learning, not taking any positions or asserting anything. I do see how what I wrote could have been confusing. Anyway, yea, I find this an interesting topic but in the end, they have the guns and that's the only thing that matters.

 

[Weston White]

Sorry, I am a bit confused, who exactly are you saying has made income (I am not seeing a relatable scenario—within the last few posts—where a certain person may or not be involved in federally taxable event), or were you simply asserting (for example) that since there are public homicide statutes-in-law, should a third-party happen to ever mail a printed note to your local police department, expressing that on a certain day, at a certain place, and in a certain fashion, you were the person that had, in cold-blood, killed a certain person that had been killed one year ago from a still unsolved murder, that you should then be instantly determined guilty upon the government’s mere parroted quoting of Penal Code 187 and sentenced to life or worse in prison?

There is after all a reason why the IRC is filled with so much misdirection and ambiguity. There is a reason after all why the average IRS employee has only ever studied but a small handful of their own statutes or regulations, that they are trained primarily through internal letters. In fact, annually, there are 2.3-trillion such reasons.

And I am confused as to why you are quoting Harry Browne, who is apparently asserting that the IRC is valid, but that such is not the case for its regulations. Which is as you had put it “Incorrect! Totally, completely, incorrect!”, while they are subordinate to those very statutes, they are not invalid—with exception to when they exceed the obvious scope of both its subsequent statute and vested rulemaking authorities.

 

[Danke]

Incorrect! Totally, completely, incorrect!

It is extremely obvious that they are making taxable income. All you have to do is read the Internal Revenue Code.

Internal Revenue regulations governing practices of the IRS agents are created by the IRS itself. But the Internal Revenue Code is different; it is a law of the federal government — passed by Congress, like any other federal law. Anyone who says that there is no law requiring the payment of income tax is ignoring the fact that the Internal Revenue Code is a law passed by Congress.

It is also incorrect to believe that the income tax code applies only to selected people or to selected geographical areas of the United States — or that income isn't defined in federal law. All these topics are covered in the Internal Revenue Code, a federal law passed by Congress and amended nearly every year.

You might decide to refuse to pay tax as a protest; that's your decision. But if you refuse to file or pay because you believe there is no law requiring you to do so, you're sadly mistaken.

At the following link are relevant passages from the Internal Revenue Code spelling out who must pay, how income is defined, what must be paid, and what the penalties are for failure to do so.

http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/InternalRevenueCode.htm

Wow, such ignorance.

 

[Danke]

There is a lot of confusion about who is liable under the income tax, It has is roots in the statue from 1862. Only those receiving income from an excise tax on a federal privilege owe a return of income to the government.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

And I am confused as to why you are quoting Harry Browne, who is apparently asserting that the IRC is valid, but that such is not the case for its regulations.

"Apparently"? I suggest you read the actual page I linked to. Read the words of this eminently reasonable man. His position is not hard to understand. By the end of your reading of the page, you will understand his position.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

There is a lot of confusion about who is liable under the income tax, It has is roots in the statue from 1862. Only those receiving income from an excise tax on a federal privilege owe a return of income to the government.

That is not the position of the IRS.

The IRS disagrees with you.

According to the IRS, you are wrong.

The IRS shares none of your confusion regarding who is liable to pay income tax.

It is very clear to the IRS who is liable to pay income tax.

If you decide to act contrary to how the IRS believes you should act, please do not be surprised if you end up penniless and in prison.

 

[Weston White]

"Apparently"? I suggest you read the actual page I linked to. Read the words of this eminently reasonable man. His position is not hard to understand. By the end of your reading of the page, you will understand his position.

That page does nothing but quote statutes. Not really helpful by any means. And by apparently, I mean this:" Internal Revenue regulations governing practices of the IRS agents are created by the IRS itself. But the Internal Revenue Code is different; it is a law of the federal government — passed by Congress".

ETA:

The IRS cannot practice law, only the DOJ may do so. The IRS is vastly deceptive in its powers to administer the IRC. Their powers over American citizen as individual taxpayers has been limited by Congress, and rightly so.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

There is a lot of confusion about who is liable under the income tax, It has is roots in the statue from 1862. Only those receiving income from an excise tax on a federal privilege owe a return of income to the government.

The confusion is on the part of those who believe this nonsense, which has been consistently rejected by the courts as frivolous. One of the latest examples is Carmen D'Agostino, a follower of scammer Pete Hendrickson (who has referred to D'Agostino as a "Cracking the Code Warrior") whose reliance on Cracking the Code got him a 21 month prison sentence. He now joins his guru as a convicted tax cheat; Hendrickson was convicted in 2009 and got almost 3 years behind bars.

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index....victed_of_not_paying_taxes_for_five_year.html

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I agree the part you mentioned is pretty well known to be moot (because of liars and thieves no doubt)

Actually, the phrase "income not taxable by the Federal Government under the Constitution" was mooted by the Supreme Court, because it was the one who created the exemption in the first place.

In 1895 the Supreme Court held that interest on state and local bonds was constitutionally exempt from federal income taxation. Although this is not explicitly set out in the Constitution, the Court felt that the federalism structure of the state and national governments provided in the Constitution required that interest on state obligations be off limits to taxation by Congress, and it so held.

When 26 CFR § 1.312–6(b) was written, this was the only kind of income that was exempt, since the Court had overturned its previous decisions that had held that other types of income were also exempt (such as wages paid to state employees).

In 1988, however, the Court overruled its 1895 decision and held that interest on state and local obligations could be taxed by Congress. As a result there is currently no income earned by an individual, corporation, trust, or estate that is constitutionally exempt.

 

[Weston White]

In 1988, however, the Court overruled its 1895 decision and held that interest on state and local obligations could be taxed by Congress. As a result there is currently no income earned by an individual, corporation, trust, or estate that is constitutionally exempt.

South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 522-553 (1988)—further noting how the underlined portion would apply to an individual day-laborer, for instance, in relation to the bolded portion: “The only premodern tax immunity for parties to government contracts that has so far avoided being explicitly overruled is the immunity for recipients of governmental bond interest. [Footnote 13] That this Court has yet to overrule Pollock explicitly, however, is explained not by any distinction between the income derived from government bonds and the income derived from other government contracts, but by the historical fact that Congress has always exempted state bond interest from taxation by statute, beginning with the very first federal income tax statute. Act of Oct. 3, 1913, ch. 16, § II(B), 38 Stat. 168.

In sum, then, under current intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, the States can never tax the United States directly, but can tax any private parties with whom it does business, even though the financial burden falls on the United States, as long as the tax does not discriminate against the United States or those with whom it deals. See Washington, supra, at 460 U. S. 540; County of Fresno, supra, at 429 U. S. 460-463; City of Detroit, supra, at 355 U. S. 473; Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, supra, at 336 U. S. 359-364. A tax is considered to be directly on the Federal Government only "when the levy falls on the United States itself, or on an agency or instrumentality so closely connected to the Government that the two cannot realistically be viewed as separate entities."


[Footnote 13]: … We disagree. The legislative history merely shows that the words “from whatever source derived” of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-18 (1916). Indeed, if the Sixteenth Amendment had frozen into the Constitution all the tax immunities that existed in 1913, then most of modern intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine would be invalid.”

 

[Wheeljack]

The Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment did not grant any new power of taxation to the Federal Government. To this we all agree?

Then what was the purpose of this amendment? If it was not a grant to the government, then it must have been a protection for the people.

And it was, until Congress placed the onus of withholding on business, without defining the difference between labor and personal services.

So business has been led to believe that personal services equals labor.

The IRS knows the difference and that the American worker is protected.

IRS uses "or" between labor and personal service denoting that they are different or unlike things.



Pay for Personal Services Performed

This section explains the rules for withholding tax from pay for personal services. You generally must withhold tax at the 30 percent rate on compensation you pay to a nonresident alien individual for labor or personal services performed in the United States, unless that pay is specifically exempted from NRA withholding or subject to graduated withholding, Wage Withholding under Internal Revenue Code Section 3402. This rule applies regardless of your place of residence, the place where the contract for service was made, or the place of payment.





From IRS Publication 570

Compensation for Labor or Personal Services


Income from labor or personal services includes wages, salaries, commissions, fees, per diem allowances, employee allowances and bonuses, and fringe benefits. It also includes income earned by sole proprietors and general partners from providing personal services in the course of their trade or business.

Services performed wholly within a relevant possession. Generally, all pay you receive for services performed in a relevant possession is considered to be from sources within that possession. However, there is an exception for income earned as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces or a civilian spouse.

U.S. Armed Forces. If you are a bona fide resident of a relevant possession, your military service pay will be sourced in that possession even if you perform the services in the United States or another possession. However, if you are not a bona fide resident of a possession, your military service pay will be income from the
United States even if you perform services in a possession.

Civilian spouse of active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces. If you are a bona fide resident of a U.S. possession and choose to keep that possession as your tax residence under MSRRA when relocating with your service member spouse under military orders, the source of income for your labor or personal services is considered to be that possession. Likewise, if your tax residence is in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia before relocating and you choose to keep it as your tax residence, the source of income for services performed in any of the U.S. possessions is considered to be the United States and, specifically, your state of residence or the District of Columbia.


Read that last paragraph carefully, notice how labor disappears if you choose to maintain a U.S. residency.




As you will see there is no mention of labor in employee compensation for American workers

Employee Compensation


In most cases, you must include in gross income everything you receive in payment for personal services. In addition to wages, salaries, commissions, fees, and tips, this includes other forms of compensation such as fringe benefits and stock options.

You should receive a Form W-2 from your employer or former employer showing the pay you received for your services. Include all your pay on line 7 of Form 1040 or Form 1040A or on line 1 of Form 1040EZ, even if you do not receive Form W-2, or you receive a Form W-2 that does not include all pay that should be included on the Form W-2.


If you performed services, other than as an independent contractor, and your employer did not withhold social security and Medicare taxes from your pay, you must file Form 8919, Uncollected Social Security and Medicare Tax on Wages, with your Form 1040. These wages must be included on line 7 of Form 1040. See Form 8919 for more information.


Read that last paragraph carefully

"If you performed services", implies that as an employee there is something else you may perform.



The courts are not the place to fix this. We the people must throw this in the face of the Congress and demand that they define "personal services".

The IRS defines "personal services" in one place.

Publication 542


Personal services. Personal services include any activity performed in the fields of accounting, actuarial science, architecture, consulting, engineering, health (including veterinary services), law, and the performing arts.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Supreme Court said that the 16th Amendment did not grant any new power of taxation to the Federal Government. To this we all agree?

Not quite. While Congress has always had the power under the Constitution to tax income, the 1895 Pollock case held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The 16th removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes, so in a sense the amendment did grant a new power: the power to impose an unapportioned tax on investment income.

Then what was the purpose of this amendment? If it was not a grant to the government, then it must have been a protection for the people.

Its purpose was to overturn Pollock and to make the rich pay taxes on their investment income.

IRS uses "or" between labor and personal service denoting that they are different or unlike things.

Big deal. The income from either is includable in gross income.

As you will see there is no mention of labor in employee compensation for American workers

It's in the first paragraph, which has no geographical restriction. The other three paragraphs del with sourcing, not with whether an item is included in income.

"If you performed services", implies that as an employee there is something else you may perform.

No, it doesn't. Read the entire sentence: If you perform services AND your employer didn't withhold...

The courts are not the place to fix this.

That's because the courts have consistently and correctly rejected the argument that pay-for-work isn't income.

The IRS defines "personal services" in one place.

Publication 542


Personal services. Personal services include any activity performed in the fields of accounting, actuarial science, architecture, consulting, engineering, health (including veterinary services), law, and the performing arts.

First of all, this statement is made in connection with the definition of a personal services corporation and isn't intended to be the universal definition of the term "personal services" in all contexts.

Second, the statute dealing with what's included in gross income doesn't use the term "personal services". Instead, it says that gross income includes "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items" (IRC Section 61(a)(1)).

Third, the IRS has made it clear that pay-for-work is included in income:

Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law. Reg. §1.61-2(a)(1)

 

[mrsat_98]

Evidence in this record establishes the income of a vast majority of the people in this state consist only of wages, salaries, and commissions. It would indeed be difficult to think these people, in adopting the Constitution, understood a tax on such earnings is not an income tax. Louisiana Supreme Court on what is and what is not an income tax

Conclusion income tax is a fraud on the people. Who can they tax ? People made liable .

http://www.truth-attack.com/jml/index.php/law-library/who-is-liable

One section most seemed to have missed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/4/110 Section 110 (a)

(a) The term “person” shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 3797 of title 26.

This section has been repealed / moved its now 26 USC 7701

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7701

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Whatever it ultimately is that the supreme court and whatever passed law says is legal, the government takes significant portions on your earnings. They're the ones with the guns and legal pens, and they own the courts. Arguing that, somehow, a supreme court case or incessant repetition of a law will save you from punishment should you be able to avoid the tyranny of the state is a fool's errand. At best.

 

[Wheeljack]

Not quite. While Congress has always had the power under the Constitution to tax income, the 1895 Pollock case held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned. The 16th removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes, so in a sense the amendment did grant a new power: the power to impose an unapportioned tax on investment income.

The Pollock case is where the Supreme Court erred in saying that a tax on investment income was the same as a tax on the investment itself, therefore a direct tax. Upon rehearing they changed their tune.

The Supreme Court ruled that the income tax was an indirect tax that did not require apportionment, therefore the 16th removed nothing that was required in the first place.

Its purpose was to overturn Pollock and to make the rich pay taxes on their investment income.:

Exactly. Investment income (Dividends and Capital Gains) Where is the Labor?

It's in the first paragraph, which has no geographical restriction. The other three paragraphs del with sourcing, not with whether an item is included in income.:

The other three paragraphs deal with what is being taxed, Labor or Personal Services or Both.

No, it doesn't. Read the entire sentence: If you perform services AND your employer didn't withhold...:

It's a conditional statement. There are two conditions that have to be met (1)performing services or not and (2)whether your employer did or didn't withhold...

First of all, this statement is made in connection with the definition of a personal services corporation and isn't intended to be the universal definition of the term "personal services" in all contexts.

Second, the statute dealing with what's included in gross income doesn't use the term "personal services". Instead, it says that gross income includes "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items" (IRC Section 61(a)(1)).

If the IRS can make a definition of personal services in relation to business why do they fail to do that in relation to the individual especially when that term is used more often with the individual.

Labor is not personal services, nor is it a service of any kind.