PDA

View Full Version : Irwin Schiff (Feb. 23 1928 - Oct. 16 2015)




Anticollectivist
10-19-2015, 09:57 PM
A lone voice of reason in a nation of injustice and social and economic insanity; and a true American patriot. May he rest in peace, and may all the corrupt, lying, cheating, unpatriotic judges, politicians, and all the heads of the Federal Reserve Board both past and present and all their corrupt cronies throughout this once great country that have been fleecing and destroying American for the past century or more.......may they all burn in eternal hell.

Danke
10-19-2015, 10:06 PM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483791-RIP-Irwin-Schiff&highlight=

Anticollectivist
10-19-2015, 11:30 PM
I don't think I can post links here as a guest and I didn't see it posted it on your thread Danke but I'd appreciate it if you or someone could post the link to the Irwin Schiff (Feb. 23 1928 - Oct. 16 2015) at the Libertarian Convention 1996 YouTube video published on Oct 17, 2015 by his son and a patriot himself Peter Schiff. I've been a big fan of Peter Schiff's for over 8 years now. I didn't even know about his father until a few years ago but obviously Peter gets the courage of his convictions, good judgment and incredible articulate speaking ability from his father. Thankfully the voice of reason and economic sanity lives on with his son. Unfortunately Peter Schiff seems like a virtual lone voice of reason in an economic and political world gone mad.

oyarde
10-20-2015, 12:43 AM
A lone voice of reason in a nation of injustice and social and economic insanity; and a true American patriot. May he rest in peace, and may all the corrupt, lying, cheating, unpatriotic judges, politicians, and all the heads of the Federal Reserve Board both past and present and all their corrupt cronies throughout this once great country that have been fleecing and destroying American for the past century or more.......may they all burn in eternal hell.
Yes , well done .Unpatriots and eternal hell .

squarepusher
10-20-2015, 02:15 AM
while he may have been right, isn't this akin to protesting police violence by charging at a cop with a gun? we know how that will end

Peace&Freedom
10-20-2015, 07:25 AM
while he may have been right, isn't this akin to protesting police violence by charging at a cop with a gun? we know how that will end

He didn't charge a cop with a gun or any other provocative gesture of violence. He wrote a book (and at trial, submitted affidavits) documenting the tax jackboots and enforcers usually charge at the wrong people with a gun. There is a difference.

dannno
10-20-2015, 08:08 AM
while he may have been right, isn't this akin to protesting police violence by charging at a cop with a gun? we know how that will end

More like smoking a joint in front of a cop.

Anticollectivist
10-21-2015, 01:43 PM
Obviously taxation is just a form of collective theft and extortion and is morally and ethically wrong. But someone else I admire and respect is David Stockman and his view seems to be in support of higher taxes to help pay for the reckless government bowering and spending. And at least high tax rates makes all the reckless government bowering and spending more obvious to the ignorant public and is less dishonest and destructive to the economy than the hidden tax of inflation created by the Fed which destroys wealth instead of the government extorting and confiscating it directly.

But as Peter Schiff says, this phony bubble economy created by the government and the Fed can't and won't go on much longer. The public and the world will soon be forced to recognize the colossal fiat currency Ponzi scheme created by central banks throughout the world. We definitely live in an idiotic senseless economic world gone mad.

Aspie Minarcho-Capitalist
10-21-2015, 02:08 PM
He will be proven right about these dreaded federal income taxes and the IRS will never again see the light of day - May he rest in peace.

Anticollectivist
10-21-2015, 08:15 PM
I was just thinking earlier how Irwin Schiff's courage of his convictions till the dying end reminded me so much of the final scene of Braveheart when William Wallace was yelling out the words FREEDOM as he was being tortured to death by the oppressors and dictators of his country. Then just a little while ago I read Peter's commentary about his father on THE PETER SCHIFF SHOW website:

"Whether or not you agree with my father’s views on the Federal Income Tax, or the manner by which it is collected, it’s hard to condone the way he was treated by our government. He held his convictions so sincerely and so passionately that he continued to espouse them until his dying breath. Like William Wallace in the final scene of Braveheart, an oppressive government may have succeeded in killing him, but they did not break his spirit. And that spirit will live on in his books, his videos, and in his children and grandchildren. Hopefully his legacy will one day help restore the lost freedoms he died trying to protect, finally allowing him to rest in peace."

By Schiff Staff



I feel compelled to repeat again, Irwin Schiff (as well as his son Peter) was a virtual lone voice of reason in a nation of injustice and social and economic insanity; and a true American patriot. May he rest in peace, and may all the corrupt, lying, cheating, unpatriotic judges, politicians, and all the heads of the Federal Reserve Board both past and present and all their corrupt cronies throughout this once great country that have been fleecing and destroying America for the past century or more.......may they all burn in eternal hell.

Anticollectivist
10-22-2015, 08:09 PM
Peter Schiff on Irwin Schiff, Income Tax and IRS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q56eARMq1NY

Anticollectivist
10-27-2015, 04:27 PM
Peter Schiff: "Irwin Schiff Was Right, Sept 29th 2001"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PldyfV8QBcA&feature=em-subs_digest-g

What a valuable resource to our country this man brave was. No wonder our inhumane oppressive corrupt government let him suffer and rot in prison. All our government knows how to do is waste valuable resources and oppress its citizens - even to the point cruelty, torture and murder. Who the hell is going to stand trial for the cruel torture and murder of Irwin Schiff? Obviously no one. Because everyone involved in the whole inhumane unconstitutional process can claim they were just doing their jobs as "good" servants of the state. What a fucking pathetic immoral unpatriotic group of people most Americans are. Americans (myself included) and their collective cowardice, complacency and ignorance make me sick.

And it seems most Americans, including most people here, still believe there is hope of change with the political process. The only change that is going to happen with the government in this country is that its just going to get more corrupt, oppressive, and even more ruthless and tyrannical in time. Its often said about lawyers and its even MUCH MUCH more true about corrupt unpatriotic judges and politicians - the only good one is a dead one. Fuck them all to hell.

Sonny Tufts
10-30-2015, 09:17 AM
Mr. Schiff's legal arguments against the income tax were nonsensical, self-contradictory, and frivolous. As a three-time loser, it seems pretty clear that he started out as a con artist willing to make a buck by selling snake oil to credulous people who didn't want to pay income tax and who saw his theories as the magic bullet. Sadly, many found themselves later paying back taxes, interest, and penalties by relying on his bogus arguments.

By the time of his third conviction, it's possible that Schiff was so delusional that he really believed the stuff he was peddling.

ChristianAnarchist
10-30-2015, 10:13 AM
Mr. Schiff's legal arguments against the income tax were nonsensical, self-contradictory, and frivolous. As a three-time loser, it seems pretty clear that he started out as a con artist willing to make a buck by selling snake oil to credulous people who didn't want to pay income tax and who saw his theories as the magic bullet. Sadly, many found themselves later paying back taxes, interest, and penalties by relying on his bogus arguments.

By the time of his third conviction, it's possible that Schiff was so delusional that he really believed the stuff he was peddling.

Wow! Have you even READ anything he wrote or are you taking your talking points directly from the IRS?? I studied his writings and I took on the IRS (I failed but did not go to prison like he did). ALL the things Irwin wrote about were true with the exception of one. Every logical conclusion Irwin came to after reading the "law" was correct. The "law" does not apply to living men. It only CAN apply to a legal fiction for many reasons that I do not care to go into since it's a very long and complicated topic (as "law" always is. The ONE area where Irwin was wrong was in thinking that he could actually find "justice" in such a den of vipers. Of course the goons will goon everyone who comes against them. Vipers can never be changed...

Irwin Schiff - R.I.P. If only there were a few more with balls that big!

Peace&Freedom
10-30-2015, 11:06 AM
Wow! Have you even READ anything he wrote or are you taking your talking points directly from the IRS?? I studied his writings and I took on the IRS (I failed but did not go to prison like he did). ALL the things Irwin wrote about were true with the exception of one. Every logical conclusion Irwin came to after reading the "law" was correct. The "law" does not apply to living men. It only CAN apply to a legal fiction for many reasons that I do not care to go into since it's a very long and complicated topic (as "law" always is. The ONE area where Irwin was wrong was in thinking that he could actually find "justice" in such a den of vipers. Of course the goons will goon everyone who comes against them. Vipers can never be changed...

Irwin Schiff - R.I.P. If only there were a few more with balls that big!

+1 zillion. My current blog post also elaborates on these points. Schiff is a hero who will be missed.

Sonny Tufts
10-30-2015, 11:29 AM
Wow! Have you even READ anything he wrote or are you taking your talking points directly from the IRS??

I have read his stuff, and it's absolute nonsense.


ALL the things Irwin wrote about were true with the exception of one. Every logical conclusion Irwin came to after reading the "law" was correct.

Bilge. Let me give you just one example of how absurd his arguments are. His chief contention is that for tax purposes "income" means only corporate profit. To justify this conclusion, he cites the case of Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) . His problem is that the taxpayer in Smietanka wasn't a corporation, but a trust. A trust cannot have corporate profit because it isn't a corporation. Yet the Supreme Court held that the trust was taxable on its income.

Schiff's arguments have been uniformly and consistently rejected by every court that has addressed them. The reason is not, as paranoid tax protesters believe, that the courts are in cahoots with the IRS. The reason is that his arguments are WRONG.

Anticollectivist
10-30-2015, 06:22 PM
What is absolute nonsense is the entire ridiculous federal income tax system itself. Only government bureaucracy could devise something so convoluted, wasteful, counterproductive and destructive to society. And only corrupt unpatriotic politicians and a corrupt oppressive government could convince and force millions of people to believe that such a form of extortion is some type of obligation and patriotic duty to be paid by its devoted oppressed citizens.

Peter Schiff spoke about his father recently in his first podcast after his father's death. And as Peter states, even if the court really thought that Irwin Schiff was legally wrong, the penalties should be civil - not criminal. And the cruel inhumane way in which he was apparently treated in prison (or actually not treated by being denied necessary badly needed healthcare) just proves how ruthless, corrupt and immoral government is - esp to dissenting citizens that don't conform like the rest of us cowardice ignorant complacent sheep.

Here's Peter's podcast from Oct 22, 2015 in which he talks about his dad in the first 8 minutes or so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZrGzBmH9uY&feature=em-subs_digest-g

Even years before I even knew who Irwin Schiff was, I thought Peter Schiff was the most intelligent, logical, articulate, honest and courageous voice on the subject of economics and money I've ever heard. I now know where Peter got his intelligent sensible ideas from - as well as the courage of his convictions. The government succeeded in oppressing, suppressing and killing Irwin but thankfully his son Peter is still alive to fight the good fight. A true loyal patriot doesn't fight for the state, he fights against it. Irwin Schiff was a true courageous patriot. If there were only many more courageous people like him, this country and the world would be a much better and more decent worthwhile place to live in.

Peace&Freedom
10-30-2015, 06:46 PM
Bilge. Let me give you just one example of how absurd his arguments are. His chief contention is that for tax purposes "income" means only corporate profit. To justify this conclusion, he cites the case of Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) . His problem is that the taxpayer in Smietanka wasn't a corporation, but a trust. A trust cannot have corporate profit because it isn't a corporation. Yet the Supreme Court held that the trust was taxable on its income.

This is just another example of the misdirection and word games used by the tax gestapo, of which Tufts is a disciple. The court decision strongly reaffirmed that income means corporate profit (therefore Schiff was right to reference it, along with half a dozen other Supreme Court decisions saying the same). It separately ruled the trust was subject to the federal government and to the tax regardless, NOT that income means anything other than corporate profit. The question remains, but what if you are NOT a taxable subject of the federal government? The court (and the gestapo) dodged that question. Schiff's point remains unrebutted, no matter how many courts chose to ignore Supreme Court precedent, or made it inadmissible to bring up at his trials.


The word "income" has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning being a realized gain or profit (on or from capital, labor or assets) EARNED BY A TAXABLE SUBJECT of the federal government. Corporations, trusts and foreign “persons” (both non-resident alien individuals and foreign corporations), are all legitimate taxable subjects of the federal government.
http://www.tax-freedom.com/WhereDoesIncomeComeFrom.htm

Sonny Tufts
10-30-2015, 09:07 PM
The court decision strongly reaffirmed that income means corporate profit (therefore Schiff was right to reference it, along with half a dozen other Supreme Court decisions saying the same).

No court in the history of the country has ever held that income is limited to corporate profit.


It separately ruled the trust was subject to the federal government and to the tax regardless, NOT that income means anything other than corporate profit.

Garbage. Since the trust wasn't a corporation, it didn't receive corporate profit. Yet it had taxable income from the gains it realized from selling its investments. If income were restricted to corporate profit, the trust would have won. But it lost.


The court (and the gestapo) dodged that question. Schiff's point remains unrebutted, no matter how many courts chose to ignore Supreme Court precedent, or made it inadmissible to bring up at his trials.

There is no Supreme Court precedent supporting Schiff's idiotic arguments. They are all to the contrary. Let's just take a couple of examples, from cases that (not surprisingly) Schiff didn't have the intellectual honesty to cite:

"There is no doubt the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930) (holding Mr. Earl (who wasn't a corporation) taxable on his compensation).

“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945) (holding an employee taxable on the value of an option given to him as part of his compensation).

There are many other SCOTUS cases holding individuals are liable for taxes on their income. There are none holding that only corporations are.

There is no such thing as a "taxable subject", except in the sense that Sections 1 and 11 impose taxes on the taxable incomes of individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations.

ChristianAnarchist
10-31-2015, 02:47 PM
No court in the history of the country has ever held that income is limited to corporate profit.



Garbage. Since the trust wasn't a corporation, it didn't receive corporate profit. Yet it had taxable income from the gains it realized from selling its investments. If income were restricted to corporate profit, the trust would have won. But it lost.



There is no Supreme Court precedent supporting Schiff's idiotic arguments. They are all to the contrary. Let's just take a couple of examples, from cases that (not surprisingly) Schiff didn't have the intellectual honesty to cite:

"There is no doubt the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930) (holding Mr. Earl (who wasn't a corporation) taxable on his compensation).



B.S. This case does not challenge the statement that income is defined as corporate profit. It accepts as fact that income includes wages and this case ONLY addresses whether the defendant can claim he owes taxes on half the amount as his position is that his wife is responsible for the other half...
Do you even read the cases you cite or are you just a talking head for the IRS??




“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945) (holding an employee taxable on the value of an option given to him as part of his compensation).


Even MORE B.S. This case has to do with whether a stock given as zero value and later has "X" value is taxable given that the tax statute says "Y". No where is question raised as to the meaning or intent of "Y".
Again, you need to read the B.S. coming from the IRS before posting their lies...



There are many other SCOTUS cases holding individuals are liable for taxes on their income. There are none holding that only corporations are.

There is no such thing as a "taxable subject", except in the sense that Sections 1 and 11 impose taxes on the taxable incomes of individuals, trusts, estates, and corporations.

So far your record of "proof" is not looking to good...

Sonny Tufts
10-31-2015, 03:48 PM
So far your record of "proof" is not looking to good...

It's more proof than Schiff ever offered. Put it this way: no individual has ever escaped taxation by claiming that his income isn't taxable because "income" is limited to corporate profit. That argument, along with Schiff's other bogus claims, has a 100% losing record.


I can comply with the law, and avoid any tax liability, by filing a “zero return” along with a statement explaining why I am not liable for any income tax.

This was Irwin Schiff’s last scam and, like the “tax statement,” it required a complete ignorance of tax law to believe that it could possibly be valid.

The “zero return” is a return that reports no income and no tax. Schiff claimed that this return complies with filing requirements, but results in no tax liability.

The U.S. District Court for Nevada has preliminarily enjoined Schiff from preparing returns and promoting his tax schemes. United States v. Schiff, KTC 2003-238, No. CV-S-03-0281-LDG (RDF) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 6/16/2003), aff’d 379 F.3d 621, KTC 2004-224, No. 03-16319 (9th Cir. 8/9/2004), cert. den. No. 04-1383 (10/3/2005). In concluding that Schiff’s claims were not only false, but knowingly false, the District Court reviewed Schiff’s criminal convictions for tax crimes and his civil losses against the tax system, and then concluded:


“All of Schiff’s schemes suffer from the same conceptual infirmities, rejected time and time again by the courts: that income taxes are voluntary; that there is no legal obligation to pay income taxes; and that imposition of any income tax by Congress violates the taxing clauses of the Constitution. Only the approaches to avoiding the payment of income tax are different. Schiff cannot avoid the ‘know or had reason to know’ standard by holding up a differently wrapped package. Schiff knows what’s in the box, and therefore knows better.”

Preliminary Injunction, page 10. (The injunction is now somewhat academic, because Schiff was later convicted on related criminal charges, and is now in federal prison. United States v. Schiff, No. 2:2004cr00119 (U.S.D.C. D. Nev. 2/24/2006), on appeal, No. 06-10199 (9th Cir.).)

In upholding the preliminary injunction, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was a “substantial likelihood” that the government would prevail, and that the injunction against the sale of Schiff’s book, The Federal Mafia, did not violate Schiff’s first amendment rights because the claims made by the book were fraudulent:


“For example, on the inside cover of The Federal Mafia, he [Schiff] informs readers that ‘no law requires you to file income tax returns or pay this tax.’ On the same page he further claims that ‘there are no criminal statutes that apply to income taxes . . . [a]nd there is no law giving federal courts authorization . . . to prosecute anyone for income tax “crimes”.’ Although these claims are far-fetched, they could mislead a customer into believing that he or she could use Schiff’s products to legally stop paying income taxes.”

U.S. v. Schiff, 379 F.3d 621, No. 03-16319, page 16 (9th Cir. 8/9/2004).

A student of Schiff’s has also been preliminarily enjoined from preparing tax returns, the court stating:


“Hubacek’s scheme to help his customers evade taxes uses the same frivolous theory that Irwin Schiff, a Las Vegas-based tax-scam promoter, created -- the ‘corporate profit’ theory. Schiff s theory rests on the premise that no section of the Internal Revenue Code establishes an income-tax liability on wages. ... This Court has held that the ‘corporate profit’ theory and its resulting zero-income returns are fraudulent and frivolous.” U.S. v. Hubacek, 2004 TNT 1-19, No. CV-S-03-1523(U.S.D.C Nev. 12/23/2003).

There have also been a stream of cases coming out of Nevada (where Schiff has lived and promoted his frauds) involving returns with zero income reported. Needless to say, the taxpayers have been losing all of these cases.

For cases in which the taxpayer filed a “zero return,” the IRS assessed a frivolous return penalty of $500, and the court affirmed the penalty and allowed the IRS to proceed to collect the penalty by levy, see:
•Bunch v. United States, 2002 TNT 90-11, Case No. CV-S-01-0371-KJD (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 4/9/2002);
•Foster v. United States, 2002 TNT 139-14, Case No. CV-S-01-1003-RLH (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 5/10/2002);
•Baker v. United States, 2002 TNT 138-17, Case No. CV-S-01-1187-RLH (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 5/10/2002);
•Light v. United States, 2002 TNT 128-14, Case No. CV-S-01-0923-LRH (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 5/15/2002);
•Montijo v. United States, 2002 TNT 126-12, Case No. CV-S-01-1227-LRH (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 5/15/2002);
•Needham v. United States, 2002 TNT 142-14, Case No. CV-S-01-0752-LRH (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 6/14/2002);
•Moses v. United States, 2002 TNT 159-10, No. CV-S-01-1325-LRH (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 6/28/2002);
•Martinec v. United States, 2002 TNT 157-7, No. CV-S-01-1207-RLH (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/10/2002);
•Haas v. United States,, 2002 TNT 166-10, No. CV-S-01-0905-KJD (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/25/2002), (court would have also imposed sanctions for bringing a frivolous court action if the U.S. had requested sanctions);
•Smith v. United States, 2002 TNT 223-17, No. CV-S-01-1184-KJD-LRL (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/31/2002);
•Blanchard v. United States, 2002 TNT 239-9, No. CV-S-01-1083-KJD(RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 8/1/2002);
•Waller v. United States, 2002 TNT 209-12, No. CV-S-01-1190-KJD-(PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 8/6/2002);
•Brown v. United States, 2003 TNT 73-9, No. CV-S-02-0175-RLH (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 8/16/2002);
•Davidson v. Commissioner, 2002 TNT 244-13, No. CV-S-02-0108-RLH (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 9/11/2002), (“There is no doubt as to the validity of the penalty. Plaintiff submitted Form 1040 for 1998 and apparently submitted Forms 1040X for 1989 and 1990 with zeros in the income section and Forms W-2 showing income considerably more than zero. Motion (#4), Exhibit A. He also attached an explanation of how no provisions of the Internal Revenue code make him liable for the income tax, how his wages are not income, and other matters. Wages are income, 26 U.S.C. § 61, upon which Plaintiff owes a tax, 26 U.S.C. § 1, and courts -- including this one -- have found arguments to the contrary to be tired and frivolous long before Plaintiff filed the tax returns at issue. [Citations omitted.] On its face, Plaintiff’s tax returns were substantially incorrect and frivolous, thus making Plaintiff liable for the frivolous return penalty. 26 U.S.C. § 6702. The assessments of the frivolous return penalties are valid.”);
•Lemieux v. United States, 2002 TNT 212-12, No. CV-S-02-0274-RLH (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 9/12/2002);
•Reynoso v. United States, 2002 TNT 235-7, No. CV-S-01-1219-JCM-(PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 9/30/2002);
•Johnson v. United States, 2002 TNT 239-10, No. CV-S-02-0009-RLH (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 9/16/2002);
•Gifford v. United States, 2002 TNT 246-49, No. CV-S-02-0467-RLH(LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 10/23/2002);
•Stanley v. United States, 2002 TNT 246-50, No. CV-S-02-0220-RLH(PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 10/24/2002);
•Carrillo v. United States, 2003 TNT 102-14, No. CV-S-02-0353-KJD-(LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 3/13/2003), aff’d 2003 TNT 117-15, No. 03-15643 (9th Cir. 8/21/2003), (unpublished);
•Martin G. Nitschke v. United States, 2003-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,432, No. CV-S-01-1035-LDG (PAL) (U.S.D.C. D. Nev. 4/1/2003), aff’d 92 F.App’x 529, 2004 TNT 72-4, No. 03-16043 (9th Cir. 3/24/2004);
• Pesci v. United States, 2003 TNT 118-12, No. CV-S-02-1307-KJD (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 5/5/2003), (court would have imposed Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint if the United States had requested sanctions);
•Ray v. United States, 2003 TNT 189-17, No. CV-S-03-0284-KJD (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/30/2003), (court would have imposed Rule 11 sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint if the United States had requested sanctions);

•Cheslin v. Internal Revenue Service, 2004 TNT 51-22, No. 03-16329 (9th Cir. 1/29/2004), (sanctions of $6,000 for filing a frivolous appeal; not published), affirming No. CV-01-01233-KJD/RJJ (D.C. Nev. 6/30/2003), (court would have “freely granted” Rule 11 sanctions if requested).


In each of the above cases, the court reviewed the return in question and granted summary judgment to the United States, finding that the return was “frivolous” as a matter of law.

See also, Sisemore v. United States, 797 F.2d 268, 270 (6th Cir. 1986); Newman v. Commissioner, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1757 (2002); Samlaska v. United States, No. CV-S-01-1237-KJD (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 7/31/2002); Carini v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0169-KJD (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 12/2/2002); Wahl v. United States>, No. CV-S-02-0239-KJD (RJJ) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 1/31/2003); Ordunez v. United States, No. CV-S-02-0033-KJD (LRL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 2/3/2003); Caldwell v. United States, CV-S-02-0045-KJD (PAL) (U.S.D.C. Nev. 2/5/2003); Gaasbeck v. United States, 2004 TNT 69-10, No. CV-S-03-0089-KJD (LRL) (D.C. Nev. 1/29/2004), (court would have “freely granted” Rule 11 sanctions if requested).

For cases in which a Nevada taxpayer filed a “zero return,” the IRS assessed a deficiency based on income information from Forms W-2, 1099, and other third-party reports, and the Tax Court allowed the IRS to proceed with collection by levy, see:
•Wagner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-180, 2002 TNT 148-17, (7/31/2002), ($4,000 penalty imposed for bringing frivolous court action);
•Stower v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-167, 2002 TNT 131-8 (7/8/2002);
•Land v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-263 (10/10/2002), ($5,000 penalty imposed for bringing frivolous court action);
•Davich v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-255 (10/7/2002), ($5,000 penalty imposed for bringing frivolous court action);
•Schmith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-252 (10/2/2002), ($1,000 penalty imposed for bringing frivolous court action);
•Wilson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-242 (9/25/2002);
•Villwock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-235 (9/19/2002), ($1,000 penalty imposed for bringing frivolous court action);
•Schaper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-203 (8/13/2002);
•Davidson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-194 (8/7/2002), ($4,000 penalty imposed for frivolous court action);
•Hall v. Commissioner,T.C. Memo. 2002-267 (10/21/2002);
•Keene v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-277 (11/1/2002), ($5,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Kiley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-315, 2002 TNT 250-115 (12/27/2002), ($5,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Koenig v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-40, 2003 TNT 37-12 (2/24/2003), ($2,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Copeland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-46, 2003 TNT 38-9 (2/25/2003), ($1,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Smith v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-45, 2003 TNT 38-10 (2/25/2003), ($500 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Flathers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-60, 2003 TNT 43-10 (3/4/2003), ($1,500 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Fink v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-61, 2003 TNT 43-11 (3/4/2003), ($2,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Swann v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-70, 2003 TNT 50-11 (3/13/2003), ($2,500 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Stoewer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-71, 2003 TNT 50-12 (3/13/2003), ($2,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Lyman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-72, 2003 TNT 50-13 (3/132003), ($3,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Cortes v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-80, 2003 TNT 54-14 (3/19/2003), ($1,000 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Williams v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-83, 2003 TNT 57-11 (3/24/2003), ($1,600 penalty for frivolous court action imposed sua sponte);
•Frank v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-88, 2003 TNT 59-14 (3/26/2003), ($3,500 penalty for frivolous court action).
•Duncan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-89, 2003 TNT 59-15 (3/26/2003), ($2,500 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Holguin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-125, ($1,600 penalty for frivolous court action), aff’d 2004 US App. Lexis 17848 (9th Cir.);
•Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-131, (no penalty imposed);
•Kemper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-195, ($8,500 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Brashear v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-196, 2003 TNT 132-21 (7/9/2003), ($1,600 penalty for frivolous court action);
•Horton v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2003-197, ($4,400 penalty for frivolous court action);

•Meyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-81, 2005 TNT 69-10 ($15,000 penalty for frivolous court action for tax year 1997), and T.C. Memo 2005-82, 2005 TNT 69-11 (another $15,000 penalty for frivolous court action, this one for tax year 1996).


Wagner, Davidson, Land, Davich, Schmith, Villwock, Kiley, Koening, Smith, Copeland, Flathers, and Fink all attached statements to their income tax returns explaining why they were not subject to tax, and the wording of the statements were essentially identical. The courts in Swann, Stoewer, Lyman, Cortes, Williams, Frank, Duncan, and Brashear noted that the attachments to the income tax returns of those taxpayers, as well as letters and other documents sent to the IRS, were similar to the attachments, letters, and other documents used by the taxpayers in Copeland and Smith. (The attachment quoted in the Keene case is somewhat different from the others, and the court opinions in the other cases do not quote from the attachments.) The similar wording suggests that they all got their instructions from the same source (i.e., Irwin Schiff).

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed, and the Supreme Court has denied certiorari, in a “zero return” case arising in California. The two-page attachment the returns in in question included the following statement:


“It should also be noted that I had ‘zero’ income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income (See note#1), since in Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co.v. Smietanka, 225 U.S. 509, (at pages 518&519) that Court held that ‘The word (income) must be given the same meaning in all of the income tax acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act (1909).’ Therefore, since I had no earnings in any year that would have been taxable under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 as ‘income,’ I can only swear to having “zero” income in 1995.* * *”

Schroeder v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-211, (deficiencies affirmed for 1995 and 1996, as well as a penalty for substantial understatement for 1996), aff’d 2003 TNT 107-4, No. 02-73929 (9th Cir. 5/20/2003), (unpublished), cert. den. ___ U.S. ___, No. 03-1096 (3/1/2004).

This statement appears to be identical to the statements filed by other purchasers of the “zero return” sold by Irwin Schiff.

For other cases in which taxpayers filing “zero returns” have failed in their challenges to frivolous return penalties, see:

Loze v. United States, No. CIV A 02- 1721, 2003 WL 1547283 (E.D. La. Feb. 13, 2003), (granting U.S. motion for summary judgment); Gregory v. United States, No. CIV A1:02-CV-889-CC, 2003 WL 701218 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 15, 2003), (granting U.S. motion to dismiss or for summary judgment); Tornichio v. United States, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1097 (N.D. Ohio 2002), (granting U.S. motion to dismiss and noting that “[c]ourts have also consistently found identical arguments to the ones here to be frivolous”) (citations omitted); Carroll v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 2d 852, 858 (W.D. Tenn. 2002), (granting U.S. motion for summary judgment and awarding defendant fees and costs, due to “the frivolous nature of plaintiff’s arguments”); Kelly v. United States, 209 F. Supp. 2d 981 (E.D. Mo. 2002), (granting U.S. motion for summary judgment); Rennie v. IRS, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (E.D. Cal. 2002), (granting U.S. motion to dismiss or for summary judgment); Cole v. United States, No. 1:02-CV-137, 2002 WL 31495841 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2002), (granting U.S. motion for summary judgment); Bentley v. IRS, No. 4:02 CV 1391, 2002 WL 31274045 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2002), (dismissing plaintiff’s claim sua sponte); Goodell v. United States, No. 03-118-M, Opinion No. 2003 DNH 174 (U.S.D.C. N.H. 10/14/2003); Schultz v. United States, 2005 TNT 85-8, No. 4:04-cv-92 (U.S.D.C. W.D.Mich. 3/23/2005); Gillett v. United States, 233 F. Supp. 2d 874 (W.D. Mich. 2002) (“Numerous federal courts have upheld the imposition of the $500 sanction by the IRS pursuant to 26 U.S.C. section 6702(a), where, as here, a tax form is filed stating that an individual had no income, but the attached W-2 forms show wages, tips, or other compensation of greater than zero.”).

See also, Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 97 (1st Cir. 1986); Davis v. United States Government, 742 F.2d 171, 173 (5th Cir. 1984); Yuen v. United States, 5 Supp.2d 1220, 1224 (D. Nev. 2003); Hill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-144 (imposing $15,000 penalty under section 6673 for frivolous “zero return” position); Rayner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-30 (imposing $5,000 penalty under section 6673 for frivolous “zero return” position).

So, for all would-be suckers who thought about giving money to Irwin Schiff, this is a sample of the nonsense you would have paid for:


I [...] am submitting this as part of my [...] income tax return even though I know that no section of the Internal Revenue Code:
1) Establishes an income tax “liability” [...];[Which is wrong.]
2) Provides that income taxes “have to be paid on the basis of a return” [...];[Which is wrong.]
3) In addition to the above, I am filing even though the “privacy Act Notice” as contained in a 1040 booklet clearly informs me that I am not required to file. It does so in at least two places.
a) In one place, it states that I need only file a return for “any tax” I may be “liable” for. Since no Code Section makes be “liable” for income taxes, this provision notifies me that I do not have to file an income tax return.[Which is wrong.]
[...]
7) Please note, that my [...] return also constitutes a claim for refund pursuant to Code Section 6402.
8) It should also be noted that I had “zero” income according to the Supreme Court’s definition of income [...}.[Which is wrong.]
9 I am also putting the IRS on notice that my 1997 tax return and claim for refund does not constitute a “frivolous” return pursuant to Code Section 6702.[Which is wrong, as shown above.]
[...]
11) In addition, don’t notify me, that the IRS is “changing” my return, since there is no statute that allows the IRS to do that. You might prepare a return (pursuant to Code Section 6020(a), where no return is filed, but where, as in this case, a return has been filed, no statute authorizes IRS personnel to “change” that return.[Which is also wrong.]
[...]
*NOTE #1: The word “income” is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code [...] but, as stated above, it can only be a derivative of corporate activity.[Which is wrong.]

All Schiff is selling is “a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and to espouse his own misguided views, which we regard as frivolous and groundless.” Wagner, supra; Davidson, supra; Land, supra; Davich, supra; Schmith, supra; and Villwock, supra.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#zeroreturn

ChristianAnarchist
10-31-2015, 07:03 PM
It's more proof than Schiff ever offered. Put it this way: no individual has ever escaped taxation by claiming that his income isn't taxable because "income" is limited to corporate profit. That argument, along with Schiff's other bogus claims, has a 100% losing record.

Wow, you really must work for the IRS. Pasting the goonerments propaganda right here on a liberty forum. All the IRS claptrap is misdirection and disinformation. The courts HAVE NEVER addressed the meaning of the word "income". They have shown with out a doubt that they are willing to put people in jail for asking for a court case that defines "income" however...

Goons are like that...

Anticollectivist
10-31-2015, 07:06 PM
As destructive, counterproductive and immoral as the federal income tax laws are, the economic and social destruction caused by the Federal Reserve is even much much worse. The U.S. Federal Government and the Federal Reserve together are just one big corrupt, unpatriotic, immoral machine that has been a growing economic and social cancer in this country for more than a century.

We will never have a healthy free market capitalism economy and real freedom again in this country until that cancer has been completely and permanently eradicated. Unfortunately by now the cancer has spread so completely and thoroughly throughout this country that there really isn't much hope of saving this country anymore. Bush's successful plan in 2008 of "abandoning free market principles to save the free market system" destroyed what was left of free market capitalism in this country and any hope of saving it.

Anticollectivist
10-31-2015, 09:01 PM
Just to clarify, I meant to say that even though Bush succeeded to getting TARP passed and allowing Paulsen to bail out his crony friends on Wall street, it was obviously a horrendous destructive unpatriotic maniacal plan that only succeeded in putting a final end to free market capitalism in this country - and both Bush and Paulsen and everyone else directly involved in that maniacal free market capitalism takeover deserve nothing less than execution. If not for the illegal unconstitutionality of it all, then at least for the blatant corrupt immorality of it.

Sonny Tufts
11-01-2015, 09:57 AM
The courts HAVE NEVER addressed the meaning of the word "income".

Instead of displaying how ignorant you are, why don't you read some of the cases and find out just how the courts have defined "income"?

Early on, the courts defined income as "a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207 (1919).

Later, when faced with a type of receipt that didn't fit the above definition (punitive damages received in an antitrust suit), the Supreme Court characterized income as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

On the specific claim that "income" is limited to corporate profit, the courts have indeed addressed it and uniformly rejected the argument as frivolous:

[quote]"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations....” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

“Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens.” Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 296 (1998)

“Plaintiff argues ‘income’ should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED”. See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton’s Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on “every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources”. Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position.” Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999). In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, “Tornichio’s legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual’s taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities,” and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.


“[T]he frivolous argument that wages are not income ‘has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.’ Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985); Bey v. New York, 164 F.3d 617, 617 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code clearly defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived,’ which includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services. 26 U.S.C. section 61(a); 26 C.F.R. section 1,61-2(a). The plaintiffs erroneously rely on cases that have defined the scope of corporate income to argue that non-corporate income is not taxable. ‘To the contrary, . . . many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”’ Tornichio [v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999)], 1998 WL 381304, at *3 (citations omitted). The plaintiffs’ claim that they are owed a refund because they had no tax liability for the years 1993 through 1996 is therefore foreclosed by well-established law.” Gavigan v. United States, 87 AFTR2d ¶2001-480, No. 3:99CV697 (DJS) (D.Conn. 11/30/2000), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed).


“One of the bases for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can only be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the law.” Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003).

See also, Rennie v. Internal Revenue Service, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1083 (E.D. Cal. 2002), (plaintiff’s “zero” return was frivolous when based on his argument that his wages were not derived from corporate activity); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985); Gattuso v. Pecorella, 733 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1984); Jones v. Commissioner, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003).

Anticollectivist
11-01-2015, 05:30 PM
These arcane discretionary legal arguments prove just how convoluted, ridiculous and wasteful (of valuable resources that could otherwise be used productively) the income tax laws are. Why the hell are Americans so ignorant and gullible in believing that the state is somehow more deserving and better at deciding how to distribute and use valuable resources and running our economy than the free market system? People prove time and time again how they are both individually and collectively completely illogical and absolutely insane.

Anticollectivist
11-01-2015, 05:45 PM
More important than the legality of the federal income tax laws is the economics of it - its just horribly insane economics. And more important than the economics of it is the morality of it. Its just a blatant form of collective theft and oppression by the government and is undeniably ethically and morally wrong.

ChristianAnarchist
11-02-2015, 02:10 PM
Instead of displaying how ignorant you are, why don't you read some of the cases and find out just how the courts have defined "income"?

Early on, the courts defined income as "a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207 (1919).

Later, when faced with a type of receipt that didn't fit the above definition (punitive damages received in an antitrust suit), the Supreme Court characterized income as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

On the specific claim that "income" is limited to corporate profit, the courts have indeed addressed it and uniformly rejected the argument as frivolous:

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (4) the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution is either invalid or applies only to corporations....” Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

“Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens.” Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 296 (1998)

“Plaintiff argues ‘income’ should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED”. See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton’s Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on “every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources”. Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position.” Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999). In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, “Tornichio’s legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual’s taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities,” and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.


“[T]he frivolous argument that wages are not income ‘has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.’ Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985); Bey v. New York, 164 F.3d 617, 617 (2d Cir. 1998). Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code clearly defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived,’ which includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services. 26 U.S.C. section 61(a); 26 C.F.R. section 1,61-2(a). The plaintiffs erroneously rely on cases that have defined the scope of corporate income to argue that non-corporate income is not taxable. ‘To the contrary, . . . many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”’ Tornichio [v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), aff’d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999)], 1998 WL 381304, at *3 (citations omitted). The plaintiffs’ claim that they are owed a refund because they had no tax liability for the years 1993 through 1996 is therefore foreclosed by well-established law.” Gavigan v. United States, 87 AFTR2d ¶2001-480, No. 3:99CV697 (DJS) (D.Conn. 11/30/2000), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed).


“One of the bases for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can only be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the law.” Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003).

See also, Rennie v. Internal Revenue Service, 216 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 1083 (E.D. Cal. 2002), (plaintiff’s “zero” return was frivolous when based on his argument that his wages were not derived from corporate activity); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985); Gattuso v. Pecorella, 733 F.2d 709 (9th Cir. 1984); Jones v. Commissioner, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003).

Sorry that you are unable to understand the statement and the argument. The courts have never defined "income"... Please let this sink in. You cannot define "income" saying it's "income". Can you see this? Saying that income is "gain" or that it pertains to "taxpayers" does not in any way help with the definition of "income" since it was properly defined as corporate profit. Of course lawyers use word trickery to fool people who rely on "common" definitions. Ok, it's "gain". Gain is when you get something ABOVE what you gave. It is not an "EXCHANGE" for things of equal value or for something that is a loss. For you to say that when someone pays me $15 for an hour of my existence is to say that my existence is worthless (I could make the same claim about yours). Clearly exchanging labor for money is not "gain" unless you are a corporation that deals in "labor" (like Manpower). Then you can get a "profit" from someones labor by charging more than you pay them (the tax returns of Manpower incorporated clearly claim this).

Then there's that pesky term "taxpayer"... Who is legally defined as a "taxpayer"? This is another issue entirely and we can go into that if you like...

Sonny Tufts
11-03-2015, 07:40 AM
The courts have never defined "income"... Please let this sink in.

I just cited you two SCOTUS cases in which it was defined. Let that sink in.


Saying that income is "gain" or that it pertains to "taxpayers" does not in any way help with the definition of "income" since it was properly defined as corporate profit.

Income has never been defined as corporate profit.


Of course lawyers use word trickery to fool people who rely on "common" definitions.

No, it is ignorant tax protesters (a redundant term) who try to take a word like "income" and ignore its everyday meaning by limiting it to corporate profit.


For you to say that when someone pays me $15 for an hour of my existence is to say that my existence is worthless (I could make the same claim about yours).

In tax law, gain is not measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the value of what one relinquishes. It's generally measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the cost of what one relinquishes. Since you didn't pay anything for your labor, your gain is the entire $15. Look at it this way: if you bought stock for $1000 and later when it was trading at $30,000 you swapped it for a car worth $30,000, you'd clearly have $29,000 in gain.

The argument that compensation for work isn't income is probably the most frivolous, consistently-rejected argument that tax protesters come up with.

ChristianAnarchist
11-03-2015, 08:12 AM
I just cited you two SCOTUS cases in which it was defined. Let that sink in.



Income has never been defined as corporate profit.



No, it is ignorant tax protesters (a redundant term) who try to take a word like "income" and ignore its everyday meaning by limiting it to corporate profit.



In tax law, gain is not measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the value of what one relinquishes. It's generally measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the cost of what one relinquishes. Since you didn't pay anything for your labor, your gain is the entire $15. Look at it this way: if you bought stock for $1000 and later when it was trading at $30,000 you swapped it for a car worth $30,000, you'd clearly have $29,000 in gain.

The argument that compensation for work isn't income is probably the most frivolous, consistently-rejected argument that tax protesters come up with.

"Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909,'

And...

"Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . ."

Don't tell me pal, tell the S.C. (oh right, those guys who made that decision are dead now...)

And lets not forget the MORAL aspect of the income tax. I don't care what the "supreme court" says if what they say is immoral in my belief. Morality is above the S.C. and if you don't believe that then you would have to agree that slavery was once "correct".

I've stated since the beginning here that these "arguments", however correct, will get you thrown in jail - not because they are WRONG but because the goons don't give a damn about right or wrong, they only care about what the head goon is telling them to do and they will kill you to accomplish their goal...

Sonny Tufts
11-03-2015, 09:39 AM
"Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909,'

And...

"Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . ."

Don't tell me pal, tell the S.C. (oh right, those guys who made that decision are dead now...)

Nothing you posted supports your or Schiff's claims. That's because, like most tax protesters who have not been educated in legal analysis, you take quotes out of context and wave them around as if they apply to all possible situations.

Take the Macomber case. How did it view the definition of income? I've already cited the relevant language: "a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined" See any "corporate profit" qualifying language there? I don't either. In fact, if income means only corporate profit, the Court could have decided the case on that point, since the person whose taxes were at issue (Mrs. Macomber) wasn't a corporation. But it didn't, for the simple reason that "income" isn't so limited. The same thing can be said of the Smietanka case -- the issue was whether certain income was taxable to a trust, and the Court held that it was. But a trust isn't a corporation, so anyone who cites that case for the proposition that only corporate profit is taxable hasn't a clue.

Take the Pollock case, in which the Supreme Court was very careful to limit its holding to income from property such as interest, dividends, and rents and in which it recognized the validity of a tax on the income from laboring: "We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such."

Want more? Consider these SCOTUS observations:


“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

“Wages usually are income ....” Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).

“[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).

“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).” United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Later in the same opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the compensation received by the taxpayers as “the wages properly due them - wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable.” 504 U.S. at 241.

“It [I.R.C. section 104, relating to compensation for personal injuries] also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say, for lost wages, which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.” O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996).

“Even if we suppose that strike benefits are made to compensate in a sense for the loss of wages, the principle of payments in compensation does not apply because the thing compensated for, the wages, had they been received, would have been included in gross income.” United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 311 (1960).

“It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek’ s understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.” Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 204 (1991)

For other cases, see http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

I don't make moral arguments, and neither do 99% of the tax protesters. All I am doing is dispelling the crackpot arguments Schiff and others make in trying to con people into believing that the law as written doesn't oblige them to pay income taxes in general or upon their compensation for work in particular.

Weston White
11-10-2015, 11:21 AM
I just cited you two SCOTUS cases in which it was defined. Let that sink in.

And yet you so utterly misconstrue the context. More interestingly however is that the USSC has to date refused to review any federal income tax cases involving plain old Mr. and Mrs. Jones or John Q. Citizen.


Income has never been defined as corporate profit.

Yes, it was originally defined in 1909 and later referenced by the USSC post 1913.


No, it is ignorant tax protesters (a redundant term) who try to take a word like "income" and ignore its everyday meaning by limiting it to corporate profit.
So people that protest against taxes are automatically also ignorant? No, only those whom are truly ignorant would dare espouse such nonsense in public.

The principle of in pari materia clearly sets forth the concept of constitutionally taxable income (or ‘incomes’) and income that is not taxable under the U.S. Constitution—without apportionment.


In tax law, gain is not measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the value of what one relinquishes. It's generally measured by the difference between the value of what one gets and the cost of what one relinquishes. Since you didn't pay anything for your labor, your gain is the entire $15. Look at it this way: if you bought stock for $1000 and later when it was trading at $30,000 you swapped it for a car worth $30,000, you'd clearly have $29,000 in gain.

The value of the laborer is established by their right to work, the quid pro quo that has been set forth within their employment contract. In tax law gain references a positive return by chance, such as lottery winnings or stock gains, as opposed to profits, which references the positive return after deducting costs.

In your example, you reference stock at $1,000 and a car at $30,000 why so?

What about that stock makes it valued at $1,000, it is only a few certified pieces of paper after all that likely cost less than a $1 to physically produce?

What about the car makes it valued at $30,000, as it only cost the manufacturer about $2,000 to park it on the dealership floor?

Now, see how that relates to the employer-employee relationship? (Don’t fret I am not holding my breath.)


The argument that compensation for work isn't income is probably the most frivolous, consistently-rejected argument that tax protesters come up with.

It really depends on what the context of compensation is (i.e., bona fide gains and profits through the conversion of tangible, marketable assets versus an equal exchange or quid pro quo), which is why the IRC is the most convoluted, atrocious, corrupted, incomprehensible body of law ever devised by all of mankind.


I don't make moral arguments, and neither do 99% of the tax protesters.

Of course you don’t. Really, how could you even dare to when you so completely defend a system that allowed an elderly man rot away in prison; that failed to provide him adequate medical care; and that awaited his death while he remained chained to his bed frame withering away nearly blind and very sickly? All for what exactly? For murdering others? For raping young children? For beating women? For leaving families indigent? No, only for attempting to get others to think for themselves, to take interest in and question their government, and for not wanting to pay a single class of tax--i.e., income taxes. May God eternally damn him for that! Isn’t that right you seriously disturbed asshole?


All I am doing is dispelling the crackpot arguments Schiff and others make in trying to con people into believing that the law as written doesn't oblige them to pay income taxes in general or upon their compensation for work in particular.

No, you are doing nothing more than quailing political dissent so as to chill freedom of individual thought and expression. You are a tool of the worst classification. You fool nobody, but those within your circle of fools.

ChristianAnarchist
11-10-2015, 12:30 PM
I don't make moral arguments, and neither do 99% of the tax protesters. All I am doing is dispelling the crackpot arguments Schiff and others make in trying to con people into believing that the law as written doesn't oblige them to pay income taxes in general or upon their compensation for work in particular.

No you don't. What you do is copy and paste from the IRS propaganda. In the cases you cited they ALL refer back to "income" as defined in the corporate income tax act. In that act it defines income to include "corporate profit". Since it does not further define it, you cannot simply ASSUME that it includes also x, y and z. In most of your other cites they use wording like "income is defined as income..." Do you see any problem with that partial sentence? You cannot define a word with itself (unless you are the IRS or the courts trying to defend their immoral tax)...

Is slavery illegal or is it not? How about "involuntary servitude"? How much "servitude" does it take to be "servitude"? Is there some tiny amount of servitude that would be defined as "not servitude"? How then can anyone justify the stealing of even 1% of a persons "labor"? This is WHY the legal goons must use confusing wording to fool people into "voluntarily" paying this slavery tax. Of course even if the courts WERE to make the bogus claim that "wages" are "income" it would not be any more valid than when they agreed with slavery. After all, involuntary servitude is another form of slavery. Make me be your "servant" for 1% of my time and it's still IMMORAL.

dannno
11-10-2015, 12:42 PM
Sonny, it seems to me that the common definition of "income" is contradictory and flawed. It has become a bastardized term with no real meaning.

Gross income - "A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold."

Net income - "...calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses."

These can be seen on a document entitled the "Income Statement" of a business, which takes into account both revenue and costs. Money generated by the business is called revenue, and then costs are deducted to determine income.

However, for individuals costs are not considered. "Deductions" are considered, but not true costs. It costs people money to position themselves to survive and continue to work day in and day out, so why aren't these costs subtracted from a person's revenue in order to determine their true income?

ChristianAnarchist
11-10-2015, 12:45 PM
Sonny, it seems to me that the common definition of "income" is contradictory and flawed. It has become a bastardized term with no real meaning.

Gross income - "A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold."

Net income - "...calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses."

These can be seen on a document entitled the "Income Statement" of a business, which takes into account both revenue and costs. Money generated by the business is called revenue, and then costs are deducted to determine income.

However, for individuals costs are not considered. "Deductions" are considered, but not true costs. It costs people money to position themselves to survive and continue to work day in and day out, so why aren't these costs subtracted from a person's revenue in order to determine their true income?

Oooo, ooooo, I know Mr. Kotter... Call on me... It's because they are a bunch of goons...

Peace&Freedom
11-10-2015, 04:11 PM
No you don't. What you do is copy and paste from the IRS propaganda. In the cases you cited they ALL refer back to "income" as defined in the corporate income tax act. In that act it defines income to include "corporate profit". Since it does not further define it, you cannot simply ASSUME that it includes also x, y and z. In most of your other cites they use wording like "income is defined as income..." Do you see any problem with that partial sentence? You cannot define a word with itself (unless you are the IRS or the courts trying to defend their immoral tax)...

This language deception is one heart of the issue. But another is simply honoring the passing of a tax honesty leader who raised these issues. It is really sad how a thread that is supposed to pay respects to Schiff got turned into a Schiff bashing session by one poster. The tax dishonesty side literally won't even stop a minute to honor the dead, or at least acknowledge other tax truth figures who have won against the IRS (Tom Cryer, Joe Banister, et al). There is no respect or honesty on the dishonesty side.

Sonny Tufts
11-10-2015, 04:47 PM
In the cases you cited they ALL refer back to "income" as defined in the corporate income tax act. In that act it defines income to include "corporate profit".

Wrong. The 1909 Act never defined income as corporate profit. In fact, the Act never defined income. You need to understand that the 1909 Act was not an income tax; it was an excise tax on corporations measured by net income above a threshold amount. The Supreme Court defined "income" in three early cases (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913), Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 (1920), and Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921)) as "gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined". Since the latter two cases didn't involve corporate taxpayers, the definition isn't restricted to corporate profit. Let me reemphasize this point: neither Mrs. Macomber nor the trust in the Smietanka case were corporations. If income were limited to corporate profit, the Court would have decided the cases on that basis. But it didn't. In fact, the trust lost its case, and its income was held to be taxable. It never ceases to amaze me how tax protesters continue to cite this case to support their moronic claim that only corporate income is taxable.

The Court later expanded the definition of income to include a type of receipt that didn't fit within the prior definition -- punitive damage awards. In holding that such receipts were income the Court described them as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, over which the taxpayers have complete dominion". See Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955). In none of these cases is there the slightest hint that income is limited to corporate profit.

Sonny Tufts
11-10-2015, 04:56 PM
However, for individuals costs are not considered. "Deductions" are considered, but not true costs. It costs people money to position themselves to survive and continue to work day in and day out, so why aren't these costs subtracted from a person's revenue in order to determine their true income?

Here's one court's explanation:


[Taxpayers'] principal argument is that Congress, by denying deductions for personal, living, and family expenses in the computation of taxable income, has exceeded its authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to lay and collect taxes on "incomes." The cornerstone of petitioners' argument is the definition of income stated by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." They argue that the "gain" from labor cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor," i.e., their expenditures at issue, has been subtracted from the amount received from the sale of labor. Petitioners attempt to support their method of arriving at the figure reflecting "income" which may constitutionally be taxed by analogizing the "living expenses" of one who depends upon the sale of his services for his livelihood to the "cost of goods sold" concept in certain business contexts... Appeal is made to history and philosophy and to analysis of legal, social, and economic concepts, none of which leads, however, to the result they seek.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to respond to arguments such as petitioners have put forth without becoming embroiled in a game of semantics. The logical force requiring rejection of their arguments -- apart from their assertions of personal political philosophy which do not provide a basis for us, a Court sitting to interpret the law, to decide the questions dispositive of this case -- is essentially a matter of the definition of terms. Thus, should we hold that "gain" is an essential element of income... we would still face the problem of defining what constitutes "gain." ... It is in situations like this that one can truly admire the wisdom of Mr. Justice Holmes, in particular, as he expressed in United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 (1931), "We see nothing to be gained by the discussion of judicial definitions." n4

n4 That petitioners place too much reliance upon the words used to define income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1920), is aptly demonstrated by Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955), where, at page 431, the Court rejected those words as "a touchstone to all future gross income questions."

Nevertheless, accepting the conclusion that some kind of "gain" must be realized for there to be income, the flaw in petitioners' analogy of what they call the "cost of doing labor" to the "cost of goods sold" concept -- essentially its failure to acknowledge the difference between people and property -- may be shown. The "cost of goods sold" concept embraces expenditures necessary to acquire, construct or extract a physical product which is to be sold; the seller can have no gain until he recovers the economic investment that he has made directly in the actual item sold... Labor, on the other hand, is, in the current context, behavior performed by human beings in exchange for compensation. One's living expenses simply cannot be his "cost" directly in the very item sold, i.e., his labor, no matter how much money he spends to satisfy his human needs and those of his family. Of course we recognize the necessity for expenditures for such items as food, shelter, clothing, and proper health maintenance. They provide both the mental and physical nourishment essential to maintain the body at a level of effectiveness that will permit its labor to be productive. We do not even deny that a certain similarity exists between the "cost of doing labor" and the "cost of goods sold" concept. But the sale of one's labor is not the same creature as the sale of property, and whether the distinction comports with petitioners' philosophical rationalization for their argument, it is recognized for Federal income tax purposes. One's gain, ergo his "income," from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.
Reading v. Commisisoner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978)(citations omitted)

Sonny Tufts
11-10-2015, 05:06 PM
other tax truth figures who have won against the IRS (Tom Cryer, Joe Banister, et al). There is no respect or honesty on the dishonesty side.

Although Cryer and Banister were acquitted in their criminal cases, both lost big time in civil proceedings (in Cryer's case it was his estate that lost, as he died during the pendency of the case). In addition, Banister was prohibited from practicing before the IRS, and California revoked his CPA license because of the bogus advice he gave his clients. He recently had a judgment rendered against him for tax deficiencies of $179,786.00, plus section 6651(a)(2) penalties for failure to timely pay of $44,946.50, plus section 6651(f) penalties for fraudulent failure to file of $130,344.86, plus penalties of $6,022.84 for failure to timely pay installments of estimated income tax. In addition the court ruled that Banister was liable for a penalty of $25,000 under Internal Revenue Code section 6673(a)(1), for engaging in frivolous litigation. Some victories.

There is no respect for con artists and crackpots who peddle demonstrably false tax avoidance theories. And I have utter disdain for the so-called "tax honesty" movement, which is characterized by outright lies about the law, including the use of phony quotations from cases.

Anticollectivist
11-10-2015, 06:10 PM
There is no respect for con artists and crackpots who peddle demonstrably false tax avoidance theories.

How anyone can be in defense of something as blatantly immoral, oppressive and unjust as Federal income taxes is just sickening. Its people like you that have helped destroy this country and make me ashamed at what this country has become. You support oppression and injustice by the state and try and make it sound like something noble. You are simply a disgusting human being and you remind me just how thankful I am I never had any children. You might be able to help oppress my life and the lives of other Americans with your pathetic support of corruption and tyranny, but at least you will never have the chance to corrupt and oppress the lives of my unborn children with your sickening support of immoral oppressive government tyranny.

Weston White
11-10-2015, 11:24 PM
Wrong. The 1909 Act never defined income as corporate profit. In fact, the Act never defined income.

Dude, seriously, heed to P&F’s posted concern and take your leave.

You keep wanting to play the potato, po-tot-o, tomato, to-mot-o game, and yet you keep loosing it:

In Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103, 107-108 (1932): “In interpreting the Corporation Tax Law of 1909... That act imposed an excise tax on corporations, measured by their income. … Although these cases arose under the Act of 1909, before the enactment of the capital gains provision in the 1921 Act, they established, for purposes of defining “income”… And, before the 1921 Act, this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 252 U. S. 207), what it later held -- that “income,” as used in the revenue acts taxing income adopted since the Sixteenth Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.”

And in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 (1918): “We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 247 U.S. 179, and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 247 U.S. 189), the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term “gross income,” and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.”

Also in United States v. Whitridge, 231 U.S. 144, 147 (1913): “As repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909 … imposed an excise or privilege tax, and not in any sense a tax upon property or upon income merely as income.”

44 Cong. Rec. House, 4420, July 12, 1909: “The income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share.”

44 Cong. Rec. House, 4423, July 12, 1909: “Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, on the 22d day of June, 1870, while in the Senate, speaking against the repeal of the then income-tax law, said, in part: … The income tax is simply an assessment upon a man according to his ability to pay— according to his annual gains. What tax could be more just in theory? . . .

Senator Morton, of Indiana, in the second session of the Forty-first Congress, speaking against the repeal of the income tax, said: … * * * The income tax is, of all others, the most just and equitable, because it is the truest measure that has yet been found of the productive property of the country. * * * But, sir, when you tax a man on his income, it is because his property is productive. He pays out of his abundance because he has got the abundance. If to pay his income tax is a misfortune, it is because he has the misfortune to have the income upon which it is paid. * * *”


The Court later expanded the definition of income to include a type of receipt that didn't fit within the prior definition -- punitive damage awards. In holding that such receipts were income the Court described them as "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, over which the taxpayers have complete dominion".

And which has zero correlation to the competency of labors; however, is perfectly consistent with the mechanical workings of corporate privileges, entrepreneurship, and the like.


Some victories.
Oh yes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a system of justice that can just keep coming after an objector, pulling whatever criminal and civil charges out from their endless bag of goodies to burden, defame, exhaust, and harass them literally into their grave. Sure, sure.


Here's one court's explanation:

Oh goody a surprise leprechaun! You quoted to yet another pro per Tax Court case! So when are the unicorns, fluffy clouds, and blissful-ignorance injections due to arrive?

In the meanwhile, it is worth realizing that value is synonymous with both cost and price.


There is no respect for con artists and crackpots who peddle demonstrably false tax avoidance theories. And I have utter disdain for the so-called "tax honesty" movement, which is characterized by outright lies about the law, including the use of phony quotations from cases.

No doubt, that much is obvious. Still, have you ever considered common decency or courtesy?

No, clearly you and your ilk deeply admire their unjustified and prejudiced mistreatment. You people are malevolent wackos that view yourself above others because you have an initial or two after your names. Seriously, if you want to really enjoy a caste society then expatriate yourselves to the UK; truly, they would love you all over there—and I bet you somebody like you would get knighted in no time!

The THM is similar to Truthers or JFK conspiracy theorists in that we all know something is very,very, extremely wrong with our present formof governance that we are being systematically deceived—we just have varying notions on explaining the precise details, motives, and remedies (which is perfectly natural.)

(Apropos, for myself I am not lying and do not use phony quotations from cases or other authorities.)

ChristianAnarchist
11-10-2015, 11:25 PM
This language deception is one heart of the issue. But another is simply honoring the passing of a tax honesty leader who raised these issues. It is really sad how a thread that is supposed to pay respects to Schiff got turned into a Schiff bashing session by one poster. The tax dishonesty side literally won't even stop a minute to honor the dead, or at least acknowledge other tax truth figures who have won against the IRS (Tom Cryer, Joe Banister, et al). There is no respect or honesty on the dishonesty side.

Right you are. This goon lover is here trying to distract from the honor due a great man. I for one am through giving him a platform. I will not respond to him and I hope he has a great time with his goon friends at the IRS. What a bunch of immoral bastards...

Irwin Schiff. R.I.P.

Sonny Tufts
11-11-2015, 01:50 PM
You support oppression and injustice by the state and try and make it sound like something noble.

I don't say that our tax system is a good thing. I simply say what the law is, not what it ought to be. Your paranoia and ignorance are warping your outlook.


You are simply a disgusting human being and you remind me just how thankful I am I never had any children.

That's good news for the gene pool.

Anticollectivist
11-11-2015, 04:07 PM
I don't say that our tax system is a good thing. I simply say what the law is, not what it ought to be. Your paranoia and ignorance are warping your outlook.



That's good news for the gene pool.

Your comments are quite predictable. Whether money is extorted by a single individual or done collectively through a corrupt unconstitutional system of mobocracy its both morally wrong. Actually the way the state does it is much worse because they do it much more dishonestly and much more destructively to the economy and society. If you were to try to steal money from me personally I would shoot you dead and justifiably so. But by you collaborating to do it with the help of the state Im supposed to just pay what is demanded of me and extorted from me and if I even voice an objection to it then I get lectured and ridiculed by an unethical immoral statist such as you. Your shameless arrogance and blatantly immoral convictions are a disgusting and sickening contribution to society.

You can feed on the brains of your children and other collectively complacent idiots of this country like the disgusting shit eating maggot you are till eventually this country will be filled with incestuous mind controlled obedient servants to the state that will all both figuratively and literally fuck yourselves to death. Subjecting any children of mine to a disgusting world with immoral people like you and your seed is unconscionable.

But then again, once the USD crisis begins and more and more people finally realize the world of economic insanity and corrupt oppression we are living in then there might just be a growing number of dissenters to this oppressive corrupt state that you seem to be such a mind controlled obedient servant to. And just maybe someday people will finally begin to realize that freedom and justice can never be obtained through any sort of statism and that the most noble patriotic endeavor for a citizen is to fight against corrupt government tyranny - not fight in support of it.

Weston White
11-11-2015, 09:42 PM
I don't say that our tax system is a good thing.

Actually, when applied in its proper legal context, it is a really prudent method of taxation. Save for the fact that it was established as a war-tax, is imposed to generate revenue that is to be expended on things that are entirely outside of Congress's power to tax (e.g., militarizing local police; funding undeclared, extraconstitutional wars; commanding and funding foreign nations; installing dictators; datamining citizens; manipulating public education, medical care, and social justice programs; subjugating citizens and punishing or rewarding certain activities in support of political agendas; etc.), and its tax-rates are established vastly too high.


I simply say what the law is, not what it ought to be.

Negative, you simply state how the IRS wanton misinterprets the law. It is a tax upon realized wealth, not a tax upon mere competency.


Your paranoia and ignorance are warping your outlook.

Boo!


That's good news for the gene pool.

Declasse.