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

[Sonny Tufts]

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.

Actually, on rehearing, the Pollock court expanded its holding in its first opinion, in which it held that a tax on income from real property (rents) was a direct tax. On rehearing, it ruled that a tax on the income from personal property was a direct tax as well. It took the 16th to overturn Pollock.

 

[Czolgosz]

If somebody, somewhere, writes a rule in a book...you best abide by it.

 

[Weston White]

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.

Not quite, the Sixteenth Amendment only removed the apportionment requirement for income taxes, which would have been otherwise taxable despite Pollock, as such income taxes had been intended to be imposed and collected during the 1860’s and onward until the findings of Pollock.

Of course, there is no recorded history concerning income taxes until 1812 (and not again after 1861 when it was actually adopted and imposed), after it had been revamped over the course of several iterations by the UK, starting in 1799 (e.g., our U.S. Constitution was prior ratified in 1788). Furthermore, it was not until nearly fifty-years thereafter that Congress began attempting to impose income taxes and withholdings upon laboring employees (“All for patriotism!”), so none of what is taking place today was provided any appropriate context or venue during that period of time, now long ago. The Executive’s reaping $2.3-trillion annually from the working class was very likely never even a minute consideration within the foresightedness all throughout that era.

The Court had further noted that the income tax had been a direct tax as effected by Britain from whence its modern revision had derived—noting obviously that Britain does not possess America’s constitutional restrictions upon neither taxation nor governmental accountability.

Thus, does it not fail logic to argue that while direct taxes have been found to be limited to only those which had been explicitly thought to have been intended by America’s founders, indirect taxes are otherwise to remain boundless?

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

Bingo! However, there is still a succinct distinction between income and its derivation, only that the income is itself no longer constitutionally bounded to its source as to the requirement for apportionment. By the by, when also including the taxed profits of business, those sums realized are more than enough to cover the financial expenses of a prudent federal government.

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

Only in the case of constitutional incomes—i.e., capital, principal, or stock that has been employed within that tax-period and bringing about any bona fide financial increases, with exception to only those explicitly exempted by income tax law.

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 are referring to the IRS Pub. 570 quotation, then the restriction is confined to only ‘Individuals with Income from U.S. Possessions’. However, I think he was referring to the following quotation from Pub. 525 concerning taxable and nontaxable income, which only had included a total of three paragraphs (in-part): “In most cases, you must include in gross income everything you receive in payment for personal services.”

And what is interesting to note about this, with consideration to the IRS’ general withholdings Webpage for employees, is that its context remains steadily uncertain throughout, stating only ‘probably’, ‘might’, ‘generally’, ‘may’, ‘most’, ‘can’, and ‘should’.

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

IF … AND … [THEN … | OTHERWISE IT DOES NOT APPLY]

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

The courts sure, but not the Court; being that the lower courts have steadfastly defied the USSC and the USSC to date goes about refusing to hear all such cases that are framed purely upon pay-for-labor arguments by citizens.

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.

Certainly, as it also intends to include ‘services’, within many of the pertinent terms used within the Internal Revenue Code, that including its manuals, publications, and forms that pertains to Subtitle C, terms that derive from the ‘Classification Act of 1923’ [H.R. 8928, Chap. 265, 42 Stat. 1488, March 4, 1923, Public, No. 516].

Specifically, for 26 USC § 61(a)(1) – ‘Compensation for services’ and 26 USC § 32(c)(2)(A) – ‘Earned income’: “The term “compensation” means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(c) – ‘Employee’: “The term “employee” means any person temporarily or permanently in a position”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(a) – ‘Wages’: “The term “service” means the broadest division of related offices and employments”.

“The term “position” means a specific civilian office or employment, whether occupied or vacant, in a department other than the following: Offices or employments in the Postal Service; teachers, librarians, school attendance officers, and employees of the community center department under the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; officers and members of the Metropolitan police, the fire department of the District of Columbia, and the United States park police; and the commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard, the Pubic Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”

“The term “department” means an executive department of the United States Government, a governmental establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government which is not a part of an executive department, the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution.”

However, would not the majority of duties or “personal services” of the employees of a corporation be limited to the incorporated scope of the corporation that they are under the employment of? Such as: including any activity performed in the fields of accounting, actuarial science, architecture, consulting, engineering, health (including veterinary services), law, and the performing arts.”

Further noting that federal employee pay is measured for income taxation, while private sector employee pay is not:

Nineteen percent of federal employees earned salaries of $100,000 or more in 2009. The average federal worker’s pay was $71,208 compared with $40,331 in the private sector, although under Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76, most menial or lower paying jobs have been outsourced to private contractors. In 2010, there were 82,034 workers, 3.9% of the federal workforce, making more than $150,000 annually, compared to 7,240 in 2005. … Basic pay rates for Senior Executive Service (i.e. non-Presidentially appointed civil servants above GS-15) will range from $119,554 to $179,700 in 2012.

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)).

It is however insinuated throughout the withholding context of Subtitle C, e.g., “services performed”. Further realizing that the inclusion of all “fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items” establishes the exacting classification of “compensation” being addressed.

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

Oh, you say, it is the IRS that has made it clear? Now it all just makes so very much sense now doesn’t it? I mean because it is the IRS that has the constitutional grant of authority to determine such things, right? Oh, what is that now? They actually do not… Surely, you jest!

Actually, on rehearing, the Pollock court expanded its holding in its first opinion, in which it held that a tax on income from real property (rents) was a direct tax. On rehearing, it ruled that a tax on the income from personal property was a direct tax as well. It took the 16th to overturn Pollock.

Not entirely. Actually, this is what was wholly crystallized upon the Pollock rehearing, 158 U.S. 601—also emphasizing that the USSC has in other cases, while remaining consistent with classical economics, that one’s own labor is of their own profit property and control:

Our conclusions may, therefore, be summed up as follows:

First. We adhere to the opinion already announced, that, taxes on real estate being indisputably direct taxes, taxes on the rents or income of real estate are equally direct taxes.

Second. We are of opinion that taxes on personal property, or on the income of personal property, are likewise direct taxes.

Third. The tax imposed by sections twenty-seven to thirty-seven, inclusive, of the act of 1894, so far as it falls on the income of real estate and of personal property, being a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution, and therefore unconstitutional and void because not apportioned according to representation, all those sections, constituting one entire scheme of taxation, are necessarily invalid.

Furthermore, while correcting Wheeljack, remember to correct yourself as well, for it was you who had prior posted: “Not quite. …the 1895 Pollock case held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.”

 

[Weston White]

If somebody, somewhere, writes a rule in a book...you best abide by it.

Because as we all know kneeling, bowing, and kissing away the crumbs from a repenting fist is so very life-rewarding and not at all the least bit humiliating. In fact one could apply state that such is the new American way!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The Executive’s reaping $2.3-trillion annually from the working class was very likely never even a minute consideration within the foresightedness all throughout that era.

And it isn't today, since the taxes paid by the so-called "working class" don't come anywhere close to $2.3 trillion. For 2011 (the latest year for which information is available), the total income taxes paid by those with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000 was $75.6 billion, and the effective tax rate for all such returns was 11.3%.

Thus, does it not fail logic to argue that while direct taxes have been found to be limited to only those which had been explicitly thought to have been intended by America’s founders, indirect taxes are otherwise to remain boundless?

Look at the Constitution, which specifies only one thing that can't be taxed by Congress (exports). Had the Founders intended to place other things off limits, they certainly knew how to do so.

"I thought at first that [the power of taxation in the Constitution] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.

"It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion." The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)(emphasis added)

The courts sure, but not the Court; being that the lower courts have steadfastly defied the USSC and the USSC to date goes about refusing to hear all such cases that are framed purely upon pay-for-labor arguments by citizens.

If the USSC has refused to hear such cases, how can the lower courts be defying the USSC? And how do you explain the Court's statements in the Cheek case to the effect that the argument that wages aren't income is hopelessly wrong?

Oh, you say, it is the IRS that has made it clear? Now it all just makes so very much sense now doesn’t it? I mean because it is the IRS that has the constitutional grant of authority to determine such things, right? Oh, what is that now? They actually do not… Surely, you jest!

Since Wheeljack was quoting the IRS in an attempt to show that pay-for-work isn't income, it was only fair to quote the IRS's position that pay-for-work is income. And since that is also the position of all of the courts (not to mention the statutes), the IRS is on solid ground.

Furthermore, while correcting Wheeljack, remember to correct yourself as well, for it was you who had prior posted: “Not quite. …the 1895 Pollock case held that a tax on investment income was a direct tax that had to be apportioned.”

What I said is correct. The income from real and personal property is investment income.

 

[Wheeljack]

Actually, on rehearing, the Pollock court expanded its holding in its first opinion, in which it held that a tax on income from real property (rents) was a direct tax. On rehearing, it ruled that a tax on the income from personal property was a direct tax as well. It took the 16th to overturn Pollock.

My mistake, it was Brushaber where the Court stated that what was considered a direct tax in Pollack was always an indirect tax.

Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such

And it was in Stanton that the Court stated,

..." But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed."

 

[Weston White]

And it isn't today, since the taxes paid by the so-called "working class" don't come anywhere close to $2.3 trillion. For 2011 (the latest year for which information is available), the total income taxes paid by those with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000 was $75.6 billion, and the effective tax rate for all such returns was 11.3%.

Why so dishonest Joker? Again we are speaking to the totality of taxes collected per annum by way of the Subtitle C taxes being permitted to flow into the stream of Subtitle A taxes, which do average $2.3-trillion annually. The working class includes all individuals employed by or otherwise beholden to businesses, regardless of their professionally acquired perks and gained employee benefits.

Moreover, and in any case, within your little miscalculation you had failed to take into joint filers (and further those claiming dependents who may provide them additional incomes), e.g., $50,000+$50,000=$100,000.

Look at the Constitution, which specifies only one thing that can't be taxed by Congress (exports). Had the Founders intended to place other things off limits, they certainly knew how to do so.

The debate is not so much what can and cannot be taxed by Congress’s grant of powers, but more what method of assessed or imposed taxation correctly falls within either a direct or indirect tax.

Meanwhile, you continue to ignore that national taxation is only lawful with consideration to the U.S. Constitution’s scope of enumerated powers granted to the federal Legislature, which further provides that any and all taxation must pertain to the payment of any debt incurred in the course of providing for America’s common defense or general welfare.

More importantly, in what possible way does taxing 15-30% of the populace’s biweekly paycheck truly serve to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”? If anything it is completely antithetical to those principles.

"I thought at first that [the power of taxation in the Constitution] might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.

It is understandable that in your ongoing desperation, you would continuously contrive what it was that Mr. Jefferson had actually intended to state within the contents of that letter; with respect to the Judicial Branch of government to which he was referring, as to his earlier held beliefs that the role of the federal judiciary was merely to enforce—and not to interpret—the U.S. Constitution, thereby ensuring that its public laws were adhered to within the breadth of those very fundamental principles, being that he was so strongly against the theory of judicial review, as it has originated in the USSC ruling made against him during his tenure as President and partly attributed to his own error in not property responding to the pleadings of the case, Marbury v. Madison.

"It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion." The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866)(emphasis added)

Except for the fact that the Court neglected to mention the requirements stipulated for taxation to remain constitutional, regardless if assessed directly or imposed indirectly.

If the USSC has refused to hear such cases, how can the lower courts be defying the USSC? And how do you explain the Court's statements in the Cheek case to the effect that the argument that wages aren't income is hopelessly wrong?

The long held common law tests and restrictions established through several decades of USSC cases (and are applicable to taxation in general) is flat out ignored, or in large part dismissed, by the trial and appellate courts, including (federal) prosecutors. There are dozens of USSC cases over the course of the last century that conflict with contemporary court findings. The prior USSC cases beset principles that underpin taxation and economical theory in empirical accordance with both the immutable rights of humankind and a truly constitutionally prudent government.

…And also do not forget, there are claims and rumors abound of tax cases being demised prior to trial or ruled in favor of these so-called “tax protester”, which are either never made available for public record or otherwise sealed by the court. Additionally, there are many instances of IRS employees favoring the arguments of such individuals, such as the letters and notices posted throughout Peter Hendrickson’s Website—yet those such as you attribute to an instance of Friday fever.

The Cheek case was about the elements of willfulness, and nothing more. But, most definitely wages are income, it is just they are just not constitutionally taxable through an income taxing scheme at that point, while wages may serve as the source of taxable income at a later date however.

Since Wheeljack was quoting the IRS in an attempt to show that pay-for-work isn't income, it was only fair to quote the IRS's position that pay-for-work is income. And since that is also the position of all of the courts (not to mention the statutes), the IRS is on solid ground.

And a bit overly semantical too. …Sort of like tundra nomads who are lulled into believing that they are living atop of solid ground, at least for most of the year; or even how the IRS has arbitrarily altered the legal context of ACA statutes to provide for federal subsidies within non state-exchange run states, all because it serves to pay-forward the overall intent of the law—and Obamacare has truly become a miserable failure. Hence, the permitted modern day unaccountability being led by the IRS is rapidly withering away into the reality of just consequence.

Say, is there not precedent pertaining to ambiguity and vagueness in tax law? Yea, that is right, in all such instances the court is to find in favor of the “tax protester”. I knew that there just had to be something relating to that in common law.

What I said is correct. The income from real and personal property is investment income.

Then by association what Wheeljack also had stated was just as correct as what you had earlier stated and thereby only further weakening your contrived refutations.

 

[Weston White]

And in a nutshell, this is precisely what the Sixteenth Amendment intended to effectively prevent:

”that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.”

 

[osan]

If this thread has revealed nothing else, it is the clearly immoral character of taxation. The mere fact that the issue of taxation in the United States has resulted in so arcane a body of opinions should scream at anyone that something here is grossly amiss. America was the first nation in modern times to recognize that the king held no inherent right of taxation under any circumstance, much less under "because I said so". Unfortunately, the Framers went only part way, failing to abolish taxation outright. That is perhaps the most spectacular failure enshrined in the Constitution. Without the power to tax, government most likely cannot grow beyond a limit proscribed by the statistical characteristics of a population.

There is, prima facie, a conflict between what is morally correct and the "interests of government" where taxation is concerned. The aforementioned body of ridiculously twisted and minutely-dissected logic by the courts in blatantly lame and ill-reasoned attempts to justify taxation, is glaring and conclusive evidence of how wrong taxation really is in sé. Yet, most people fail to see it because they are so perfectly indoctrinated in their fundamental assumptions about what constitutes proper human relations that they are rendered effectively incapable of reaching correct conclusions based upon that which they observe.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Why so dishonest Joker? Again we are speaking to the totality of taxes collected per annum by way of the Subtitle C taxes being permitted to flow into the stream of Subtitle A taxes, which do average $2.3-trillion annually.

Wrong again. Even if you add 100% of the employment taxes collected by the federal government to the income taxes paid to those earning $100,000 or less, the total is only a tad over $1 trillion.

The working class includes all individuals employed by or otherwise beholden to businesses, regardless of their professionally acquired perks and gained employee benefits.

So Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are members of the working class? Who knew?

The debate is not so much what can and cannot be taxed by Congress’s grant of powers, but more what method of assessed or imposed taxation correctly falls within either a direct or indirect tax.

Well, since the 16th makes it clear to all but the terminally stupid that income taxes needn't be apportioned, and since the income tax is geographically uniform, it makes no difference whether the income tax is deemed a direct or indirect tax.

The long held common law tests and restrictions established through several decades of USSC cases (and are applicable to taxation in general) is flat out ignored, or in large part dismissed, by the trial and appellate courts, including (federal) prosecutors. There are dozens of USSC cases over the course of the last century that conflict with contemporary court findings.

The only ones in the income tax area I can think of are are older USSC cases holding that certain types of income are constitutionally exempt from taxation, such as state and local bond interest and the wages of state employees. Of course, these decisions were overruled by the Court itself.

…And also do not forget, there are claims and rumors abound of tax cases being demised [sic] prior to trial or ruled in favor of these so-called “tax protester”, which are either never made available for public record or otherwise sealed by the court. Additionally, there are many instances of IRS employees favoring the arguments of such individuals, such as the letters and notices posted throughout Peter Hendrickson’s Website—yet those such as you attribute to an instance of Friday fever.

There are also rumors that Elvis is alive and living in Patagonia. In reality, however, no court has ever agreed with the inane arguments made by tax protesters, and only a paranoid fruitcake would believe otherwise.

The tax cheats on Hendrickson's website who received refunds did so because of the IRS's miserable and inefficient refund procedures, which seem to be based on a "refund first and ask questions later" mindset. When questions are asked later and the fraudulent refund claims are discovered, the idiots who bought the snake oil Hendrickson sold them have not fared well. See http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

But, most definitely wages are income, it is just they are just not constitutionally taxable through an income taxing scheme at that point, while wages may serve as the source of taxable income at a later date however.

Absolute nonsense. This is the kind of moronic tripe that the courts routinely reject as frivolous and that often results in the TP's being fined for wasting the court's time with such drivel. If wages are income (as you admit) and if Congress can tax income without apportionment (which the 16th Amendment clearly says it can), it follows that Congress can tax wages without apportionment. Q.E.D.

 

[Weston White]

Wrong again. Even if you add 100% of the employment taxes collected by the federal government to the income taxes paid to those earning $100,000 or less, the total is only a tad over $1 trillion.

I am not really certain why you are so very set on this $50,000 figure (Is it because that is the medium of income within the United States? In which case, that really has no bearing upon anything, and much less than whether or not it is to be a direct or indirect tax.), but at any rate, no, I am not wrong; for tax-year 2013 (shown in millions of dollars):

Individual Income Taxes: $1,316,405
SSA: $947,850

Equals: 2,264,255-trillions of dollars or $2.3-trillion.

In comparison to Corporate Income Taxes: $273,506 (Note: For some reason I had been thinking that corporate income taxes averaged around 900-billion annually, but perhaps that is what it is supposed to be, but due to ongoing tax breaks, off-shoring, subsidies, and the like being allowed and practiced by many major corporations, combined with the fact that the IRS allows these very corporations to skirt paying around 250-billion per year, on average (per several news articles addressing the disparities of individual and business taxpayers), this lower figure actually does make very much sense.)

Sources:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/current_revenue (Now this Webpage shows even higher sums for TY-2014, as its sums include federal, state, and local taxes, emphasizing that: “The governments in the US collect about $3.2 trillion in a year income and payroll taxes.”)

Really, the only argument you have pertaining to this aspect is that those figures include also unearned and capital gains income, but nevertheless I doubt the IRS bothers measuring the various classes of individual income tax revenue being taken in each year, at least so much that they would make it available to the public (I searched and was unable to find such a detailed pie-chart); for example, years ago I wanted to write an article about the IRS’ pseudo-assertions on frivolous penalties and had attempted to FOIA request data from them with respects to that (e.g., within a given year how many instances were imposed, assessed, and verified; the sum of determinations made both in favor and against each taxpayer; total civil trials filed and taxpayer wins to losses; total revenue generated; total instances still ongoing; average timeframe before resolution; etc.), my request was denied on the basis that the IRS claims to not keep records of such information so it would not be possible for them to provide the information being requested within my FOIA request.

So Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are members of the working class? Who knew?

Both are governmental cronies, they collude to dictate various aspects of national and international policy within American politics, foreign nations, and partisan special interest unions and covert think-tanks. Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet work for businesses they fund or direct businesses. (Although personally I am not familiar with their private financing and neither do I really care, it is simply something I have zero interest in; I care not at all for either one of these traitors and simply wish for them to keep to themselves, including their misguided opinions, and go about enjoying their vast wealth for the remainder of their lives.)

Moreover, do you think either of them really gives a crap about taxation? Being taxed is probably the last thing on their either of their minds come April of each year—ergo, in relation to their pay-scales they probably pay only a very small ratio in taxes in comparison to the average laborer; assuming they even have to pay taxes at all, as they could be like half of the Legislature after all, simply declaring themselves exempt from all income taxation, it is not like the DOJ is going to go after people like Gates or Buffet or corporations such as Wal-mart, BP, or AT&T.

Well, since the 16th makes it clear to all but the terminally stupid that income taxes needn't be apportioned, and since the income tax is geographically uniform, it makes no difference whether the income tax is deemed a direct or indirect tax.

1. Indirect taxes require uniformity throughout their application (i.e.., uniformly imposed tax-rates upon all property to be taxed with total equality), not just geographically, which pertains to only one aspect of uniformity. It is because of this exact mentality that the IRC has been morphed into a mess of behavioral modification prescriptions.
2. It makes a vast difference with respect to the source and the source’s shadow and with determining the class of income tax being imposed, so as to determine the proper tax-rates, deductions, credits, exemptions, and the like.
3. Furthermore, it is constitutionally imperative in determining whether or not its subject is respective to a legitimate indirect income tax or a direct personal tax that is actually being imposed, regardless of the brush you desire to color it with.

The only ones in the income tax area I can think of are are older USSC cases holding that certain types of income are constitutionally exempt from taxation, such as state and local bond interest and the wages of state employees. Of course, these decisions were overruled by the Court itself.

Please see my sig. It shall certainly refresh your oh so rundown, frayed, burdened memory—while also knocking your socks off at the same time.

However, to restate, this is not about statutory exemptions from taxation, not paying taxes that are legally due, the unconstitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment, or whatever other misdirection you fancy. And once again, unlike the above cases, the USSC has never been willing to grant certiorari (or even bothering to write a published explanation for denying this writ) for the myriad tax cases respective of day-laborers. Regardless the earlier tax acts, legislative records and proposals, and USSC cases are very clear in what classes of taxation are intended to exist within the breadth of federal income taxation and in maintaining an appropriate interest in national economics.

There are also rumors that Elvis is alive and living in Patagonia. In reality, however, no court has ever agreed with the inane arguments made by tax protesters, and only a paranoid fruitcake would believe otherwise.

So then, you are saying the courts—I suppose like Elvis—either do not possess such powers, or just do not ever exercise such powers in the continued interest of so-declared “national security” or to otherwise prevent public exposure of sensitive content that might counter the continued “mission” or “operations” of the IRS? And that plaintiffs or prosecutors do not have the authority to seek the dismissal of their case, amend their pleadings, arrange a plea agreement prior to trail, request that documents be sealed or that non-disclosure agreements be made, or that gag orders be issued? …Right…

The problem with the majority of those cases you rely upon is primarily two-fold (at least what springs in my mind at the moment):

1. You greatly exaggerate the pleading as framed, contriving much of the context of such cases, and then expounding upon those falsehoods.
2. The majority of the cases you rely on, with such determined admiration, were poorly argued pro se; effectively resulting in a tribunal courtroom setting that was called up merely to go through the motions, so as to lend a semblance of due process and justice, without any actual substance being existent throughout.

I am personally not familiar with such cases (as obviously, in most instances, they would not be made publicly available even if such rumors are true), but just to show you that you are indeed wrong or are otherwise just being dishonest, here is a Webpage where the party involved thoroughly includes all of his documents for open viewing, claiming that his case, involving 10-years of alleged wrongdoing by the IRS, was dismissed with prejudice shortly after the DOJ failed to answer any of his interrogatories and had even motioned for one (or more) extensions: RAM v. IRS (See tab: Documentation).

Apropos, I have had a FOIA request denied for the latter reason by my IRS Disclosure Office (i.e., informing me that releasing such information would be detrimental to the operations of the IRS and therefore making it exempt from FOIA requirements), while I was requesting information about their ACS and FRP practices that pertained directly to my family and the employee processing of our submitted tax documents, assessment of penalties, and the like—needless to state it is very interesting, how in fear the IRS is of such information being made publicly available, which is due to the blatant illegalities involved in how they internally mishandle the issuing of civil fines, administrative due process, documents processing, and whatnot (i.e., it is all done via without regard to any statutory requirements, operating on a digitally time released, quickly reviewed by low level IRS employees at call-centers located within various states, such as Washington or Oklahoma (IIRC), and then mailed out via computer from an IRS clearing house located within another state, such as Utah or California).

And what on earth does paranoia or fruitcakes have anything to do with any of this? Are you saying that fruitcakes scare you? If so, I can’t say I blame you, those things do tend to look like bad science projects gone horribly wrong. Perhaps there are conspiracies involved in the baking of fruitcakes, who is to say really? Oh, what was that? So you say, has that silly little llama of yours done gone and jump-kicked you in the forehead again? Ochies!

The tax cheats on Hendrickson's website who received refunds did so because of the IRS's miserable and inefficient refund procedures, which seem to be based on a "refund first and ask questions later" mindset. When questions are asked later and the fraudulent refund claims are discovered, the idiots who bought the snake oil Hendrickson sold them have not fared well.

And I suppose you just happened to overlook all of the ongoing correspondence involved (i.e., openly posted throughout www.losthorizons.com for reference), wherein several instances had resulted in favorable determinations being made for the parties involved? Ergo, questions were asked and answered, and afterward refunds were honored and civil impositions were reversed. (Meanwhile, to reference, Saving to Suitors Club claims to have a vastly higher success rate while dealing with the IRS.)

See …

Why, because that information is not at all biased to promote distain against the misrepresented people you plaster throughout that sub-domain?

Absolute nonsense. This is the kind of moronic tripe that the courts routinely reject as frivolous and that often results in the TP's being fined for wasting the court's time with such drivel. If wages are income (as you admit) and if Congress can tax income without apportionment (which the 16th Amendment clearly says it can), it follows that Congress can tax wages without apportionment. Q.E.D.

• Congress can only tax the rent of lands without apportionment, but not the land itself.
• Congress can only tax the yield of stocks without apportionment, but not the stock itself.
• Congress can only tax the selling of inventory without apportionment, but not the inventory itself.
• Congress can only tax ‘gains’ without apportionment, but not the source of it.
• Congress can only tax ‘profits’ without apportionment, but not the source of it.
• Congress can only tax ‘incomes’ without apportionment, but not the source of it.

(Is anybody beginning to see a pattern forming here, or is this just my paranoia kicking in again, seriously?)

And likewise Congress may, without apportionment, only tax the ‘taxable income’ derived through the successful employment of wages (e.g., if Congress desires to wordcraft ‘wages’ into ‘income’ within the context of Subtitle C that is their prerogative, but that still does not make it anymore subject to income taxation—further recalling that the terms ‘wages’ and ‘salaries’ while included within the originating term ‘net income’, have since been omitted from the term’s revised context; thereby clearly indicating that “derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service” was never intended to hold synonymous meanings, and that the use of salaries, wages, and compensation each bears an individual significance, while only the latter term remains in use within the later rewritten Section 61 of 26 USC, and that compensation for personal services includes neither salaries nor wages), previously having been acquired by laboring, but not the labor, not the employee , and not the employee’s basic recompense.

Hence, Congress cannot tax without apportionment the capital, corpus, principal, or stock itself, only its financially ascended realizations.

The original intent of the income tax intends for it to adhere to the succinct distinctions of competence and wealth.

So, no, you prove or win not a thing. In fact, you had and failed long ago—you even admitted as much by your little slip up last month HERE.

PWN

 

[Wheeljack]

If wages are income (as you admit) and if Congress can tax income without apportionment (which the 16th Amendment clearly says it can), it follows that Congress can tax wages without apportionment. Q.E.D.

What the 16th says is that Congress can tax income, from whatever source derived. It does not empower Congress to tax income that is representative of a source.

If you have $500 worth of capital and invest it and then cash it out later for $700. The whole $700 is income, but only $200 of it is derived income which is taxable. The other $500 is income representative of the source (capital)

If you have 40 hrs. of labor valued by an employer at $10/hr. and you invest that in his business and at the end of the week he cashes you out for $400.
That $400 is income representative of the source (labor)

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If you have $500 worth of capital and invest it and then cash it out later for $700. The whole $700 is income, but only $200 of it is derived income which is taxable.

Wrong. Only $200 is income. The $500 is a return of capital.

You misread the 16th Amendment. The reference to "source derived" simply means that it doesn't matter where the income comes from -- Congress can tax it. Remember, the purpose of the 16th was to overturn the Pollock case, which had erroneously made the source of the income a factor in determining its taxability via an unapportioned tax.

If you have 40 hrs. of labor valued by an employer at $10/hr. and you invest that in his business and at the end of the week he cashes you out for $400.
That $400 is income representative of the source (labor)

The $400 is income, and it can be taxed in full.

 

[Wheeljack]

Wrong. Only $200 is income. The $500 is a return of capital.

You misread the 16th Amendment. The reference to "source derived" simply means that it doesn't matter where the income comes from -- Congress can tax it. Remember, the purpose of the 16th was to overturn the Pollock case, which had erroneously made the source of the income a factor in determining its taxability via an unapportioned tax.

You are the one misreading, "from whatever source" is the proper phrasing that means that it doesn't matter where the income comes from.

"Derived" is what keeps the government from what would be in essence a sales tax.

The return of capital is still a transaction, thus it is income, which because of the word derived they can not touch with the income tax.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You are the one misreading, "from whatever source" is the proper phrasing that means that it doesn't matter where the income comes from.

"Derived" is what keeps the government from what would be in essence a sales tax.

The return of capital is still a transaction, thus it is income, which because of the word derived they can not touch with the income tax.

While the return of capital is certainly a transaction, it doesn't follow that it represents the receipt of income. As the Supreme Court has noted, income is an accession to wealth, and a return of capital doesn't increase wealth.

In any event, Congress clearly has the power to impose an unapportioned sales tax. In theory it could tax a transaction involving the return of capital, but it hasn't chosen to do so.

But Congress has chosen to tax, via the income tax, certain transactions that don't result in the receipt of income but that nevertheless are within its power to impose excises. The prime example is IRC Section 7872, which treats the maker of a below-market loan as if he has received interest income and which requires him to include the imputed interest in gross income. In actuality, the lender hasn't received income at all, but the taxation of the imputed interest can be viewed as an excise upon the making of a below-market loan.

 

[Wheeljack]

While the return of capital is certainly a transaction, it doesn't follow that it represents the receipt of income. As the Supreme Court has noted, income is an accession to wealth, and a return of capital doesn't increase wealth.

As you say, an accession to wealth.

Wealth is defined as:
1. Large quantity of possessions, asset, securities, and the like.
2. State of having abundant financial resources and properties.
3. All material objects, capable of satisfying human wants, desires, or tastes, having a value in exchange, and upon which human labor has been expended; i.e., which have, by such labor, been either reclaimed from nature, extracted or gathered from the earth or sea, manufactured from raw materials, improved, adopted, or cultivated.
4. The aggregate of all the things, whether material or immaterial, which contribute to comfort and enjoyment, which cannot be obtained without more or less labor, and which are objects of frequent sale.


Accession is defined as the right to own things that become a part of something already owned.

As you can see wealth is those things upon which labor has been expended. It is not the labor itself. Therefore the payment of wages for labor is not an accession to wealth.

You think that statement means any increase, but it means any increase in anything that you already own by means of any labor you put into it.

 

[Weston White]

Wrong. Only $200 is income. The $500 is a return of capital.

And that is the wondrous beauty of semantics; it can be played by either side of a debate like a fine harp. Such as rewording the above to instead read: $200 in dividends and $500 in principal; or ‘unearned income’ and invested capital, gains and assets, returns and investments, etc. If a person invests $500 of their income directly into stocks, that sum serves no less useful purpose to them, as income, than a person making a withdrawal on income that had been prior deposited into their bank account for the payment of their future personal expenses.

In providing another relatable example, the reality is that should I decide to cash in a single ounce of gold bullion, prior purchased 15-years ago at a cost of $235, it would be reported today, to the IRS, as $1,275 in taxable income—to wit, I would then be left to justify a $235 deduction from that figure to the IRS.

Simply put, a “return of capital” that was not taxable prior to its investment, regardless of what label you give it, retains its non-taxable status for the purposes of the federal income tax. Income is simply a general term associated with individuals in possession of money; whereas, for businesses and governments the term revenue would be more applicable.

Case in point, as you have just served to show in your above retort, the $400 in that second example is merely a return of capital and is non-taxable for the purposes of the federal income tax—i.e., being a conversion of human capital as opposed to financial capital. Ergo, if the classification of income more readily falls as capital in its application or appearance then it is more aptly not taxable as ‘gross income’.

Pollock, 3 Hamilton’s Works, 34: “This principle, which seems critically correct, would exempt as well the income as the capital of the property.”

You misread the 16th Amendment. The reference to "source derived" simply means that it doesn't matter where the income comes from -- Congress can tax it. Remember, the purpose of the 16th was to overturn the Pollock case, which had erroneously made the source of the income a factor in determining its taxability via an unapportioned tax.

Not at all that is precisely what was addressed within Eisner, including: United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156 (1921), Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470 (1929), South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 522 (1988), just to name a few cases. The income must be derived from a qualifying source (i.e., tangibly market-based and capable of ownership) that the federal government also retains jurisdiction to impose and collect upon. Moreover, that is exactly what in-come itself means, e.g., finances exceeding the originating capital and that has “come in” through a determinable conversion or severing, regardless of the source—“a gain derived from capital, not a gain accruing to capital, nor a growth or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property”.

Remember, in Pollock it established a rule making the income non-taxable whenever the source of that income was itself exempt from unapportioned taxation in so far that it was within the breadth of the federal income tax, as stated in Brushaber (quoted infra—below); and in the case of laboring for recompense there is no valid source to be taxed until a paycheck has been cashed, employed, then returning a growth upon whatever non-exempt investment.

Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock case was decided -- that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since, in express terms, the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.

The $400 is income, and it can be taxed in full.

However, not without apportionment—to which you have inadvertently admitted to for the second time within a month. Such a tax is and has always been known as a direct means of taxation, classified under a capitation or personal tax; and owes no consideration to the exception lent within the Sixteenth Amendment or any federal income tax laws.

While the return of capital is certainly a transaction, it doesn't follow that it represents the receipt of income. As the Supreme Court has noted, income is an accession to wealth, and a return of capital doesn't increase wealth.

…Which is exactly what toiling for self-sufficiency is representative of. Impressive I must admit! You are coming around, finally. Great work, please keep it up. (Slowly but surely.)

In any event, Congress clearly has the power to impose an unapportioned sales tax. In theory it could tax a transaction involving the return of capital, but it hasn't chosen to do so.

Congress could not under the U.S. Constitution impose an intrastate sales tax, regardless if apportioned or not, perhaps an unapportioned interstate sales tax sure, but anything more than that would result in negating the acknowledged taxing powers of the individual states, effecting a blatant X Amendment violation.

Congress may only tax the return of capital, within any capacity, through apportionment, which falls entirely under the exigent necessities of direct taxation.

But Congress has chosen to tax, via the income tax, certain transactions that don't result in the receipt of income but that nevertheless are within its power to impose excises. The prime example is IRC Section 7872, which treats the maker of a below-market loan as if he has received interest income and which requires him to include the imputed interest in gross income. In actuality, the lender hasn't received income at all, but the taxation of the imputed interest can be viewed as an excise upon the making of a below-market loan.

That is merely intended to plug up one of many tax avoidance loopholes. How can anybody fret taking you seriously when you are so consistently dishonest? See, 26 U.S. CODE § 7872:

Providing that such loans generally exceeding $10,000 include:

• Gift loans;
• Compensation-related loans;
• Corporation-shareholder loans;
• Tax avoidance loans;
• Other below-market loans, and;
• Loans to qualified continuing care facilities.

Moreover noting its context:

“that if the interest arrangements of such loan have a significant effect on any Federal tax liability of the lender or the borrower.”

“shall not apply to any loan the interest arrangements of which have as 1 of their principal purposes the avoidance of any Federal tax.”

Further still, none of this has neither any bearing nor any relation, whatsoever, upon productive employee earnings that enable them to live peacefully enjoyable and healthy lifestyles.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Accession is defined as the right to own things that become a part of something already owned.

As you can see wealth is those things upon which labor has been expended.

No, accession means an increase, regardless of how it is brought about. In the case in which the Supreme Court characterized income as an accession to wealth, the issue was whether punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff in an antitrust suit were includable in gross income. The Court ruled that they were, and it's obvious that the damages were not the result of the plaintiff's labor.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The income must be derived from a qualifying source (i.e., tangibly market-based and capable of ownership) that the federal government also retains jurisdiction to impose and collect upon.

Utter nonsense. The source is irrelevant, and the federal government doesn't have to be able to regulate the activity generating the income in order to tax it.

However, not without apportionment—to which you have inadvertently admitted to for the second time within a month. Such a tax is and has always been known as a direct means of taxation, classified under a capitation or personal tax; and owes no consideration to the exception lent within the Sixteenth Amendment or any federal income tax laws.

More nonsense. The federal income tax has never been deemed a capitation, and a tax on wages and personal earnings has never been deemed a direct tax. Both arguments were rejected in the Springer case.

Congress could not under the U.S. Constitution impose an intrastate sales tax, regardless if apportioned or not, perhaps an unapportioned interstate sales tax sure, but anything more than that would result in negating the acknowledged taxing powers of the individual states, effecting a blatant X Amendment violation.

Mr. White, with each post you demonstrate your total inability to understand the law. Congress' power to tax is completely independent of its other powers, and there need be no interstate connection. This was decided almost 150 years ago when taxes on intrastate sales of lottery tickets and liquor were upheld:

It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) (emphasis added)

The 10th Amendment is beside the point, because it doesn't apply where a power (such as the power to tax) is expressly given to Congress. The federal taxing power doesn't negate the taxing power of the States, which are free to tax within their respective jurisdictions. But the federal taxing power extends throughout the States:

The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, "but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States." It will not be contended, that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories. Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820) (emphasis added)

 

[Wheeljack]

No, accession means an increase, regardless of how it is brought about. In the case in which the Supreme Court characterized income as an accession to wealth, the issue was whether punitive damages awarded to a plaintiff in an antitrust suit were includable in gross income. The Court ruled that they were, and it's obvious that the damages were not the result of the plaintiff's labor.

Human labor is what brought the case to the court. Human labor is what showed the court that the plaintiff's claim was true.