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

[Sonny Tufts]

Aside from that you have already been informed on the complete definitions for both capitations and personal taxes. To wit, both involve assessing taxation directly at the source, or the capital, including the person and the like.

Mr. White, you are clueless. A direct tax in the constitutional sense is not one that is payable by a person. Under current law, only capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property are direct taxes. An income tax is neither one of these; rather, it is an excise upon the receipt of income.

In any event even if the income tax were a direct tax, the 16th Amendment says it doesn't have to be apportioned.

 

[Weston White]

Mr. White, you are clueless. A direct tax in the constitutional sense is not one that is payable by a person. Under current law, only capitations and taxes on the mere ownership of property are direct taxes. An income tax is neither one of these; rather, it is an excise upon the receipt of income.

In any event even if the income tax were a direct tax, the 16th Amendment says it doesn't have to be apportioned.

Nope, the correct context of the Sixteenth Amendment has not ever, does not currently, nor will it ever constitutionally operate on capitations or personal taxes--including stealthy.

That point aside, you have been shown time and time again what exactly a direct tax is, and yet you still remain absolutely clueless on the issue--a direct tax is any tax that operates at a fundamental level directly upon the person or their property and extends onto its following shadow until the sought object of taxation has become severed (that is to state there are long held maxims and case law on this very issue that you sorely fail to both appreciate and comprehend).

However, yes the income tax is imposed upon the receipt of income--that is in its constitutional capacity of being a gain or profit, which is precisely why the income tax does not consider financial (or other such) capital, the laborer within their functionality of a common laborer or the laborer's basis in recompense of livelihood; as each are constitutionally exempted from the statutory definition of 'net/gross income'.

 

[Wheeljack]

.
The Court has consistently and without exception held that pay-for-work is includable gross income, without regard to whether it is received by an employee or a sole proprietor.

And in every one of those cases the income was presented to the court as either from labor or for personal services.


This is from one of Weston's posts

Another tax protester argument is that income from labor should not be taxable because any amount the worker receives in exchange for his or her labor is received in an exchange of "equal value," although an exchange in any true "arm's length" fair market value transaction is, essentially by definition, an exchange of equal value. See, for example, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Buras, in which the taxpayer's theory — that wages were not taxable because (1) "only profit or gain, such as that from the sale of a capital asset, constituted income subject to federal tax" and (2) "[w]ages could not constitute gain or profit because wages merely represent an equivalent exchange for one's labor" — was rejected. … In Boggs v. Commissioner, a penalty of $8,000 was imposed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on the taxpayers for filing a frivolous appeal using the argument that a portion of a wage amount was not taxable as a return on "human capital."

Further, under the U.S. federal tax laws, even if labor were considered "property" the gain or income from "labor property" would be defined as the excess of the amount realized (for example, the money received) by the taxpayer over the amount of the taxpayer's "adjusted basis" in the "property" (see 26 U.S.C. § 1001). Since the taxpayer can have only a zero "basis" amount in his or her own labor — Cullinane v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, T.C. Memo 1999-2, CCH Dec. 53,203(M) (1999), the personal living expenses incurred to generate labor being both non-capitalizable and, under 26 U.S.C. § 262, non-deductible — the "gain" would thus be equal to the amount of compensation received by the taxpayer. Compare Carter v. Commissioner, where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: "The assertion that proceeds received for personal services cannot be given a 'zero-basis for the purpose of the assessment of taxation,' is frivolous. This is a variation of the 'wages are not income' theme, which has been rejected repeatedly by this court." See also Reading v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument — that gain from labor of self-employed individual cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor" has been subtracted from the amount received — was rejected; validity of 26 U.S.C. § 262, disallowing deductions for personal living expenses, was upheld). See also Burnett v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument — that wages represent an equal exchange of property and, therefore, are not taxable income — was rejected). See also In re Myrland (ruling that a taxpayer is not entitled to deduct the value of his labor from his income in calculating his taxes). (Also see: Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 97 (1st Cir. 1986):

...his attempt to deduct as a cost of labor expense on Schedule C an amount almost identical to the amount of wages on Form W-2” established that his position (that compensation for his labor was not “wages” or taxable income) was both incorrect and frivolous.

Here income is represented, by the employer, as for personal services on the W-2, then as for labor on Schedule C, by the employee. Can not be both at the same time.

 

[Weston White]

I just came across another absolutely fascinating gem of information from just after the income tax was put into action, this is written by Mr. Seligman a respected economist who was wholly pro-taxation and was also a Ph.D., a professor, and was awarded a Doctor of Laws (most of the below is from congressional records, which are valid forms of persuasive evidence in American courts as to proving the breadth and intent of established statutory laws):

“The chief argument which was responsible for the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment and for the enactment of the law was, as we have elsewhere pointed out [Seligman, The Income Tax, 1911, p. 640], that wealth is escaping its due share of taxation. … It is true that some of the more extreme supporters of the income tax based their advocacy on the ground of opposition to the tariff alone; but the more influential legislators did not tire of stating that, far from purposing to make an attack on wealth as such, their aim was solely to redress the inequality of taxation which was a predominate feature of the American fiscal system as a whole. [Cf. Congressional Record, 63rd Congress, 1st sess., pp. 4260-4261, Aug. 28, 1913.] . . .

In the discussion of the present bill Mr. Cordell Hull, its framer, stated: “In construing all these laws . . . unless the unearned increment is expressly made income, it is not considered income in any sense of the word, but simply increase of value or capital.” [Congressional Report, April 26, 1913.] When pressed still further, he added: “My judgment would be that as to the occasional purchase of real estate not by a dealer or one making the buying and selling a business, this bill would only apply to profits on sales where the land was purchased and sold during the same year.” [Such a provision, it will be remembered, was contained in the law of 1864.]
As this section was adopted in the light of Mr. Hull’s explanation, it is not unlikely that it will be so interpreted as to carry out the evident intention of its framers. If so, the same rule will apply also to profits from the sales of securities or other personal property. This would seem to be a fairly satisfactory solution of an undoubted difficulty.

One of the congressman ingenuously asked, in reply to a proposition to reduce the exemption [i.e., $3,000/4,000]; “Does the gentleman not think it would defeat every member who would vote for this amendment if the fact were known at home?” [Congressional Record, p. 1215, May 6, 1913] And another member said:

I venture the assertion that if Congress at the first opportunity which it has had of levying a direct tax upon the people without apportionment, should levy a tax which would fall upon every citizen of the land, that tax would not stay upon the statute book longer than the first election which followed the first call of the tax collector. [Ibid., p. 1218]

In justice, however, to the majority, we must quote the statement made by Mr. Murray, of Oklahoma:

There are those who would say that we should begin at $1000, in lieu of $4000. They forget the principle upon which this tax is founded, and that is that every man who is making no more than a living should not be taxed upon living earnings, but should be taxed upon the surplus that he makes over and above that amount necessary for good living. We also recognize the assumption that $4000 will reach the highest grade of good living. . . . The purpose of this tax is nothing more than to levy a tribute upon that surplus wealth which requires extra expense, and in doing so, it is nothing more than meting out evenhanded justice. [Congressional Record, p.1219]”

“The Federal Income Tax”, Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman, LL.D., “Political Science Quarterly”, Vol. XXIX, Number I, March, 1914, pp. 1, 7-8, 12

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2141986.pdf?acceptTC=true


* Noting that $4,000 in 1913 is equal in purchasing power to $95,595 in 2015.

 

[erowe1]

As to the OP, only one question really matters. How successful have people been in using these arguments in court to get out of paying taxes without being punished?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

As to the OP, only one question really matters. How successful have people been in using these arguments in court to get out of paying taxes without being punished?

Well, in fairness, other questions might matter quite a bit to many people (such as some of the posters in this thread). They might serve as polemic points to bring up in attempts to change and open minds to the possibility of rejecting the income tax by tarnishing its legal legitimacy.

But as a practical matter and when making life decisions as to how to best deal with the IRS: yes, the question you raise is paramount.

 

[Wheeljack]

As to the OP, only one question really matters. How successful have people been in using these arguments in court to get out of paying taxes without being punished?

Erowe1,

Do you truly understand what this discussion is about?

Can you articulate the differences between personal services and labor?

The success of this will not be won out behind the closed doors of a courtroom, but by getting it aired in the open so that the public forum can lay it on the legislature to require the executive to acknowledge.

 

[euphemia]

I want not only a refund, but reparations because I'm checking the black box.

 

[Danke]

Well, in fairness, other questions might matter quite a bit to many people (such as some of the posters in this thread). They might serve as polemic points to bring up in attempts to change and open minds to the possibility of rejecting the income tax by tarnishing its legal legitimacy.

But as a practical matter and when making life decisions as to how to best deal with the IRS: yes, the question you raise is paramount.

From your posts on this matter (and others), you are the biggest boot licker around. Helmuth Hubener would be rolling in his grave having such a sniveling little punk like you using him as your avatar.

Many of us have given many examples thought-out the years on successes WRT the income tax. Travelling, etc.

But here you are, a naysayer like Zippy.


Hey, invest in the MIC and score big, don't bother with the body bags.

Sleep well my oppressive friend. You may make a percentage or two above us. Isn't what Harry Browne taught you?

Just get rid of the avatar, it is a disgrace to his memory.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It's one thing to say that the income tax is immoral.

It's quite another to completely misconstrue the law as it is written by (a) misreading caselaw, (b) relying on phony quotes purportedly from caselaw, and (c) employing crackpot theories with no legal or logical basis in a contorted attempt to show why one doesn't have to pay the tax, especially when the theories have been consistently rejected by the courts. And wallowing in the pathetic "the courts are corrupt!" rationalization simply demonstrates that, aside from having a touch of paranoia, one isn't honest enough to admit that, just maybe, he might be wrong.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

From your posts on this matter (and others), you are the biggest boot licker around. Helmuth Hubener would be rolling in his grave having such a sniveling little punk like you using him as your avatar.

Many of us have given many examples thought-out the years on successes WRT the income tax. Travelling, etc.

But here you are, a naysayer like Zippy.


Hey, invest in the MIC and score big, don't bother with the body bags.

Sleep well my oppressive friend. You may make a percentage or two above us. Isn't what Harry Browne taught you?

Just get rid of the avatar, it is a disgrace to his memory.

Mr. Danke, I believe you misunderstand me entirely. I am an eternal enemy of the state. I loathe tyranny. I loathe it so much, I am actually doing things to bring about its destruction.

Not paying taxes is noble and good and right. Whatever method you use to not pay them it is a good thing and I endorse it. Whatever legal theory you employ to justify your non-payment as legal makes little or no difference to me: your choice to deprive the state of funds is good, and I applaud it. Even if you employ no legal theory at all, you simply don't pay taxes on moral grounds, I support that wholeheartedly. In fact, that last is the best, in my humble opinion, but regardless I support it all.

My support for you does not change the fact that the people running the IRS do not agree with your theories and do not approve of the cessation of tax payments. Surprise, surprise, they think you should keep paying them loot. My support for you will not alter the outcome of any kangaroo court proceedings against you. My support for you will not likely break you out of prison -- I have no expertise in doing so, and even if I did I cannot break out everyone. I just think people should be aware of the dangers that do factually exist in reality. I did not create those facts, I did not create this reality, I am in fact trying to change the reality into a better one. So don't blame me for telling the truth.

I tell the truth. That's who I am. That's also who Helmuth was. At 14 years old, he stood up in court and looked the judge right in the eye and told him, to the effect of, 'Now I am going to die for no crime at all. For telling the truth. Fine. You can kill me, but your day is next.' That's courage, friend, the kind of courage I aspire to have.

No apology for truth, Danke. I mean to confound these buggers. Maychance you mean the same. Our paths may be different, but our hate of choice is shared. Let's take them down.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I know you're not mad at me, Danke, you're mad at these foul tyrants. You have just misunderstood me. And so I'm not mad at you. I applaud your passion. But not everyone is like me, and because of that, I would recommend you be a little less ready to toss out epithets like "bootlicker" against people about which you know nothing. For all you know I could be in prison right now for tax evasion. For all I know, you are. If so, send coordinates and maybe we can have an RPF rescue mission.

Point is, it's real easy to spend way too much of your time getting hostile and enemical against those who should be your allies and friends. Don't let that happen. Peace, brother,

 

[helmuth_hubener]

I know you're not mad at me, Danke, you're mad at these foul tyrants. You have just misunderstood me. And so I'm not mad at you. I applaud your passion. But not everyone is like me, and because of that, I would recommend you be a little less ready to toss out epithets like "bootlicker" against people about which you know nothing. For all you know I could be in prison right now for tax evasion. For all I know, you are. If so, send coordinates and maybe we can have an RPF rescue mission.

Point is, it's real easy to spend way too much of your time getting hostile and enemical against those who should be your allies and friends. Don't let that happen. Peace, brother,

 

[erowe1]

Erowe1,

Do you truly understand what this discussion is about?

Can you articulate the differences between personal services and labor?

Not really. My point was that it doesn't matter.

The success of this will not be won out behind the closed doors of a courtroom, but by getting it aired in the open so that the public forum can lay it on the legislature to require the executive to acknowledge.

By doing what? The legislature and executive branches want the income tax as it now is. So does the public, except with a little tweaking to it.

So let's say we get the public to be against the income tax, and then through elections get the legislature to be against the income tax. Essentially what you're going for is the passages of legislation that would cause income taxes to stop being collected.

Well yeah, that's what we're all after. The OP doesn't really change that.

Now, as to the points made in the OP, I deliberately avoided addressing them, since what I said was more important than them in my mind.

However, since you press me on it, I would say that all income earned either by personal services or labor, is included in the definition of "gross income" in Title 26 of the US Code, from which individual income taxes are calculated.

This definition, found in section 61, reads as follows:

gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

Taxable income is then defined in section 63 as gross income minus deductions.

And all of this is in explanation of the law stated very clearly right at the beginning of Title 26 in section 1:

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual...

 

[Weston White]

It's one thing to say that the income tax is immoral.

It's quite another to completely misconstrue the law as it is written by (a) misreading caselaw, (b) relying on phony quotes purportedly from caselaw, and (c) employing crackpot theories with no legal or logical basis in a contorted attempt to show why one doesn't have to pay the tax, especially when the theories have been consistently rejected by the courts. And wallowing in the pathetic "the courts are corrupt!" rationalization simply demonstrates that, aside from having a touch of paranoia, one isn't honest enough to admit that, just maybe, he might be wrong.

• Fact, the federal government has zero constitutional authority to perpetually tax working Americans at over $2-trillion per year.
• Fact, you have been shown time and time again that a widening chain of evidence worthy resources succinctly disproves your tired old progressivist notions--and yet it is people such as you who pathetically continue to ignore this reality.
• Fact, there are very few people here are doing any degree of (a), (b), or (c); meanwhile most all withstand and persevere your contrived nonsense and contempt.
• The courts are corruptible--have you conveniently forgotten what that lying ingrate Justice Roberts recently did with the ACA/Obamacare? Or how about the OJ murder trial zoo? The courts sway very easily to political-social pressures. Meanwhile, history is chock-full of judges that take bribes, are financially motivated in the outcomes of certain types of cases, and who are extorted by U.S. spy agencies. Just as the Legislature has decreed they are not committing insider trading, when in fact they are, when they vote on bills that impact corporations they and/or their families and/or friends are shareholders of.
• Fact, "case law" is not a compound word.

However, it is one thing to merely mention that the courts are corruptible (because they are, as fact), and it is quiet another to wallow such piteousness.

 

[erowe1]

• Fact, the federal government has zero constitutional authority to perpetually tax working Americans at over $2-trillion per year.

• 
  
  Fact. That's irrelevant. Given that taxation is theft, the government has zero legitimate authority to tax anybody at all, no matter what the Constitution says.
  
  It is a make believe set of manmade laws. The US code is also a make believe set of manmade laws. And the way that code functions in practice as a result of various court rulings is also a make believe set of manmade laws. All of the links in this chain are equal in legitimacy (i.e. none at all). But it is only the last link in the chain that bears relevance in the real-life decisions of people whether or not to pay their taxes.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Fact, the federal government has zero constitutional authority to perpetually tax working Americans at over $2-trillion per year.

This is the kind of moronic crackpottery I alluded to. Mr. White would like to pretend that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment don't exist. But they do, and they provide the constitutional authority for federal taxes.

Fact, "case law" is not a compound word.

Better tell the Supreme Court; it, along with other courts and legal professionals, uses the word all the time.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/search?s...ject=0&casenum=0&date_start=&date_end=&page=1

 

[ZENemy]

This is the kind of moronic crackpottery I alluded to. Mr. White would like to pretend that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment don't exist. But they do, and they provide the constitutional authority for federal taxes.

lol, they don't exist they are pieces of paper written by dead men that never had the "authority" they claim anyway.

Men, live or dead cannot bind me to a contract without my consent, much less 200 years before I was born. If the power to tax comes from the congress, and the power of congress comes from the people then why is that I do not have the right to tax my friends? If I never had the right then I cannot give it away to congress.

The paper its written on does exist, the legitimacy of their authority does not.

 

[Weston White]

This is the kind of moronic crackpottery I alluded to. Mr. White would like to pretend that Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment don't exist. But they do, and they provide the constitutional authority for federal taxes.

Negative, your stawman, put it away. The income tax was only intended to be a temporary tax to support war efforts from long ago, as a tax upon wealth, but never a permanent tax upon necessity, and not rates surpassing the tithe. You are absolutely wrong in your thinking on this matter. Our Founders were clear that direct taxation was a temporary measure in dire circumstances. Furthermore, the federal government does not need several trillions of dollars to operate appropriately, constitutionally.

Better tell the Supreme Court; it, along with other courts and legal professionals, uses the word all the time.

Regardless, it is not a compound word, i.e: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caselaw

 

[phill4paul]

Even if you employ no legal theory at all, you simply don't pay taxes on moral grounds, I support that wholeheartedly. In fact, that last is the best, in my humble opinion, but regardless I support it all.

This has always been my take. I feel no reason to justify a conscientious objector status by arguing legality. I understand that by exercising civil disobedience I am, in a way, giving some legitimacy to the notion that the government is legal in it's exercising of it's laws. I, however, grant them no moral authority. I care not for the reasoning that others do the same. I just wish that more did.