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

[Weston White]

But this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the Smith case that the statute includes any financial benefit that the employer bestows on the employee. Or, for that matter, with the Court's statement in Lucas v. Earl that "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them". Or with the many other cases holding that salaries, wages, and compensation for workingt is taxable, regardless of whether it's base pay or a bonus.

Certainly, that was to be taken to mean any financial benefit within the meaning what are “financial benefits”, while earning merely at a subsistence level is most definitely no such financial benefit. Moreover, the framing of the cases you referenced, may address only the subject at bar (viz., employee stock options and in Lucas the case was not so much addressing taxation as it was aspects of contract law), they may not subsequently pass inference upon all other matters not related to the pleadings of the case being heard. Conveniently, SCOTUS has never heard matters concerning “base pay” of the masses and national taxation, nor will it likely ever be willing to do so. The cases you continue to reference -while at the exact same time, yourself conveniently discounting about one-dozen much more relevant SCOTUS cases as they so completely annihilate the entirety of your now plainly exposed stance- are very weak on the discussion of national taxation, empirical evidence, American fundaments, maxims, etc.

Clearly, you willfully misread the core of the statute itself, Congress did not set forth what you are claiming that “…income includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services”, what it did do however, was what the XVI Amendment called upon it to only do, to include as income all that “derived out of wages, salaries, and compensation for services”. On a varied level Alexander Hamilton had much earlier argued the matter himself, thereafter crystalizing the distinction between whatever was to become income as a gain or profit and income as capital. It is very apparent that Congress meant only to impose income taxes, INDIRECTLY, upon the former. Plainly, you are outright incorrect “Sonny Jim”.

 

[Wheeljack]

But this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the Smith case that the statute includes any financial benefit that the employer bestows on the employee.

No, it is totally consistent. You better learn the difference between compensation and benefits.

Or, for that matter, with the Court's statement in Lucas v. Earl that "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them".

The statute does tax wages and salaries received for the performance of services.

Or with the many other cases holding that salaries, wages, and compensation for workingt is taxable, regardless of whether it's base pay or a bonus.

In all those cases, this argument was never raised, therefore the court has never addressed it.

When the IRS and the defendant issued their stipulation of facts in these cases and the defendant agreed they had received compensation for services, because they were under the impression that services includes being paid for working, without knowing the legal distinction between service and services, the court had no course but to rule against them. And in those cases in which the IRS and the defendant did not stipulate this as a fact, and because the defendant did not raise this argument, the court was left to it own impression, which is that services includes being paid for working.



Look at the how the IRS describes employment in this.

[TABLE="class: MsoNormalTable, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2007-14 ​

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: transparent"]

April 2, 2007 ​

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



Rev. Rul. 2007-19

ISSUE
Whether Taxpayer A may avoid federal income tax liability by maintaining that the Internal Revenue Code does not tax wages or other compensation received in exchange for personal services.

FACTS
Taxpayer A receives wages in exchange for personal services. Taxpayer A then does one or more of the following: (1) furnishes a Form W-4 to the employer on which Taxpayer A claims excessive withholding allowances or claims complete exemption from withholding; (2) fails to file a federal income tax return; (3) fails to report the wages on the federal income tax return; (4) claims a refund for any withheld income tax; or (5) claims deductions for personal, living and family expenditures to offset the wages reported on the federal income tax return. Taxpayer A claims that compensation received for personal services is not subject to federal income tax.


HOLDING
1. Wages fall within the definition of income set forth in section 61(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Taxpayer A’s wages and other compensation for services are income subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.
2. The payment of wages and other compensation for personal services is not an equal exchange of property. The full amount of wages received by Taxpayer A is subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.
3. Wages and other compensation received by Taxpayer A in exchange for personal services are subject to federal income tax without reduction of Taxpayer A’s personal living expenses.

 

[Wheeljack]

Clearly, you willfully misread the core of the statute itself, Congress did not set forth what you are claiming that “…income includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services”, what it did do however, was what the XVI Amendment called upon it to only do, to include as income all that “derived out of wages, salaries, and compensation for services”.

Congress said, compensation for personal service, not services.

 

[Weston White]

Congress said, compensation for personal service, not services.

Yes, however, under 26 USC Sec. 7701(p)(1)(1),(2), et seq., the plural is as the singular and visa versa, male is as the female, et cetera.

 

[Wheeljack]

Yes, however, under 26 USC Sec. 7701(p)(1)(1),(2), et seq., the plural is as the singular and visa versa, male is as the female, et cetera.

Then you have missed the point of this thread. Use that Black's Law Dictionary and look up these two words. You will find two distinct definitions.

Service denotes a condition, the placement of oneself under the direction and control of another. A condition either is or it is not, there is no plural form. a person can not be in service to another person multiple times at the same time.

Services are things purchased that have no physical characteristics. The singular form of this word is "a" service.


Let's take the word good.

Good denotes a condition, means valid or effectual

Goods, on the other hand, means all forms of personal property. Is goods the plural of good. Hell no.

This is precisely the mindset that I pointed out to Sonny Tufts 3 posts back.

 

[Weston White]

Alright, so let’s break it down a bit more (just as a primer on the issue):

Initially ‘net income’ was ratified as intending to in part include “…gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service…”

Thereafter amended to be ‘gross income’ to mean (although maintaining that the former still to date bears strict statutory relevance), “all income from whatever source derived, including …Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…”


Thus, to the former we have singularity and to the latter we have multiplicity. So then to view a few interesting legal definitions in rendering out their various contexts:

GAIN. Profits; winnings; increment of value. [Citations omitted.]
Difference between receipts and expenditures; pecuniary gain. [Citations omitted.]


PROFIT. The advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. The gain made by the sale of produce or manufactures, after deducting the value of the labor, materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the interest of the capital employed. [Citations omitted.]
The excess of receipts over expenditures; that is, net earnings. [Citations omitted.]
The receipts of a business, deducting current expenses; it is equivalent to net receipts. [Citations omitted.]
An excess of the value of returns over the value of advances. The same as net profits. [Citations omitted.]
… In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. [Citations omitted.]
…
The benefit, advantage, or pecuniary gain accruing to the owner or occupant of land from its actual use; as in the familiar phrase “rents, issues and profits,” or in the expression “mesne profits.”
…


FEE. …
A reward, compensation, or wage given to one for the performance of official duties (clerk of court, sheriff, etc.) or for professional services, as in the case of an attorney at law or a physician;–frequently used in the plural form. [Citations omitted.] A recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or compensation for particular act or service. [Citations omitted.]

Fees differ from costs in this, that the former are a recompense to the officer for his service; and the latter, an indemnification to the party for money laid out and expended in his suit; [Citations omitted.] Fees are synonymous with charges; [Citations omitted.] and also with “percentage” or “commission”; [Citations omitted.]
“Salary,” as relating to the compensation of public officers, is generally regarded as a periodical payment dependent upon time, while “fees” depend on services rendered, the amount of which is fixed by law and payable when the judgment allowing them is entered. [Citations omitted.]


LABOR. Work; toll; service. Continued exertion, of the more onerous and inferior kind, usually and chiefly consisting in the protracted expenditure of muscular force, adapted to the accomplishment of specific useful ends.
…
“Labor,” “business,” and “work” are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Labor implies toll; exertion producing weariness; manual exertion of a toll some nature.


LABORER. One who, as a means of livelihood, performs work and labor for another. [Citations omitted.]
In English statutes, this term is generally understood to designate a servant employed in husbandry or manufactures, and not dwelling in the home of his employer. Wharton; Mozley & Whitley. A person without particular training, employed at manual labor under a contract terminable at will. [Citations omitted.]
As used in mechanics’ lien statute “laborer” is said to include all who work with their hands, crude implements, or teams in work demanding that character of service, [Citations omitted.] …
A laborer, as the word is used in the Pennsylvania act of 1872, giving certain preference of lien, is one who performs, with his own hands, the contract which he makes with his employer. …


PAY. Compensation. [Citation omitted.] A fixed and definite amount given by law to persons in military service in consideration of and as compensation for their personal services. [Citation omitted.]


SALARY. A reward or recompense for services performed.
In a more limited sense salary is a fixed periodical compensation paid for services rendered; a stated compensation, amounting to so much by the year, month, or other fixed period, to be paid to public officers and persons in some private employments, for the performance of official duties or the rendering of services of a particular kind, more or less definitely described, involving professional knowledge or skill, or at least employment above the grade of menial or mechanical labor. [Citations omitted.]

The word “salary,” is synonymous with “wages,” except that “salary” is sometimes understood to relate to compensation for official or other services, as distinguished from “wages,” which is the compensation for labor. [Citations omitted.]


WAGES. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services; the compensation agreed upon by a master to be paid to a servant, or any other person hired to do work or business for him. [Citations omitted.]
Agreed compensation for services by workmen, clerks or servants–those who have served an employer in a subordinate or menial capacity and who are supposed to be dependent upon their earnings to pay their present support, whether they are to be paid by the hour, the day, the week, the month, the job, or the piece. …
…
In Political Economy
The reward paid, whether in money or goods, to human exertion, considered as a factor in the production of wealth, for its co-operation in the process.

“Three factors contribute to the production of commodities,–nature, labor, and capital. Each must have a share of the product as its reward, and this share, if it is just, must be proportionate to the several contributions. The share of the natural agents is rent; the share of labor, wages; the share of capital, interest. The clerk receives a salary; the lawyer and doctor, fees; the manufacturer, profits. Salary, fees, and profits are so many forms of wages for services rendered.” …

–Wage earner. One who earns his living by labor of a menial or mechanical kind or performed in a subordinate capacity, such as domestic servants, mechanics, farm hands, clerks, porters, and messengers. In the United States bankruptcy act of 1898, an individual who works for wages, salary, or hire, at a compensation not exceeding $1,500 [at current inflation is around $39,000] per year. [Citations omitted.]


COMPENSATION. Indemnification; payment of damages; making amends; making whole; giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value; that which is necessary to restore an injured party to his former position. An act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court or other tribunal orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another, in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury.

“Compensation” is a misleading term, and is used merely for lack of a word more nearly expressing the thought of the law which permits recovery for an imponderable and intangible thing for which there is no money equivalent. …

The word “compensation,” as used in Workmen’s Compensation Acts, means the money relief afforded an injured employee or his dependents according to the scale established and for the persons designated in the act, and not the compensatory damages recoverable in an action at law for wrong done or a contract broken. …
As used in Workman’s Compensation Acts, “compensation” is distinguishable from “benefits”; the former applying to an allowance where the employee is only injured, and the latter applying in case of death. … The term “compensation” may include funeral benefits. …
...
The remuneration or wages given to an employee or, especially, to an officer. Salary, pay, or emolument. [Citations omitted.]

The ordinary meaning of the term “compensation,” as applied to officers, is remuneration, in whatever form it may be given, whether it be salaries and fees, or both combined. It is broad enough to include other remuneration for official services; [Citations omitted]; such as mileage or traveling expenses; [Citations omitted]; and also the repayment of amounts expended; [Citations omitted.]
But the term is not necessarily synonymous with “salary.” [Citations omitted.]
A “reasonable compensation” is that which will fairly compensate the laborer when the character of the work and the effectiveness and ability entering into the service are considered. [Citations omitted.]
Compensation is not synonymous with “pension,” which is ordinarily a gratuity from the government or some of its subordinate agencies in recognition of, but not in payment for, past services. [Citations omitted.]


SERVICE.
In Contracts
The being employed to serve another; duty or labor to be rendered by one person to another, the former being bound to submit his will to the direction and control of the latter. [Citations omitted.] The act of serving; the labor performed or the duties required. [Citations omitted.]

“Service” and “employment” generally imply that the employer, or person to whom the service is due, both selects and compensates the employee, or person rendering the service. [Citations omitted.]

The term is used also for employment in one of the offices, departments, or agencies of the government; as in the phrases “civil service,” “public service,” “military service,” etc. [Citations omitted.]
…

PROFESSIONAL. A term applied in the Immigration Law, May 19, 1921, 2, subd. “d” (42 State. 6), to one undertaking or engaging for money as a means of subsistence in a particular art. It is opposed to amateur, and as used in the statute refers to one who pursues an art and makes his living therefrom. [Citations omitted.]


PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT. Within the meaning of a statute authorizing actions for misconduct or neglect, professional services by an attorney are not limited to litigation, but include giving advice, managing a business, devising plans, and making collections, and the employment may be recognized as professional, although including services not ordinarily classed as professional services; whether the attorney is professionally employed depending on the relations and mutual understanding of what was said and done, and on all the facts and circumstances of the particular undertaking. …


EMPLOY. To engage in one’s service; to use as an agent or substitute in transacting business; to commission and intrust with the management of one’s affairs; and, when used in respect to a servant or hired laborer, the term is equivalent to hiring, which implies a request and a contract for a compensation, and has but this one meaning when used in the ordinary affairs and business of life. [Citations omitted.]


EMPLOYEE. This word “is from the French, but has become somewhat naturalized in our language. Strictly and etymologically, it means ‘a person employed,’ but, in practice in the French language, it ordinarily is used to signify a person in some official employment [NOTICE: this is noteworthy with consideration to the Classification Act quoted earlier], and is generally used with us, though perhaps not confined to any official employment, it is understood to mean some permanent employment or position.” The word may be more extensive than “clerk” or “officer,” and may signify any one in place, or having charge or using a function, as well as one in office. [Citations omitted.]
One who works for an employer; a person working for salary or wages; applied to anyone so working, but usually only to clerks, workmen, laborers, etc., and but rarely to the higher officers of a corporation or government or to domestic servants. [NOTICE: this is noteworthy with consideration to the IRC frequent referencing to corporate officers and federal employees and instrumentalities] [Citations omitted.]
“Employee” must be distinguished from “independent contractor,” “officer,” “vice-principal,” “agent,” etc. The term is often specially defined by statutes; and whether one is an employee or not will depend upon particular facts and circumstances even though the relation or master and servant, or some other form of contractual relation does or does not exist. [Citations omitted.]


OCCUPATION. …
A trade; employment; profession; business; means of livelihood. …

… The word “occupation” must be held to have reference to the vocation, profession, trade or calling which the assured is engaged in for hire or for profit. [Citations omitted.]
“Occupation” as used in Workmen’s Compensation Act means that particular business, profession, trade or calling which engages the time and efforts of an individual, the employment in which he regularly engages or the vocation of one’s life. [Citations omitted.]
…


WORKMAN. One who labors; one employed to do business for another; one engaged in some form of manual labor, whether skilled or unskilled. [Citations omitted.]
A “workman,” in the broad sense, is one who works in any department of physical or mental labor, but in common speech is one who is employed in manual labor, such as an artificer, mechanic, or artisan; while an “employee” in a broad sense is one who receives salary, wages, or other compensation from another, but the term is usually applied to clerks, laborers, etc., and not to the higher officers of a corporation. [Citations omitted.]

Under Workman’s Compensation Acts
The term “workman” in the Workman’s Compensation Act means, as the act states, one who engages to furnish services subject to the control of an employer, and the relation necessary to constitute one an employer and another a workman under the act is the relation of master and servant originating in a contract for personal services, subject to complete control of the details of work and the mode of its performance. [Citations omitted.]

 

[Wheeljack]

Weston,

You are hitting this with your kitchen sink again.

Why didn't you post the definition of services?

 

[Weston White]

I am only meaning to show the sum of related terms involved.

As to the term ‘services’ there is only the definition as pertaining to a tortfeaser coming between a husband and his wife.

As to the term ‘personal’ there is only the definition of being an individual and partaking in the enjoyments of human begins and of personalty.

As to the term ‘personal service’ there is only the discussion of establishing proper service of process.

As to the term ‘domestic’ it pertains only to those, servants, working within the home of those they serve and excludes workmen and laborers working outside of the home of those they serve.

And I updated ‘compensation’ to include a few more interesting paragraphs that were on the preceding page.

 

[Wheeljack]

In my Black's 6th Ed. service is found on page 1368.

It covers these contexts:
Contracts
Domestic Relations
Feudal Law
Practice

Then there are seven more definitions Service charge, Service contract, Service establishment, Service Life, Service mark, Service occupation tax, and Service of process. After which I come to Services on page 1369.

Are you telling me that your Black's 3rd has no distinct definition for services?

 

[Weston White]

Yes, mine edition covers everything under "service", with only brief mention of "services".

 

[Wheeljack]

Maybe yours has services covered under "goods and services".

 

[Weston White]

The closest match I found was "good of the service".

 

[Wheeljack]

Well, in googling Black's Law dictionary I find that your edition was published in 1933. Thus, I would surmise that the definition of services came about in the 1939-1941 area as it was used in the Current Tax Payment Act of 1942 and then in the overhaul of the IRC in 1954.

So the first edition to have a distinct definition of services would have been the 4th published in 1951.

 

[Weston White]

Though should not the focus be maintained upon the context of its distinct meaning rather than its specifically inclusive numerations, i.e., “all income from whatever source derived, including…”?

That being namely, “compensation for services”, including: (1) “fees” [which are earned only by business professionals as charges for their specifically expert knowledge or skill and by officials in the performance of their duties]; (2) “commissions” [which are, among other things, recompense or rewards for accomplishing one’s duties]; (3) “fringe benefits” [which would intend to cover all non-exempted compensation that is in addition to one’s base pay]; and (4) “similar items” [which would appertain wholly to the aforementioned fees, commissions, fringe benefits, etc.]

Noticing the consistent theme referencing likeness to: business officers and professionals, public officials and officers, governmental and military service, etc.

When we observe the definition of “compensation” (aside from the theme of righting the wrong and being made whole), we observe that it bears largely upon those working within an official capacity, earning a salary, to which “compensation” is itself not necessary synonymous nor is it synonymous to the receipt of “benefits”; and to those earning pay, which is defined as the means of compensation for those serving in the military for their “personal services”. The above, being largely on par with the definition of “service”. Although “compensation” generally considers employee remuneration as well; however, the surrounding theme of the Internal Revenue Code's own terms emphasizes support to the former descriptions.

 

[Wheeljack]

Though should not the focus be maintained upon the context of its distinct meaning rather than its specifically inclusive numerations, i.e., “all income from whatever source derived, including…”?

That being namely, “compensation for services”, including: (1) “fees” [which are earned only by business professionals as charges for their specifically expert knowledge or skill and by officials in the performance of their duties]; (2) “commissions” [which are, among other things, recompense or rewards for accomplishing one’s duties]; (3) “fringe benefits” [which would intend to cover all non-exempted compensation that is in addition to one’s base pay]; and (4) “similar items” [which would appertain wholly to the aforementioned fees, commissions, fringe benefits, etc.]

Noticing the consistent theme referencing likeness to: business officers and professionals, public officials and officers, governmental and military service, etc.

When we observe the definition of “compensation” (aside from the theme of righting the wrong and being made whole), we observe that it bears largely upon those working within an official capacity, earning a salary, to which “compensation” is itself not necessary synonymous nor is it synonymous to the receipt of “benefits”; and to those earning pay, which is defined as the means of compensation for those serving in the military for their “personal services”. The above, being largely on par with the definition of “service”. Although “compensation” generally considers employee remuneration as well; however, the surrounding theme of the Internal Revenue Code's own terms emphasizes support to the former descriptions.

Getting there.

Business officers - Corporation paid from proceeds of sales or services
Professionals - Independent Contractors and Self-employed, again paid from proceeds of sales or services

Government and military has divisions just like private sector.
Public Officials - Offered their personal services to be elected, run their office as they see fit.
Bureaucrats - Commissioned by Executive, again run their office as they see fit

Government workers 8 hr. jobs just like private sector.

Military
Officers - Commissioned by Executive, run office as they see fit.
Enlisted - 24/7 job, under control and direction of officers.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Moreover, the framing of the cases you referenced, may address only the subject at bar (viz., employee stock options and in Lucas the case was not so much addressing taxation as it was aspects of contract law), they may not subsequently pass inference upon all other matters not related to the pleadings of the case being heard. Conveniently, SCOTUS has never heard matters concerning “base pay” of the masses and national taxation, nor will it likely ever be willing to do so. The cases you continue to reference -while at the exact same time, yourself conveniently discounting about one-dozen much more relevant SCOTUS cases as they so completely annihilate the entirety of your now plainly exposed stance- are very weak on the discussion of national taxation, empirical evidence, American fundaments, maxims, etc.

Notice the inherent contradiction in Mr. White's post. On the one hand, he faults me for citing the Smith and Lucas cases because they allegedly didn't deal with the taxation of "base pay", and in White's view they should be confined to their particular facts. On the other hand, he refers to "one-dozen" SCOTUS cases that supposedly destroy my position. But White also claims that SCOTUS has never decided a case involving base pay. Therefore, according to his jurisprudence, the "one-dozen" cases can be ignored and confined to their facts since they didn't deal with base pay.

The fact remains that anyone who argues that the pay one receives for working (regardless of the level of the pay or whether it's "base pay" or a bonus) isn't included in gross income is going to lose. And if he makes such a frivolous argument in court, he'll be lucky if he isn't fined.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When we observe the definition of “compensation” (aside from the theme of righting the wrong and being made whole), we observe that it bears largely upon those working within an official capacity, earning a salary, to which “compensation” is itself not necessary synonymous nor is it synonymous to the receipt of “benefits”; and to those earning pay, which is defined as the means of compensation for those serving in the military for their “personal services”. The above, being largely on par with the definition of “service”. Although “compensation” generally considers employee remuneration as well; however, the surrounding theme of the Internal Revenue Code's own terms emphasizes support to the former descriptions.

Mr. White, you're ignoring the Code's definition of "includes", which is to be interpreted in a non-limiting sense -- i.e., as in "including but not limited to" See Section 7701(c). People who have argued that compensation for work performed in a private, non-governmental capacity isn't taxable have consistently lost.

 

[Weston White]

Notice the inherent contradiction in Mr. White's post. On the one hand, he faults me for citing the Smith and Lucas cases because they allegedly didn't deal with the taxation of "base pay", and in White's view they should be confined to their particular facts. On the other hand, he refers to "one-dozen" SCOTUS cases that supposedly destroy my position. But White also claims that SCOTUS has never decided a case involving base pay. Therefore, according to his jurisprudence, the "one-dozen" cases can be ignored and confined to their facts since they didn't deal with base pay.

The fact remains that anyone who argues that the pay one receives for working (regardless of the level of the pay or whether it's "base pay" or a bonus) isn't included in gross income is going to lose. And if he makes such a frivolous argument in court, he'll be lucky if he isn't fined.

Notice, however, Sonny Jim never stated that I was incorrect on the subject, only that I was being contradictory. While, Sonny Jim has conveniently left out mention of the following:

1. The “one-dozen” cases I made reference to had unlike the two mentioned above, actually bothered to substantiate the findings and positions taken within those cases, for the Justices therein respected the sum of empirical and legal evidence, they referenced prior case law, including legislative history, etc.
2. The referencing of case law is merely one aspect of many respective aspects holding much valid evidentiary and substantive value; personally, I opt not to outright discount one form or aspect over another, for to so would be sophomoric. But again the cases to which Sonny Jim has quoted/cited to are utterly ludicrous on the matter of national taxation, so much so that not even the CRS bothered making reference to them.
3. The few cases in which Sonny Jim has pinned all of his hopes and dreams upon are the equivalent of a dictum of findings; providing nothing absolutely specific therein save for scintilla positions manhandled by the Justices.

The fact remains that anyone leaning upon threats of frivolity and punishment is but a contrivance of a scaremonger and manufacturer favoring great injustices. The federal government has absolutely no legal prudence in imposing $2.3-trillion per annum upon its citizens that are themselves simply trying to pay their rent, buy groceries, etc., and make do from one week to the next. Such a tax levied upon the capital of the people would in fact be a personal tax and would therefore require apportionment, regardless as to the advent of the XVI Amendment, and even still would require necessity by way of impending circumstance in order to substantiate such a means of national taxation and would by no means be justified as an unceasing, ever-increasing tax.

 

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you're ignoring the Code's definition of "includes", which is to be interpreted in a non-limiting sense -- i.e., as in "including but not limited to" See Section 7701(c). People who have argued that compensation for work performed in a private, non-governmental capacity isn't taxable have consistently lost.

Negative, I am not ignoring that as there is nothing to be ignored, for the entirety of the “includes and including” argument is wholly irrelevant, being a grossly moot point. What is being ignored by the Circuits (including the Quatfool people such as yourself), however, is much, much more prevalent and that is the intended breadth of the XVI Amendment itself, i.e., it clearly reads on “incomes, from whatever source derived,” and not on “income of whatever source,” or on “whatever income or source”.

Also, the “private, non-governmental capacity” reference is but a red-herring, which bears only upon the prospective of 'withholding at the source' that itself establishes no imposition within Subtitle A.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

But again the cases to which Sonny Jim has quoted/cited to are utterly ludicrous on the matter of national taxation, so much so that not even the CRS bothered making reference to them.

It's strange that Mr. White would put so much trust in the Congressional Research Service, which stated the following regarding the taxation of the pay one receives for working:

For example, if John Doe works 5 hours for $5.00 per hour, is the $25.00 he receives taxable income to him? As we have seen in the above analysis, we must determine if there has been a gain which is realized and recognized. To see if there was a gain we do not look only to the fair market value of the labor, but rather we determine the difference between what was received and the basis (cost) in the labor. Generally one has a zero basis in one’s own labor. Therefore, Doe’s gain is $25.00 minus 0, or $25.00. This gain is realized when Doe is paid or has right to receive payment.

The gain is recognized specifically in IRC § 61(a)(1) (compensation for services) and there is no non-recognition section which is generally applicable to wages. Therefore, John Doe has $25.00 of taxable income.

"Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax", CRS Report January 7, 2005
http://webpages.charter.net/bhowe93...1/government/Income Tax Constitutionality.pdf