Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 351

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

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Mr. Evans’ “analysis” on the matter presently held in debate is itself a fallacy fulfillment of inaccuracy. His “Tax Protester FAQ” is a contrivance of warped reckoning.
    Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.

    4. Presuming that the federal income tax was intended to tax the source as well as its growth, then it is still an unconstitutional method of taxation, as even though apportionment be not required, the requirement for exigent circumstances is withstanding under such a direct form of taxation upon such sources, aside from the indirect taxing of the source’s growth.
    The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What you mean is that you read into the statute whatever language is necessary to support your preconceived anti-tax position.
    1. No, that is not it at all, one need only to read the respective statutes, while you -a Mr. Skull & Bones wannabe- seem to be wanting a header entitled “Taxable Privileges” or something to that effect. That is simply not the case nor is it a necessity, as the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.
    2. I am not “anti-tax”, I am hole-heartedly truth-in-taxation. I do not believe the IRS or the XVI Amendment, etc. need be abolished; only that employees of the IRS be mandated and personally held accountable through an empowered external oversight committee (that the public could readily file complaints with from within their regional service areas) to serve their public honestly, forthright, and with the upmost respect, while becomingly properly trained, and the XVI be enforced properly within its lawful scope. Because at this point in time none of the above is the case, e.g., IRS employees have zero knowledge about their agencies own regulatory procedures, don’t adhere to their own “Taxpayer Bill of Rights I/II” whatsoever, and aside from code processing under AMIS, IMF, etc., could care less what their own IRM states as to the fair, impartial, and unbiased treatment of individuals filing submissions with their myriad of offices.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You are incorrect. The tax base is called "taxable income".
    Wrong, the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Income taxes are not direct taxes; they are excises. The only case that has ever held that an income tax was a direct tax was the 1895 Pollock case, and even there the Supreme Court limited its holding to investment income. Taxes on wages and personal earnings have never been held to be direct taxes. In any event the 16th Amendment did away with the apportionment requirement for all income taxes.
    1. Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation. Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.
    2. In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.
    3. Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.
    4. It is quite clear that you hold neither any regard nor consideration as to the relational aspects between the source of the taxable activity (itself) and its taxable emanation, i.e., seeking to tax the “shadow” is indifferent than taxing the “source” from where it had derived, that is until that shadow has itself been severed from the source (by realizing its own increment in value through a bona fide ‘gain’ or ‘profit’).
    5. No matter how you slice it, mince it, or dice it, or what shade of gray you desire to paint it, such a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation. The context throughout Pollock clarifies this without a doubt, while your own falsehoods of what was meant by a few references here and there concerning professional employments, trades, occupations, etc., discredits only yourself; clearly the context was one of entrepreneurialism and not one of absolutely necessity in the continuance of life and family.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  4. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, you continue to fail to cite any inaccuracies on Mr. Evans' site. This isn't surprising, since there aren't any.
    No, rather I have exercised my right to do so within my own writings, indirectly. If you think I am going to read through a 250,000 Webpage of complete hullabaloo and break it down for you line by line, then you are most certainly insane -besides by Mr. Evans’ own disclaimer located at the very top of that Webpage, he himself holds little credence in his very own work. While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

    But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution doesn't require "exigent circumstances". Really, you should take time to actually read the language of the Constitution instead of trying to insert into it stuff that isn't there.
    Heh, so you think I have not read our U.S. Constitution (including our respective-fundamental documents)? Reading something is one thing, while researching it and revering it is something entirely different.

    Clearly you know less than I had originally given you credit for. The point in which you had feebly refuted was addressed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 566 (1895), therein while addressing the intended application of ‘direct taxes’, it was noted: “Id. 93. And John Adams, Dawes, Sumner, King, and Sedgwick all agreed that a direct tax would be the last source of revenue resorted to by Congress.” Reflected upon further at 157 U.S. 429, 574: “… That the original expectation was that the power of direct taxation would be exercised only in extraordinary exigencies…” And moreover noted at 157 U.S. 429, 564 and also in 158 U.S. 601, 606 (1895); 3 U.S. 171, 180 (1796). See also, Alexander Hamilton’s statements within Federalist Papers: No. 36, Para. 16 and No. 79, Para. 1.


    Perhaps now might be an appropriate time for you to heed to ever-wise words:

    I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.” - H.L. Mencken
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  5. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    the taxable activities and such other privileges have been encoded within the federal income tax statutes, be they inclusive to such specifically enumerated/numerated items or not.
    The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.

    the starting point is in fact ‘gross income’, it is that ‘gross income’ less one’s ‘adjusted gross income’ that determines their ‘taxable income’; originally this process was simplified under ‘net income’.
    Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.

    Excises are not taxes upon individual right or necessity, but upon privilege and benefit, as public charges sought through powers of internal taxation.
    Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.

    Neither, never have excise taxes been intended to impose tax upon livelihoods, laboring, subsistence earning, or any semblance thereof.
    More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.

    In England (from whence our entire legal system is based from) income taxes were understood to be a direct form of taxation.
    Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.

    Concerning Pollock you are being very dishonest, for the court had clarified that a tax levied upon real estate, or rents or incomes deriving from real estate, or upon personal property, or incomes deriving from personal property, were likewise ‘direct taxes’; thereby requiring apportionment.
    No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings:

    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...

    According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by a r the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole. Pollock
    a tax upon one’s essential livelihood, labor, or sustenance is and always has been correctly a personal tax (i.e., a capitation upon one’s personalty), and thereby requiring apportionment. There is simply no evidence providing exception to this rule in the ratification of the XVI Amendment or within any prior tax legislation.
    Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.

  6. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    While not intending to appear too “braggy”, clearly and unequivocally I decimate many of the key points being argued pros by Mr. Evans within his contrived “Tax Protester FAQ”, so really you ought not to flatter yourself too much on that point.

    But really, why are you so interested in his FAQ, are you in fact Quatloser! member “LPC” himself? Common admit to it, it’s alright, I promise to not look down on you anymore than I already do, really.
    Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

    I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

    I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

    Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.

  7. #126

    Default

    ROFL, aww, it seems that I have gravely upset the poor lil' black sheep, or did a certain somebody wake up a little cranky this morning... hehehe.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  8. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The only "taxable activity" required to trigger the income tax is the receipt of income, whether it involves a privilege or not.
    Negative, although I believe you had meant to state that under the individual income tax, the receipt of ‘gross income’ is the privilege to be taxed. Earning an honest livelihood is a core right to exist, while the participation in privileges and receipt of benefits are not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, you haven't a clue. Taxable income is gross income less allowable deductions and personal exemptions. Adjusted gross income is gross income minus what are called "above the line" deductions, such as moving expenses, student loan interest, and alimony paid. All other deductions are "below the line" and enter into the calculation of taxable income.
    Oh really now, well in any case, the point you made is one that is very apparent. For if an individual has nothing to “adjust”, they then have no ‘adjusted gross income’; just the same if they are below the threshold of having ‘gross income’ then it stands they have no ‘taxable income’ to be reported either, save for their forced withholdings under bondage:

    26 USC Sec. 62: “(a) General rule
    For purposes of this subtitle, the term “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus the following deductions: …”

    26 USC Sec. 63: “(a) In general
    Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
    (b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions
    In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize his deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means adjusted gross income, minus—
    (1) the standard deduction, and
    (2) the deduction for personal exemptions provided in section 151.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Balderdash. A person has the right to dispose of his property by gift -- that is one of the rights of private property. Yet the gift tax is an excise. There is no privilege involved whatsoever.
    This analogy of yours is perhaps one of the dumbest cockamamie things I have yet to have seen posted on the Internet. Geez, you should be embarrassed at yourself! Such is however, a benefit to the recipient, just the same as succession and gambling/wagering taxes, etc. Neither is the disposing of property inclusive of it being a gift unto another, while owning and possessing property is not the same as transferring ownership of that property and neither is the public use of that property, (e.g., driving one’s car around on public property or charging fares for rides to various public destinations, etc.) Otherwise, everybody could evade most all taxation simply by labeling it as a gift or bequest. Moreover, taxes upon gifts are not income taxes (that is at least until the gift has itself realized its possessor a bona fide gain or profit), they are just that “gift taxes”; so your comparison is ultimately a moot point, regardless.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    More balderdash. The law has never said that a tax on income needed for one's subsistence is a direct tax or that there is a floor above which the tax becomes an excise.
    More misdirection on your part as floor or ceiling sums, figures, and amounts have nothing to do with the given method or mode of the indirect income tax being sought. Moreover, it has never been the intention of any taxing statutes to tax at the ‘source’, that being one’s capital, principal, or stock; as it was stated in Pollock that contracts, personalty, occupations, and the like were never considered appropriate subjects of direct taxation, with slaves being the only exception under ‘capitation taxes’. Regardless, even if such was intended to be the case then it would stand that this very principle would apply to all citizens protected by the XIV Amendment and such other fundamental rights to life, liberty, and sought after happiness.

    You seem to hold a grave desire to confabulate a non-existent connection between profiting from one’s occupation within a professional or enterprising capacity and acquiring a basic means of livelihood from one’s occupation within a subordinate-employee capacity. There is a crisp distinction between the two. By the by, the former very likely lives in a fanciful 5,000 sq. ft. house, hires weekly housekeeping, and drives a luxury import vehicle (or two) to and from work each day, while dressing in designer suits, and regularly enjoys fine dinning and extravagant vacations; while the latter lives their life always and forever dependant on credit and loan debt, rents a too small and overpriced apartment, townhouse, or condo, and drives a used domestic car that barely passes its smog test, while wearing clothing from whatever local outlet superstore that offers them the best savings, and considers dinner at Sizzler or IHOP a rare luxury and vacationing at all is but a distant dream.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Yes, and the Supreme Court has rejected this characterization in construing the direct tax clause in the Constitution.
    If that had actually been the case then we would have no XVI Amendment. As however, such was in fact the case; for respective clarity had been realized within the Pollock case. Namely that a uniform tax being sought upon what had directly emanated from a source, which itself would have required apportionment (so being a direct tax) is correctly in either instance a tax thereby requiring apportionment -which consequently was the sole intent of the XVI Amendment, to cross-cancel that common law effect, by discarding all consideration to the source from whence the realization of the ‘net income’ hath emanated.

    Also see:
    direct tax - “A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.”
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#D

    indirect tax - “A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.”
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#I


    19 CFR § 351.102 [Customs Duties] Definitions.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Act. “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    (16) Direct tax. “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.

    (28) Indirect tax. “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, it is you who are being dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that the Pollock decision recognized the validity of a tax on wages and personal earnings: …
    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong… You’re wrong! You’re wrong! You’re wrong!

    1. That quotation is referring to gains and profits from business and enterprise, never does it refer to general wages, laboring, livelihood, or any such other thing or likeness as you have wrongfully asserted.
    2. The quote clearly states “… gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments …”
    3. Merely earning a livelihood is engaging none of: (1) a business, (2) a privilege, nor (3) “employments” within the very obvious context of the included paragraph.
    4. Merely earning a livelihood does not, at least in most all instances, realize or bring in any of a ‘gain’ or ‘profit’, but merely sustenance or a livelihood.
    5. As to the above quotation, during that entire reference in time the exemption amount was set so far beyond what the general populace could have possibly ever earned within a given tax period that the average day laborer would have never had to of worried or lent any consideration to the federal income tax, whatsoever, and so neither would the Justices have crossed such a notion within their own findings or their thoughts, while having rendered any portion of that quotation. Ergo, your reliance on that quotation renders itself absolutely moot, as the income tax upon the essential livelihoods of the masses was never intended to be its subject that is at least until the Federal Reserve withholding scheme began to root over the entirety of the federal income tax in the 1940’s. There simply could have been no foresight rendered by the Justices to such outright, damning, and coldhearted abuses by embedded progressives through the national taxing powers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, no court in the history of the United States has ever made such a holding regarding the federal income tax. If you think there is such a case, I'd like to see it. The income tax taxes income; it does not tax labor. Under your theory, there is some magical dividing line between the amount of income needed for someone to subsist on and an surplus amount that is presumably subject to taxation. But there isn't anything in the Constitution or the statutes that says that there is such a dividing line or income level. The 16th Amendment means what it says -- income taxes needn't be apportioned, period.
    1. Simply that is because the taxing of labor or one’s means of establishing a basis in achieving livelihood is not nor has ever been the appropriate subject of the federal income tax.
    2. The federal income tax does not tax “income”, it taxes ‘gross income’; if it were to tax one’s remuneration (i.e., income-capital) that would be no different from taxing that individual’s labor. Congress cannot convolute or end-run its designated powers of taxation (or whatever other powers) to bypass its constitutional constraints. Hence, to impose taxes on the shadow is to impose taxes directly on that shadow’s source; to impose taxes on a tree is to impose taxes directly on that tree’s roots.
    3. Also see Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 581 (1895) in quoting from: Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 444; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet. 435; Almy v. California, 24 How. 169; Railroad v. Jackson, 7 Wall. 262; Cook v. Pennsylvania, 97 U. S. 566; Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U. S. 326; Leloup v. Mobile, 127 U. S. 640; and Postal Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 155 U. S. 688, 698.
    4. I have no “theory” as you assert in feeble desperation, simply a myriad of facts acquired from empirically timeless sources of evidence.
    5. Once again, the present concern is not so much about the indirect taxing of ‘incomes’, or about dividing lines, sums, amounts, figures, floors, ceiling, etc., etc., etc. It is more about the still existing requirement for apportionment when directly taxing a person or their labor or livelihood, for such methods of taxation may only be accomplished through personal-capitation taxes, while meeting certain other constitutionally sound criteria. Pointedly, it is wholly improper for the federal government to snatch away $2.3-trillion without yield from its own people who are simply attempting to make a better life for themselves and their families (thereby resulting in the likely forfeiture of over 30% of most everybody’s annual ability); such a system breeds only lifelong agony, dependence, and peonage through and through, moreover, depriving our national posterity.
    6. The XVI Amendment does not state that -well, gee, at least now we know who the harebrained author of IRS Pub. 2105 is, yea you, Sonny Jim-laugh; however, it does state the following: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived,…” Now most certainly, if congress had meant to directly tax the sources of income -as opposed to what had been derived therefrom- then they would have ratified an earlier version of the Amendment that would have as fact provided them with such power; but hey guess what, they did no such thing.
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-10-2012 at 12:56 AM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  9. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.
    Well to a certain extent, you are correct; being that Evans the esquire and his banal and sophomoric “Tax Protester FAQ” are of no real consequence, entailing a true work of absolute nothingness and to that end there really is nothing for which to decimate. In any event, my arguments are in fact supported by a score of valid evidence, possessing all of the legal basis afforded to such forms of acceptable evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.
    Say what now! Not a one of you Quatfoolz! are even qualified Masters in Taxation, you are simply a short-order group of nominal JD’, CPA’, and the like all vying for that D.C. power play and hookup. And no, judges do so as to maintain their political funding for continuing their judgeship come voting time or to otherwise maintain backing for their appointment; they do so to get hired into extraordinarily high paying positions with companies such as Monsanto, Halliburton, H&R Block, Turbotax, Roche, Pfizer, Boeing, Bayer, etc., or to be hired by wealthy lobbying groups; they do so to upkeep the expectations of the status quo; they do it in support of the frivolous mantra wrought out of the “New Deal” because revering the socialist-progressive system is what they were taught all throughout their enrollment in academia; they do so as to maintain that $2.3-trillion annual gravy train with fluffy biscuit wheels; they do so as to upkeep the modernized game of the international stock and commodities markets, control commerce and GDP, enable limitless credit and loan debts, support both the federal PPT and the national Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR); they do so to keep one of the most vast pure profit professions increasing their annual revenue potential, i.e., all of the scamming vulture tax law firms located throughout America, ensuring the continuous increase in IRS funding and other such endless and nonsensical bureaucratic expanding, churning the countless private tax return filing firms, paper and ink companies, mailing fees, etc., etc., etc. Those are just some of the key reasons that they really do it.

    And if you truly and seriously believe that such was the original intent of the then proposed XVI Amendment, then you are so far past the point of being naivete that you're to the point of being fully inept. Just imagine what would have happened to the process of ratification for the XVI Amendment if during 1909-1913 the federal government went to the several states asking their residents to support this new Constitutional Amendment that will provide the national government (along with the individual states at their own accord) a new taxing power so that they might endlessly tax the private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class as little as 1% and as much as 100%, to the sole discretion and enjoyment of Congress, all so that imposts could either be greatly decreased or outright eliminated. That Amendment would have been shot down so quickly that it would have never even seen the light of dawn.

    And if you actually think that even for a moment, Ron Paul supporters are dumb enough to fall for such tact as spewed all throughout Mr. Evan’s “Tax Protester FAQ”, then perhaps it’s actually true what they say, one cannot fix another’s utter stupidity.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?
    No, not really that so much, but what does qualify me to achieve such “pontification” (as referred to by you) is being a duty bound American citizen that has taken three separate oaths to uphold our Nation’s fundamental principles, and moreover simply being a proactive and patriotic citizen that has been studying federal taxing statutes and regulations on a near fulltime basis for the last several years.

    Contrary to your above-insinuated misconceptions, our United States of America is no such aristocracy. Americans are not a people to be ruled over, while having their personal interests dictated and piecemealed by the likes of dukes, barons, knights, esquires, priests, oracles, and such others. And speaking to your earlier mention of “magic”, acquiring a diploma in higher education does not “magically” bestow super-human sorcerer type capabilities to the bearer of such a vastly overpriced and much overvalued fanciful wall-framed degree.

    In fact, the reality is that earning a degree in higher education most likely signifies that one has opted to sellout their own imagination, creativity, and individual pride for monetary wealth and professional power by wholly and mindlessly conforming to status quo expectations by permitting oneself to be assimilated into the mindset of the socialist agenda; effecting the continuance of the globally structured progressive “system”. Being a lawyer simply means that you have met the necessary requirements for taking the Bar Exam and once passed, you then meet the necessary legal requirements for representing the valid legal causes of others within the venue(s) where qualified to practice, while being duty bound by the ABA Model Rules and Standards. Ergo, a paralegal can be just as skilled in researching a specific body of law as an attorney can, and even more so; just as a law librarian can and just as any other individual that puts forth an honest effort can. For an individual’s potential is not to be defined by scholarly degrees, as that is a gift to be molded according to one’s own desires, motivations, and personal abilities.

    Tossing out the remainder of your smelly red herrings, I already have for this “Points in Support of the CFT” is power-packed full of relevant references and sources: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...file.php?id=94


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.
    No, this is not a valid assertion at all; you simply misconstrue knowledge, concern, and understanding for hubris. Meanwhile, you appreciate only absolute nothingness and nothing more.
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-09-2012 at 09:58 PM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  10. #129

    Default

    Also to those that are for a bit of reading, here is very interesting work The Memorandum, as crafted by the now rather famous attorney Tommy Cryer:

    http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...ile.php?id=102
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  11. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, you've decimated nothing. Your theories have no legal basis at all.

    I referred to Mr. Evans's FAQ simply because others visiting this site might want to read about what the law really is. Mr. Evens (by the way, I am not he) is a tax attorney with far more legal experience and knowledge than you will ever have, and his site serves a valuable function by dispelling the various frivolous arguments that tax protestors have come up with from time to time. The arguments have been rejected time and again by the courts, not because the judges are part of some massive conspiracy to hide the "real" law, not because their salaries are paid by the government, not because they are afraid they'll get audited by the IRS, and not for some other paranoid reason, but because the arguments are WRONG.

    I have read elsewhere on the Internet that you are pursuing a paralegal certificate. Do you honestly think this qualifies you to pontificate on tax law? Do you believe for one minute that you know more about tax law than the law professors and tax attorneys? Can you cite a single scholarly article that supports your arguments? Can you cite an instance where someone suceeded in avoiding taxes by using your theories?

    Mr. White, you are a classic example of hubris.
    I disagree with your assumptions.

    Attorneys are always beholden to the organizations certifying them. For example, the American Bar Association defines the standards (at least in Georgia) that would be lawyers must meet before "practicing" law as an occupation.

    Secondly, attorneys are officers of the court FIRST. If something benefits the system, it is their sworn duty to do what is in the best interests of the courts and government agencies. The fact that lawyers that worked enforcing the tax laws (i.e. IRS employees) have come out and disputed the theories YOU espouse are good enough for me to look closer into the facts.

    Just because someone holds the paperwork where bureaucrats "recognize" their ability to read and apply the law is not evidence that they can or will do so. Our system operates off of POWER not AUTHORITY. The system may have the POWER to enforce unconstitutional laws, but they lack the AUTHORITY.

    Check this out:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173

  12. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    the latter lives their life always and forever dependant on credit and loan debt, rents a too small and overpriced apartment, townhouse, or condo, and drives a used domestic car that barely passes its smog test, while wearing clothing from whatever local outlet superstore that offers them the best savings, and considers dinner at Sizzler or IHOP a rare luxury and vacationing at all is but a distant dream.
    Such a person pays no income tax under the current Code because of the standard deduction and personal exemptions and would very likely receive money in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires that such be the case. Congress could constitutionally tax his income without regard to the EITC.

    Also see:direct tax - “A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.”
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#D

    indirect tax - “A tax that can be shifted to others, such as business property taxes.”
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...glossary.jsp#I


    19 CFR § 351.102 [Customs Duties] Definitions.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Act. “Act” means the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.

    (16) Direct tax. “Direct tax” means a tax on wages, profits, interests, rents, royalties, and all other forms of income, a tax on the ownership of real property, or a social welfare charge.

    (28) Indirect tax. “Indirect tax” means a sales, excise, turnover, value added, franchise, stamp, transfer, inventory, or equipment tax, a border tax, or any other tax other than a direct tax or an import charge.
    The IRS website is wrong. The estate tax, for example, can't be shifted, yet it's an excise. Regardless of who ends up with the property, the estate must pay the tax.

    The definitions in 19 CFR are restricted to the topic of customs duties and have no bearing whatsoever on income or other taxes.

    Congress cannot convolute or end-run its designated powers of taxation (or whatever other powers) to bypass its constitutional constraints. Hence, to impose taxes on the shadow is to impose taxes directly on that shadow’s source
    Good grief, don't you know that this Pollock-type analysis is what was specifically rejected by the 16th Amendment?

    This is the text of the Amendment:
    'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

    It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense, -an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S 1, 17 (1916)
    judges do so as to maintain their political funding for continuing their judgeship come voting time or to otherwise maintain backing for their appointment
    Mr White, I would suggest you consult a basic text on civics. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and have no need for such things.

    Just imagine what would have happened to the process of ratification for the XVI Amendment if during 1909-1913 the federal government went to the several states asking their residents to support this new Constitutional Amendment that will provide the national government (along with the individual states at their own accord) a new taxing power so that they might endlessly tax the private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class as little as 1% and as much as 100%, to the sole discretion and enjoyment of Congress, all so that imposts could either be greatly decreased or outright eliminated.
    As the Brushaber decision pointed out, Congress already had the power to tax private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class. If you want more, consider:

    The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
    Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
    a paralegal can be just as skilled in researching a specific body of law as an attorney can, and even more so; just as a law librarian can and just as any other individual that puts forth an honest effort can. For an individual’s potential is not to be defined by scholarly degrees, as that is a gift to be molded according to one’s own desires, motivations, and personal abilities.
    No, Mr. White, you are profoundly wrong. Unless you understand the underlying body of law, you will not have the ability to distinguish between holdings and dictum or between cases that have a broad applicability and those that are to be confined to their specific facts. You have already demonstrated this inability in your posts. Good grief, you might as well argue that a nurse can do brain surgery just as well as a physician.

    We aren't talking about potential, but by actual ability. I might have the greatest potential in the world for mathematics, but to suggest that with that alone I can solve calculus problems if I've never studied algebra or trigonometry is absurd.

    I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy. The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.

    As far as Mr. Cryer's Memorandum is concerned, one would find better income tax advice in a treatise on 15th Century Bolivian pan flutes. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Cryer, he is currently facing income tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest of almost $2 million. His case is pending in the United States Tax Court, and it is a certainty that he will lose. The only issues are whether he will be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments (which his Memo is full of) and if so, how much.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 05-10-2012 at 02:19 PM.

  13. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.
    No he is not. I don't agree 100% with him, but I'd say he is 99% correct.
    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of apportionment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  14. #133

    Default

    Enforcer, not to state that your thoughts are incorrect, though to solidify your point, our American system of adjudication is adversarial in nature, while one’s attorney has an obligated duty to serve their clients cause with complete impartiality and objectiveness, so being zealously motivated to defend their cause; it is simply that they are limited in their tactfulness and mobility by the rules of the court and the professional expectations as set by the ABA. That is to say that one’s attorney has just as much of a duty to bring forth evidence to the court that is contrary to the position that they represent as they do to bring forth evidence that is favorable to the position that they represent; needless to say, this is obviously something that the Internet attorneys at “Quatlosia!” (et al) disregard entirely.

    For example, it would not be entirely accurate to state that a boxer or MMA fighter’s first obligations is to the referee observing their bout, but to themselves, while adhering to the “rules of the ring”; otherwise we end up with situations were overly creative people like Royce Gracie ceaselessly winning bout about prolonged bout.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  15. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Danke View Post
    No he is not. I don't agree 100% with him, but I'd say he is 99% correct.
    If I might ask, on which points do you disagree and why? TIA
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  16. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy.
    Sonny,

    I have no problem with Mr. Evans' FAQ.

    Let's look at the following cite.

    Martin v. Commissioner, 756 F.2d 38, 40 (6th Cir. 1985), aff’g. T.C. Memo. 1983-473.

    “Taxpayers’ argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer’s labors. [Citations omitted] Furthermore, § 61(a) of the Code defines gross income as ‘all income from whatever source derived, including . . . compensation for services.’ In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers’ argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous.”

    I wholeheartedly agree with the court because I understand what the court is saying.

    Mr. Martin went before the court and made a blanket statement "that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax."

    Which meant that if there was only one instance in which this was false, then his statement is without merit. And there is.

    When a taxpayer labors for himself (self-employment), there is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on his compensation.

    When a taxpayer labors for himself, he is at the same time selling a service or services to someone else. This is the only instance when compensation for labor equals compensation for services.

    In most, if not all, the cases where a laborer went to the court it was as pro se. In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.

  17. #136

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Such a person pays no income tax under the current Code because of the standard deduction and personal exemptions and would very likely receive money in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit. But there's nothing in the Constitution that requires that such be the case. Congress could constitutionally tax his income without regard to the EITC.
    Wow, really now, this was your response? What planet do you happen live on because I can tell you right now it’s not planet Earth!

    Respectively, that description I had written portrays the life of the average working American family, which by the status quo does in fact pay income taxes (amongst tons of other federal, state, and local taxes) contrary to your disconcerting disconnect on reality.

    Also, so as to your response, you stated that (1) such a person would actually owe no income tax and (2) such a person would personally benefit from the individual income tax as they would likely qualify to receive free money that ultimately came out of the pockets of other hardworking people? Should I really be so surprised at your response? …Hmm, now that one is a tuffy -heh.

    So I suppose that for individuals like you, the ongoing ACTC (Additional Child Tax Credit) abuse taking place is simply the grand result of our national taxing process coupled with progressivism desires for multicultural merging. See story at: http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...s-than-you-are

    And no Congress cannot constitutionally tax an individual’s “income” without apportionment, but only their ‘incomes’ -the latter meaning their ‘net income’ (now referred to as ‘gross/taxable income’).


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The IRS website is wrong. The estate tax, for example, can't be shifted, yet it's an excise. Regardless of who ends up with the property, the estate must pay the tax.
    Yet another real brain-buster of a response, “[t]he IRS [W]ebsite is wrong”! Yuppers, and I suppose we should all just presume that during all these many years that the “wrong” you’re asserting has been intentionally left incorrect, since that “educational” Web-portal had been launched, now several years ago; all to what ends exactly, simply to confuse all of the many, many teachers and students that visit it on a daily basis, is that right? Your assertion is beyond laughable. That is simply your answer to everything, isn’t it; for if it conforms not to your own “Quatloser!” arguments than it most certainly must be wrong, even when the source of that information is the very government that you so feverishly hold in grossly stupefied admiration?

    The estate tax is not a tax upon the “estate” itself, but upon the privilege of the government recognizing the transference of the estate, or if you like the benefit of one having received it (26 USC Sec. 2001). Moreover, the estate tax can be avoided by disclaiming it.

    By the by, so efficiently elucidated in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900): “… This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day. The definition is as follows: “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”” See also: Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930); and the many arguments made on the matter by Alexander Hamilton, et al.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The definitions in 19 CFR are restricted to the topic of customs duties and have no bearing whatsoever on income or other taxes.
    1. Those definitions were included in part within the 1930’ Tariff Act, which does bear on the federal income tax.
    2. Congress cannot alter by statutory legalese core definitions of terms already in use, play, or described within our U.S. Constitution; hence, the Legislature cannot use public law to circumvent their breadth of grants and empowerments as afforded to them by their very power to legislate for those fundaments (there are literally dozens of SCOTUS cases addressing this very issue).
    3. So according to you: (1) people like me have it wrong; (2) the IRS itself has it wrong; (3) even the Congress has gotten it wrong; and (4) people like you just always get it right. Thereby, according to you 2+2=5, up is down, black is white, direct is indirect, etc., etc., etc.

    Gee, have you ever actually stopped to consider the very likely possibly that it is really you that has it wrong?


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Good grief, don't you know that this Pollock-type analysis is what was specifically rejected by the 16th Amendment?
    Exactly, see this is the precise aspect of ‘direct’ versus ‘indirect’ taxation that your lazy-legal brain fails to comprehend. Simply, there must be an existing source, i.e., a corpus that has borne the ‘incomes’ to be indirectly taxed. For the everyday laborer their basic, essential remuneration is to become -to serve as- that very source and not until that source has itself, derived its own realized gain (or profit) it is wholly outside the prescribed taxing powers of the XVI Amendment.

    As to your quotation from Brushaber, the contextual limiter you overlooked, conveniently is: “…from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr White, I would suggest you consult a basic text on civics. Federal judges have lifetime appointments and have no need for such things.
    Sorry, my error, I was writing generally; however, that was merely one of many other reasons that I had written, and in any case there are scores of more reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    As the Brushaber decision pointed out, Congress already had the power to tax private earnings and livelihoods of the entire working class. If you want more, consider: …
    The words “personal”, “earning”, “livelihood”, or “working class” cannot be found anywhere within the Brushaber case, ergo, you’re a downright liar.

    Moreover, that quotation represents precisely what I have been arguing you dimwitted numbskull. Of course the Congress already had powers to tax “income”, the question is and always has been is apportionment or uniformity required when doing so. As to income-capital apportionment is required, as to ‘incomes’ (notice in the plural), uniformity is required. Quoting: “… But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.

    However, much more enlightening on the subject-matter within Brushaber (240 U.S. 1, 19) it was stated: “… that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.

    By the way, you seem to have forgotten to include the following sentences in that run-on paragraph within your above quotation, which serves to provide it with a nice and just context (really, you “Quatloser!” people seem to do that an awful lot): “… "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. … After full consideration, this Court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital. … In determining what constitutes income, substance rather than form is to be given controlling weight. …

    Also more on actually comprehending the Brushaber case can be found at: http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/...acRR240US1.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, Mr. White, you are profoundly wrong. Unless you understand the underlying body of law, you will not have the ability to distinguish between holdings and dictum or between cases that have a broad applicability and those that are to be confined to their specific facts. You have already demonstrated this inability in your posts. Good grief, you might as well argue that a nurse can do brain surgery just as well as a physician.
    Wow, so I am not only wrong, but am “profoundly” wrong? Goodness me, you act like learning how to perform legal and investigatory research requires the kind of supreme “hands on” training that can only be acquired while attending a recognized university and that it must combined with some sort of rarely inherited personal skill and dedication. Newsflash, picking up on lawyerly basics is actually not all that difficult to achieve; largely entailing vast amounts of reading, memorizing (which essentially develops with passing time as to a respective focus of study), cross-referencing, confirming and validating (e.g., cites, sources, references, and even double-checking as appropriate for thoroughness), writing and editing, performing investigation and background checking, following up, updating, meeting filing and service deadlines, and the like. And are you actually comparing the profession of a lawyer to that of an artisan of the sciences and arts? Good grief, you might as well argue that a physician can develop, invent, or manufacture their own medications, tools, machinery, or procedures to treat the aliments of their suffering patients -the fact remains that attorneys only “practice” their profession from within the confined boundaries of their collegiate teachings just the same as the physician (e.g., the modernized medical profession is not trained, whatsoever, in the viable science of homeopathic remedies only in synthetic, technocratic treatments).

    Actually I don’t think that even a physician could legally perform brain surgery as only surgeons are trained in that medical procedure. Regardless, as to your above example, save for the fact that there are laws prohibiting nurses from acting in the capacity of a doctor, could not a nurse (given their own personal confidence in accomplishing such an achievement) in fact learn the proper procedure for performing brain surgery just the same as the surgeon themselves had or is a nurse simply incapable of acquiring such an ability simply for that fact that he/she has been given the label of “nurse”?

    In the obverse just because one has graduated from Sorbonne University majoring in the arts does not mean that they are going to become the next Claude Monet, or just because one has graduated from Harvard mastering English literature does not mean they will become the next Poe, Mencken, or King, etc.

    The fact is that much of public law is purely subjective and nonessential or outright counterproductive in maintaining social cohesion, serving as benefactor to certain classes of individuals, while reigning disrepute upon all other classes; which is largely why the various forms of government ought not to interfere with the private affairs and arrangements of the masses. Simply put, it is largely uncalled for and completely inappropriate, e.g., crafting ten laws over a specific matter when just one would suffice, thereby ensuring multiple charges will be made against a wrongdoer that had actually committed only a singular act.

    At any rate, what you are even talking about? As to you, for example, fail to grasp that the context of a case is “framed” by its pleadings and that one cannot argue by inferring from an inference (inferences are a one-shot deal being essential to drawing a reasonably determinable connection between point-A and point-B). Besides it is your type, who are controverting the present matter using moot cases such as Lucas, Glenshaw Glass, and others. And while orbiter dicta is not binding upon the courts it still has advisory relevance, just the same as the court’s dissenting opinions, and in that way, either can justly influence the course of a case -i.e., that information has been made apart of the “official” public record for a valid purpose and (contrary to your assertion) that purpose was not simply to confuse or throw off the non-attorney.

    Regardless, I continuously show you up on point after point, to which you simply go mum and deviate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    We aren't talking about potential, but by actual ability. I might have the greatest potential in the world for mathematics, but to suggest that with that alone I can solve calculus problems if I've never studied algebra or trigonometry is absurd.
    Really, an utterly moot point you’re making. As according to you, presuming your hypothetical were the case, no matter how many mathematics books I read on my own (from the local bookstore or library), it would matter not, because simply put, I would never be capable of learning how to complete an algebra or trigonometry problem without first receiving the proper aid of a professor (or teacher if you prefer). For you view the word “study” to only mean that one had been enrolled and has passed a course from an accredited university, as per your delusional mind, one cannot become self-taught or self-learned by reading books written by others highly advanced within their chosen field or profession (not at least to any notion meant to lend any serious consideration); because for you, it is not the individual that holds the “ability” to achieve such feats all on their own, but the accreditation of the university that bestows such gifts unto them through the awarding of their very specialized degrees. Complete bollocks!


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I would put it to you, Mr. White, that the Ron Paul supporters who read this thread are too intelligent to think that you have discovered something in the law that has heretofore escaped the notice of all of the law professors, judges, lawyers, and CPA's; or that all of these people are part of some conspiracy. The plain, unvarnished truth is, Mr. White, that you are 100% wrong.
    You relentlessly retorting that the THM (myself included) are entirely and completely wrong all because there is no this or that, or him or her, or this title or that title, holds no considerable validity or propriety. The fact is there are many such individuals that are aware of the negligent misapplication of the federal income tax and have come forward (many in fact holding their -then- new found beliefs so strongly that they had willfully forfeited their high paying positions to “go public”); that I am aware of there’s even one such individual (now retired) on this very forum. You however, self-righteously condemn them as being delusional loons, no longer worthy of their past life achievements and thereby discount them from the very social status you wage in question as verification on the matter you debate -oh the irony of it all is near dizzying! The fact remains that there are dozens upon dozens of such specialized individuals located all throughout America and there are dozens upon dozens of such sources of worthwhile evidence available, you simply refuse to accept such damning facts; for to do otherwise would actually bring challenge to your doorway and perhaps true enlightenment to your darkened way of life.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    As far as Mr. Cryer's Memorandum is concerned, one would find better income tax advice in a treatise on 15th Century Bolivian pan flutes. For those who are not familiar with Mr. Cryer, he is currently facing income tax deficiencies, penalties, and interest of almost $2 million. His case is pending in the United States Tax Court, and it is a certainty that he will lose. The only issues are whether he will be sanctioned for making frivolous arguments (which his Memo is full of) and if so, how much.
    And yet one more response filled throughout with unsubstantiated presumptions on your part, all the while avoiding the true substance of the matter. So was scaremongering the only thing you were actually taught while at Penn?
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-11-2012 at 08:39 AM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  18. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    In most, if not all, the cases where a laborer went to the court it was as pro se. In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.
    That is yet another very interesting point, for it is highly convenient to advancing the desires of the national government in burdening and blighting the masses, knowing full well that only a very small percentage would dare step forward (and even less after distraint has been roused) and challenge them, and in doing so will be forced to argument pro per against a vast team of specialized attorneys possessing vast and endless resources (and not to mention “home team” advantage) for afterward the government will then in the future use such (weakly represented) cases only to further embolden and substantiate the continuation of its own greedy causes as if the matters held in debate had somehow become quintessential.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  19. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    In all the cases where a lawyer, law professor, or CPA might be involved the defendant is usually self-employed or a business which can not use this defense. And that is how this escapes their notice because they have no need to know it.
    What defense? With respect to what is included in gross income, the law has never distinguished between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.

  20. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    that description I had written portrays the life of the average working American family, which by the status quo does in fact pay income taxes (amongst tons of other federal, state, and local taxes) contrary to your disconcerting disconnect on reality.
    I suggest you read up on the news. In 2009, 51% of U.S. households paid no income tax. That figure is estimated to be 46% for 2011.

    Moreover, the estate tax can be avoided by disclaiming it.
    You are confusing an estate tax with an inheritance tax. In the latter case, the tax is imposed on the recipient of the bequest, and he can indeed avoid the tax by disclaiming. An estate tax, however, is imposed on the estate itself and cannot be shifted or avoided.

    By the by, so efficiently elucidated in Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 47 (1900): “… This view of the inheritance and legacy tax conforms to the official definition of indirect taxes, among which inheritance and legacy taxes are classed, which prevails in France at the present day. The definition is as follows: “Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon the possession and enjoyments of rights; indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.”” See also: Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930); and the many arguments made on the matter by Alexander Hamilton, et al.
    The Knowlton dictum is no longer an accurate description of the law. In 1929 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the gift tax as an excise and in doing so stated "this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned" Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)

    3. So according to you: (1) people like me have it wrong; (2) the IRS itself has it wrong; (3) even the Congress has gotten it wrong; and (4) people like you just always get it right. Thereby, according to you 2+2=5, up is down, black is white, direct is indirect, etc., etc., etc.
    Yes, Mr. White, you are wrong. And others like you who have tried using frivolous arguments to avoid income taxation are wrong, which can be easily demonstrated by a survey of the cases. The IRS is wrong in stating that a direct tax (in the constitutional sense) is one that can't be shifted to others. In fact, that was the precise holding in Knowlton v. Moore (or did you miss that part?). I didn't suggest that Congress has gotten it wrong, or that I'm always right. But all of the cases say that I'm right and you are wrong about the law.

    As to income-capital apportionment is required, as to ‘incomes’ (notice in the plural), uniformity is required.
    There is no such thing as "income-capital", Mr. White. That is your problem -- you have invented this concept as a rationalization for not paying income tax, but it doesn't work. Income is income, and Congress can tax it without apportionment.

    Newsflash, picking up on lawyerly basics is actually not all that difficult to achieve; largely entailing vast amounts of reading, memorizing (which essentially develops with passing time as to a respective focus of study), cross-referencing, confirming and validating (e.g., cites, sources, references, and even double-checking as appropriate for thoroughness), writing and editing, performing investigation and background checking, following up, updating, meeting filing and service deadlines, and the like.
    Very good, Mr. White. Pray tell us, in your exhaustive review of scholarly references what tax treatises did you come across that confirmed your position? What authors agreed with you? Which of them said that there's some kind of income earned by an individual that can't constitutionally be taxed? Which said that what one earns for working isn't income? Can you cite them for us? Better yet, have you ever read a tax treatise?

    You relentlessly retorting that the THM (myself included) are entirely and completely wrong all because there is no this or that, or him or her, or this title or that title, holds no considerable validity or propriety.
    First of all, the term "Tax Honesty Movement" is an oxymoron. There is no honesty in relying on phony quotes (I don't know how many times I've seen tax protestors cite the losing party's brief in Lucas v. Earl and claim it was part of the Court's opinion), overruled cases (e.g., Evans v. Gore), or state court cases that have absolutely no application to federal tax law. Second, the fact that every frivolous argument has been shot down in court should tell you that they are wrong, but in your case it more likely feeds your paranoid delusion that the courts are simply part of a conspiracy of some kind.

    You however, self-righteously condemn them as being delusional loons, no longer worthy of their past life achievements and thereby discount them from the very social status you wage in question as verification on the matter you debate -oh the irony of it all is near dizzying!
    You are projecting, Mr. White. Such individuals are wrong about the law, but I've never said that whatever else they may have accomplished is unworthy.

    The fact remains that there are dozens upon dozens of such specialized individuals located all throughout America and there are dozens upon dozens of such sources of worthwhile evidence available, you simply refuse to accept such damning facts; for to do otherwise would actually bring challenge to your doorway and perhaps true enlightenment to your darkened way of life.
    Mr. White, the same can be said of your refusal to accept all of the cases that have rejected the various frivolous arguments tax protesters have put forth.

    So was scaremongering the only thing you were actually taught while at Penn?
    I didn't go to Penn, Mr. White. What sort of delusion are you experiencing now?
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 05-11-2012 at 10:20 AM.

  21. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enforcer View Post
    Secondly, attorneys are officers of the court FIRST. If something benefits the system, it is their sworn duty to do what is in the best interests of the courts and government agencies. The fact that lawyers that worked enforcing the tax laws (i.e. IRS employees) have come out and disputed the theories YOU espouse are good enough for me to look closer into the facts.
    Oh, please. An attorney representing a private citizen in a tax matter has the duty to use every legal means to eliminate or minimize his client's taxes. The idea that they have a duty to throw their clients under a bus and maximize the Treasury's coffers is nonsense. As far as ex-IRS employees who have swallowed the tax denier koolaid are concerned, you might want to note that some have had their licenses revoked (e.g., Joe Banister) or have been convicted and served jail time (e.g., Sherry Jackson).

    I have. It's so full of lies and misrepresentations about the law, it's pitiful. At least 3 of the so-called experts interviewed in the film are convicted tax cheats.

  22. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What defense? With respect to what is included in gross income, the law has never distinguished between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.
    Yes it does, i.e. Subtitles A and B as opposed to Subtitles C, D, and E; just as Subtitle A distinguishes between residents and non-residents (citizens and aliens), etc. Also the IRS makes this very distinction on their own public forms, schedules, and internal processing procedures as well, i.e., employee, SB/SE, non-statutory employee, etc.

    So, tell me do you actually, honestly, study tax law or do you simply make it up as you go along?
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-11-2012 at 08:30 PM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  23. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    What defense? With respect to what is included in gross income, the law has never distinguished between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.

    Let's get this straight. With respect to what is included in gross income, the courts have never been asked to distinguish between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.

    The law clearly denotes the differences between self-employment and employment and manifests itself in Form SS-8 (Determination of Worker Status).



    .

  24. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Why do I state this?

    Because the people of this nation have been conditioned to believe that employment (working for someone else) is the equivalent of providing a service. It is not.

    This is where Ron Paul can win over the working people of this country, by showing that businesses have been giving away a portion of their paychecks to the government for the last 70 years.

    This knowledge will have a dramatic impact on the Accounting industry, as well as, the Retirement Financial industry.


    This from a Human Resources site on the internet:

    Employment Status – Employed or Self-employed?

    What is the difference between a “contract of service” and a “contract for services”?

    These are common-law terms used to distinguish employees from persons who are self-employed.

    The term:
    -“contract of service” relates to a person in employment (as in the case of a domestic servant who is described as being “in service”.)
    -“contract for services” relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.

    The term “contract of service” is referred to in employment and tax legislation. A person who works under a contract of service is:
    -an “employee” for payroll purposes, and
    -an “employee” for employment rights purposes, and
    -a “worker” for other employment rights purposes.

    In contrast, a person who works under a contract for services, i.e. a self-employed person, is neither an employee nor a worker. There is no requirement for an employer to put such a person on the payroll; rather payment may be made on invoice. There is no entitlement to any of the employment rights available to employees and workers.

    How, then, are these terms to be distinguished? Traditionally, there are two key tests to identify an employee, i.e. a person who works under a “contract of service”.
    These include:
    -“mutuality of obligation”, i.e. both parties to the contract have obligations to each other, the employee to perform the work as directed, the employer to pay for the work performed.
    -the “degree of control” exercised by the employer over the work performed by the employee.

    Other factors, however, have been taken into consideration when courts and tribunals have endeavored to distinguish between employment and self-employment.
    These include:
    -whether the individual must perform the work personally, or is able to send a qualified substitute.
    -the nature of the pay and benefits that are provided by the employer.
    -whether or not the individual has a business structure.
    -who decides on how the contract should be performed.
    -the extent of the financial risk borne by the individual.
    -who provides the materials and equipment necessary for the work.
    The duration of the contract is also important, the longer the engagement, the more likely it is that the relationship is employment.

    Another simple way of distinguishing employment from self-employment is to consider what it is that the employer is “buying”:
    -if the employer is “buying” an employee, there will be a lengthy recruitment process in order to find just the right person.
    -if the employer is “buying” a service, the person who will provide the service is likely to be selected by recommendation or simply by choosing an ad in the Yellow Pages.


    The Internal Revenue Service has a form which is used for this purpose.
    (Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status)
    This form is used to determine who is liable for the employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, if either side questions who is liable.


    If we go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) we will find the following definitions, laid out in the Social Security Act of 1935.

    TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter C > § 3121
    § 3121. Definitions
    (a) Wages
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;

    (b) Employment
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed


    Here we see that employment is defined as service, of whatever nature, thus either performing service (employment) or performing a service (self-employment) is liable to this taxation.




    Now, we come to the crux of the matter.


    In 1942, Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act to collect federal income tax at source on wages. Let’s go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) to find this definition from that Act.



    TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401
    § 3401. Definitions
    (a) Wages
    For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;


    Here we see that wages is not defined by employment, but by services.


    As discussed earlier, employment (labor) is not a service. An employee is “in service” to his employer, he does not “provide a service or services” to his employer. An employee may perform services for the employer, but it should be clearly understood that these services are those provided by the employer to his customers.



    All remuneration paid expressly for employment, such as hourly wages do not fall under the scope of this definition of wages.

    On the other hand, when an employer provides a service or services to his clients, it is an employee who will perform this service. Now if the employee is paid compensation based on the performance of this service or services, usually in the form of a commission, a fee, and/or a tip, then the employee has received remuneration for services and this compensation is fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

    Also an employee may receive fringe benefits, such as paid insurance, access to recreational facilities, sick leave, paid holidays and vacation, profit-sharing plans, year-end bonuses, etc. All these are funded through the profits of the employer and therefore fall under remuneration for services and are fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

    However, holidays, vacation, sick leave and year-end bonuses may be paid in the form of an hourly wage. This does not make all hourly wages subject to, nor does it relieve fringe benefits from, the scope of this definition of wages.

    Federal Income Tax

    Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, also supports what I have stated.


    TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
    § 61. Gross income defined
    (a) General definition
    Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
    Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;




    I welcome your comments
    Lawyers have so easily given away what has been worked and fought for in blood. If they are going to be so thoughtless, what makes you think they care anything about the interpretation of law?

  25. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Oh, please. An attorney representing a private citizen in a tax matter has the duty to use every legal means to eliminate or minimize his client's taxes. The idea that they have a duty to throw their clients under a bus and maximize the Treasury's coffers is nonsense. As far as ex-IRS employees who have swallowed the tax denier koolaid are concerned, you might want to note that some have had their licenses revoked (e.g., Joe Banister) or have been convicted and served jail time (e.g., Sherry Jackson).
    Yes, let’s talk about “oh please”, shall we?

    The plain and obvious fact is that most attorneys are going to “play along to get along” so as to remain part of the system and beneficiary thereto, while being perceived as professionally respected by their peers (and for comparison, as one example that readily comes to my mind, organic farmers or ranchers are not treated in the same favorable light by the federal government as GMO farmers and mass-processing ranchers are); otherwise as you have already repeatedly emphasized, they will become a professional or political outcast, having their licenses revoked and whatnot. Which subsequently, such is a massive risk (being legally denied to practice in one’s desired vocation) to take for somebody that has invested so much personal time, energy, training, and finances into acquiring such a license, (e.g., law, CPA, bookkeeper, et al).

    At any rate, by large, attorneys are in their very nature lazy, vapid individuals, which is why they wanted to become an attorney in the first place (similarly as to why people with lifelong or ongoing personal or mental issues desire to become psychologists -or at least work in that field; or people who are overly controlling, have self-confidence, self-respect issues, etc., hold a desire to be in positions of authority such as law enforcement, judgeships, or leaders or managers of public offices; or people that suffer from pyromania desire to enter the firefighting profession; or how pedophiles desire to work in the CPS, child/foster care, or public educational fields, or like to involve themselves in juvenile sports and activities or work in the church -that is to mean hold positions of trust over minors; or people that are adrenaline junkies hold a desire to work in military, police, or firefighting professions; etc.), to position themselves as the proverbial Perry Mason, they wanted -without having to actually work long and hard for it, really only having to pass a short stint at whatever law school after first obtaining whatever BA/BS degree- to ascent into a respected position of trusted authority that pays them vast sums of money for actually doing very little, for it’s their hired non-legal staff doing the majority of the real work -besides that most all modern day legal documents are pre-drafted fill-in templates to be emailed/faxed to their adversaries and delivered to the court.

    Ergo, most attorneys don’t really do any serious investigative research into the matter on their own, at least not anything beyond toeing the party line, fully accepting all preconceived notions on whatever matter being represented. At the end of each workday the majority of attorneys want three consistent things standing in their office’s foyer: (1) to pay their bills and reap profits, (2) to obtain consideration, while having exerted as little effort as possible, and (3) to generate repeat clients.

    As has been made evident by your personal hero Jay D. Adkisson himself, being an attorney is really all about “Chasing the Money”. See the egomaniacal impossibility in all his self-elation and glory at: http://www.jayadkisson.com/


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I have. It's so full of lies and misrepresentations about the law, it's pitiful. At least 3 of the so-called experts interviewed in the film are convicted tax cheats.
    Not it’s not, not at all. Although, sure as with most popular works, documentaries, writings, etc., there are concerns here and there that present themselves for debate or open up positions for the taking on either side of the fence; however, much of what was represented within America: Freedom to Fascism is very deserving of serious consideration. There is a very good reason why Aaron Russo’s great work is so popular after all (and in case you missed it, it represented the contentions of all hardworking and life deserving Americans), and not even you can honestly discount that -no matter how hard you might try.

    As for you and your “Quatlost!” comrades, you simply choose to ignore the evidence presented, in whole, and instead focus on guilty verdicts of a few as your frivolous justification in doing so. Hence you fail, for you avoid the true crux of the matter; you dismiss the foundation that has been laid, meanwhile building your wanting house of cards atop, never realizing that works such as Aaron Russo’s (any many others) have long since exposed your house of cards for what it really it, a quarter-millimeter thick fraud that is to be completely knocked to the ground at the slightest blow.

    As to Mr. Schiff he was primarily convicted on multiple counts of off-shoring a couple of million Dollars that he profited from his business no? And Larkin Rose who himself made an interesting documentary, (although I don’t personally agree with his primary “861 argument”) from which I am sure he profited, had very publicly challenged the government to convict him, so of course they obliged -in any case he had a politically stacked deck right out of the gate. As for Sherry Jackson, didn’t she get caught up in some sort of tax seminar scheme, selling cruise line events costing its participants several thousand Dollars to attend, (I tend to agree that would be wrong on so many levels)?

    Needless to say that just because the above individuals may not have fully understood their tax liabilities or may have even possibly desired to simply take advantage of what their cause represented for their own personal gain (as I do not personally know them so I cannot speak to their personal motives), does not mean the arguments they made are to be rendered incorrect, either in part or in whole, only that the arguments represented by them may not have, to whatever extent, necessarily applicable to them in their own situations during the periods of time in question.
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-13-2012 at 01:50 AM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  26. #145

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I suggest you read up on the news. In 2009, 51% of U.S. households paid no income tax. That figure is estimated to be 46% for 2011.
    OK, but what does that have to do with anything in the prior example? There is not any relative correlation between my prior (latter) example and either of your two responses.

    Are you now stating that because only one-half of American’s pay federal income taxes -and related taxes, to the tune of $2.3-trillion per annum- the status quo’s taking of the remaining half is permissible or justified? Respectively, the numbers are out of 312-million Americans, about 113-million pay such taxes; so being forced under penalty threat to surrender 15% upwards to beyond 30% of their annual ability, so as to not be harassed or threatened by the overreaching “mission creep” of the despotic IRS.

    Meanwhile, how many Americans no longer bother working because they have discovered that it is far simpler for them to take advantage of other hardworking Americans by abusing this progressive-socialist contrivance that has been laid out before them; meanwhile, the IRS knowingly turns a blind eye tax year after tax year? And what is it now, one out of every seven American’s have become dependent on EBT type programs? While what, about 50% of those now on unemployment have filed for permanent disability due to mental illness (which according to the federal governments own cooked figures indicates that over 10-million Americans have suddenly become mentally ill)? And what about those several million illegal/resident aliens getting annual tax refunds that far exceed what they had withheld throughout the preceding year; meanwhile, the IRS obtusely claims that they have no legal means to put an end to it? Do you get the picture yet? Well do you? Admit to it, you could give a rat’s ass, isn’t that the truth!


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You are confusing an estate tax with an inheritance tax. In the latter case, the tax is imposed on the recipient of the bequest, and he can indeed avoid the tax by disclaiming. An estate tax, however, is imposed on the estate itself and cannot be shifted or avoided.
    Aye, yes that must have been it, for I was simply confused, which is why I bothered to cite the statute for you. Man alive, I must have broken your brain. An ‘estate tax’ is synonymous to an ‘inheritance tax’. Here allow me to further break it down for you:

    26 USC § 102 - Gifts and inheritances [EXEMPTED FROM GROSS INCOME]
    (a) General rule
    Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or inheritance.


    26 USC § 2001 - Imposition and rate of tax [ESTATE TAX]
    (a) Imposition
    A tax is hereby imposed on the transfer of the taxable estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident of the United States.


    26 USC § 2031 - Definition of gross estate [ESTATE TAX]
    (a) General
    The value of the gross estate of the decedent shall be determined by including to the extent provided for in this part, the value at the time of his death of all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, wherever situated.


    26 USC § 2501 - Imposition of tax [GIFT TAX]
    (a) Taxable transfers
    (1) General rule
    A tax, computed as provided in section 2502 [RATE OF TAX], is hereby imposed for each calendar year on the transfer of property by gift during such calendar year by any individual resident or nonresident.


    A dictionary definition of a “descendant” is: “a person or animal that is descended from a specific ancestor; an offspring”.

    A dictionary definition of an “estate tax” is: “a tax in the form of a percentage of the taxable estate that is imposed on a property owner's right to transfer the property to others after his or her death — compare inheritance tax

    A dictionary definition of an “inheritance tax” is: “a tax on a decedent's net estate that is levied after the estate is transmitted to the inheritors; death tax; especially : estate tax

    So you say that I am the one confused? …How interesting. In any case historically such methods of taxation, regardless of what you label them, e.g., death, gift, inheritance, legacy, succession, etc., have always been understood to be excises and in America are correct to be taxed indirectly. To that end, I am not sure what you think you are gaining by wagering such silliness to defend your stance on the present issue.

    You appear to be upholding your arguments by confabulating some convoluted disconnect and merger of what are otherwise constitutionally proper as either a direct or indirect method of taxation; essentially debating that for the (common law) established fact, there exists certain classes of indirect taxes that therefore it is meant there cannot exist any classes of direct taxes save for what has been made explicit or specific through legislation and subsequently addressed through common law. Clearly such notions are without any merit and are quite honestly downright ludicrous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Knowlton dictum is no longer an accurate description of the law. In 1929 the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the gift tax as an excise and in doing so stated "this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned" Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)
    Alright, first off, whoa, whoa, whoa, and whoa! Secondly, the quotation that I included was not mere dictum, it was below page-43 where the opinion of the court begins and that point of discussion directly pertained to the facts of the case; neither is the inclusion of a definition that relates to the issue at bar to be construed as such. Thirdly, yours is not a valid assertion as the points addressed within the Knowlton case are perfectly accurate, as much then as they still are now. Fourthly, if you want to play the overturned game, then still I gotcha beat as per Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930): “... A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax which Congress, in respect of some events not necessary now to be described more definitely, undoubtedly may impose. …

    And supra at 503: “The question here, then, is, not whether there has been, in the strict sense of that word, a "transfer" of the property by the death of the decedent, or a receipt of it by right of succession, but whether the death has brought into being or ripened for the survivor, property rights of such character as to make appropriate the imposition of a tax upon that result (which Congress may call a transfer tax, a death duty or anything else it sees fit), to be measured, in whole or in part, by the value of such rights.

    Finally, the Bromley case you have quoted did nothing to demise the answer effected within the Knowlton case; hence, you capriciously debating over gift or estate taxes and the like, bears no relatable discernment to the peculiarities of direct taxation. Moreover, as provided for by the Bromley case you had referenced, Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124, 136-140, (1929), the court intentionally acknowledged Knowlton -in addition to Pollock and a few others- as precedent that had already well-established the meaning of direct taxation (quoted below):

    The meaning of the phrase "direct taxes" and the historical background of the constitutional requirement for their apportionment have been so often and exhaustively considered by this Court, Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171; Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429; 158 U. S. 158 U.S. 601; Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41; Nicol v. Ames, 173 U. S. 509, 173 U. S. 515, that no useful purpose would be served by renewing the discussion here. Whatever may be the precise line which sets off direct taxes from others we need not now determine. ...

    While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U. S. 429, 158 U. S. 158 U.S. 601, this Court has consistently held, almost from the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership is an excise which need not be apportioned, and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter class. …

    It is a tax laid only upon the exercise of a single one of those powers incident to ownership, the power to give the property owned to another. Under this statute, all the other rights and powers which collectively constitute property or ownership may be fully enjoyed free of the tax. So far as the constitutional power to tax is concerned, it would be difficult to state any intelligible distinction, founded either in reason or upon practical considerations of weight, between a tax upon the exercise of the power to give property inter vivos [meaning to gift another while alive] and the disposition of it by legacy, upheld in Knowlton v. Moore, supra, the succession tax in Scholey v. Rew, … the tax upon the manufacture and sale of colored oleomargarine in McCray v. United States, … the tax upon sales of grain upon an exchange in Nicol v. Ames, … the tax upon sales of shares of stock in Thomas v. United States, … the tax upon the use of foreign built yachts in Billings v. United States, … the tax upon the use of carriages in Hylton v. United States, …; compare Veazie Bank v. Fenno, …; Thomas v. United States

    It is true that, in each of these cases, the tax was imposed upon the exercise of one of the numerous rights of property, but each is clearly distinguishable from a tax which falls upon the owner merely because he is owner, regardless of the use of disposition made of his property. See Billings v. United States, supra; cf. Pierce v. United States, 232 U. S. 290. The persistence of this distinction and the justification for it rest upon the historic fact that taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted and, as well, upon the reluctance of this Court to enlarge by construction, limitations upon the sovereign power of taxation by Article I, § 8, so vital to the maintenance of the national government. Nicol v. Ames, supra, 173 U. S. 514-515.

    It is said that, since property is the sum of all the rights and powers incident to ownership, if an unapportioned tax on the exercise of any of them is upheld, the distinction between direct and other classes of taxes may be wiped out, since the property itself may likewise be taxed by resort to the expedient of levying numerous taxes upon its uses; that one of the uses of property is to keep it, and that a tax upon the possession or keeping of property is no different from a tax on the property itself. Even if we assume that a tax levied upon all the uses to which property may be put, or upon the exercise of a single power indispensable to the enjoyment of all others over it, would be in effect a tax upon property …, and hence a direct tax requiring apportionment, that is not the case before us.

    The power to give cannot be said to be a more important incident of property than the power to use, the exercise of which was taxed in Billings v. United States, and, even though differences in degree may be carried to a point where they produce distinctions in kind, the present levy falls so far short of taxing generally the uses of property that it cannot be likened to the taxes on property itself which have been recognized as direct. It falls, rather, into that category of imposts or excises which, since they apply only to a limited exercise of property rights, have been deemed to be indirect, and so valid although not apportioned.

    “MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND (dissenting).

    And though we understand generally what is a direct tax and what taxes have been declared to be direct, we are still as incapable of formulating an exact definition as were those who wrote the taxation clauses into the Constitution. Since the Pollock case, however, we know that a tax on property, whether real or personal, or upon the income derived therefrom, is direct, and that to levy a tax by reason of ownership of property is to tax the property.

    ... By repeated decisions of this Court, it has become axiomatic that it is the substance, and not the form, that controls in such matters.

    Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, involved the validity of a state statute which exacted a license fee of $50 of importers of foreign goods and other persons selling the same by wholesale, bale, or package, etc. The act was held void as imposing a duty on imports. It was argued that the tax was not upon the article, but upon the person; that the state had the power to tax occupations, and this was nothing more. To this, Chief Justice Marshall replied (. 25 U. S. 444) in words that have been repeatedly approved in subsequent decisions of this Court:

    "It is impossible to conceal from ourselves that this is varying the form without varying the substance. It is treating a prohibition which is general as if it were confined to a particular mode of doing the forbidden thing. All must perceive that a tax on the sale of an article, imported only for sale, is a tax on the article itself. "
    And continuing -although slightly off topic as to addressing points on various excises- the above quotation of Justice Marshall from which it will be noticed that such was very similarly stated by Dr. Adam Smith within his Wealth of Nations (Book Five, Chapter II, Article III – “Taxes upon the Wages of Labour”]); now quoting from Brown v. Maryland, 25 U.S. 419, 444 (1827): “… It is true the state may tax occupations generally, but this tax must be paid by those who employ the individual or is a tax on his business. The lawyer, the physician, or the mechanic must either charge more on the article in which he deals or the thing itself is taxed through his person. This the state has a right to do because no constitutional prohibition extends to it. So a tax on the occupation of an importer is in like manner a tax on importation. It must add to the price of the article and be paid by the consumer or by the importer himself in like manner as a direct duty on the article itself would be made. This the state has not a right to do, because it is prohibited by the Constitution.

    Directly quoting Adam Smith, LL.D, from his great work An Inquiry into the Nature And Causes of the Wealth of Nations [1776]: “The wages of the inferior classes of workmen, … While the demand for labour and the price of provisions, therefore, remain the same, a direct tax upon the wages of labour can have no other effect than to raise them somewhat higher than the tax.
    ...
    A direct tax upon the wages of labour, therefore, though the labourer might perhaps pay it out of his hand, could not properly be said to be even advanced by him; …


    Now that is what I call delightfully enlightening!


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Yes, Mr. White, you are wrong. And others like you who have tried using frivolous arguments to avoid income taxation are wrong, which can be easily demonstrated by a survey of the cases. The IRS is wrong in stating that a direct tax (in the constitutional sense) is one that can't be shifted to others. In fact, that was the precise holding in Knowlton v. Moore (or did you miss that part?). I didn't suggest that Congress has gotten it wrong, or that I'm always right. But all of the cases say that I'm right and you are wrong about the law.
    1. No, I am correct, while still to date other than your own ranting and raving you have consistently failed to demonstrate anything to the contrary. In fact the only thing you have shown is your own inability to correctly read the cases you cite or quote to; either that or you’ve not even bothered to actually read through them, figuring that nobody else would exert the effort to either.
    2. No, the arguments that I and others have similarly raised have not been deemed by the courts (and neither the IRS) to be frivolous. In fact the core of the matter as pertaining to the general masses is still pending consideration for establishing precedent (i.e., even though these particular issues in every sense present a federal question and do meet the primary concern for petitioning SCOTUS (for writ of certiorari), the Court seems not to want to adjudicate such cases, stamping all that come before with ‘cert. denied’).
    3. No, this is not about avoiding federal income taxes; it is about correcting the gross misinterpretation concerning the improper and unjust modern day misapplication of such form of taxation, it is about putting a final deathblow to the presently out of control and ramped abuses being commenced by the IRS, and it is about ensuring that the correct implementation of the national taxing powers is secured indelibly.
    4. No, neither the IRS nor the CFR definitions are incorrect in the distinctions made between ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ taxes; it is rather so much more likely that you are seemingly incapable of comprehending the pointed distinction (as was just proven “to the nines” by the above).
    5. I see nowhere in Knowlton offering such a holding as you’re suggesting. In fact it referenced a proposed act of legislation from 1797 calling for (supra at 50): “… 2, the imposition of "a duty of two percentum ad valorem . . . on all testamentary dispositions, descents, and successions to the estates of intestates, excepting those to parents, husbands, wives, or lineal descendants," …”; hence, the confusion you’re attempting to kindle over this matter never at any point in our Nation’s history actually existed.
    6. The CFR definitions are based upon legislation ratified by Congress; thus, if those are wrong so was Congress.
    7. And again incorrect, for there are many cases and sources that oppose you, as shown throughout: Points in Further Support of the CFT.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There is no such thing as "income-capital", Mr. White. That is your problem -- you have invented this concept as a rationalization for not paying income tax, but it doesn't work. Income is income, and Congress can tax it without apportionment.
    Well I must say, whoever you really are, you most certainly suffer from keyboard-in-mouth disease.

    Quoting Alexander Hamilton from within Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, 591; 158 U.S. 601, 626 (1895) [3 Hamilton’s Works, 34]: “This principle, which seems critically correct, would exempt as well the income as the capital of the property. It protects the use as effectually as the thing. What, in fact, is property but a fiction without the beneficial use of it? In many cases, indeed, the income or annuity is the property itself.

    Furthermore, the below quotation wholly substantiates my assertions as from supra (Rehearing) at 158 U.S. 601, 628 (1895):

    ... There can be but one answer, unless the constitutional restriction is to be treated as utterly illusory and futile, and the object of its framers defeated. We find it impossible to hold that a fundamental requisition, deemed so important as to be enforced by two provisions, one affirmative and one negative, can be refined away by forced distinctions between that which gives value to property and the property itself.

    Nor can we perceive any ground why the same reasoning does not apply to capital in personalty held for the purpose of income or ordinarily yielding income, and to the income therefrom. All the real estate of the country, and all its invested personal property, are open to the direct operation of the taxing power if an apportionment be made according to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that no direct tax shall be laid by apportionment on any other property than land; on the contrary, it forbids all unapportioned direct taxes, and we know of no warrant for excepting personal property from the exercise of the power, or any reason why an apportioned direct tax cannot be laid and assessed, as Mr. Gallatin said in his report when Secretary of the Treasury in 1812, "upon the same objects of taxation on which the direct taxes levied under the authority of the State are laid and assessed."



    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Very good, Mr. White. Pray tell us, in your exhaustive review of scholarly references what tax treatises did you come across that confirmed your position? What authors agreed with you? Which of them said that there's some kind of income earned by an individual that can't constitutionally be taxed? Which said that what one earns for working isn't income? Can you cite them for us? Better yet, have you ever read a tax treatise?
    First of nobody here is stating that the government cannot tax an individual’s labor, livelihood, or remuneration, only that apportionment is necessary to the assessment and that the circumstances involved be emergent.

    Secondly, off the top of my head: Christian (KJV) Bible, Locke, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton (and the rest of those, you know, “domestic terrorists”), Turgot, Smith, Gallatin, Bastiat, Black, Marx and Engels, et al.

    Thirdly, yes, a several years back I had read Cooley’s Treatise on Taxation, Black’s Treatise on Income Taxation, and have read a bit about taxation in general from a legal encyclopedia; which I have been meaning to read them again, although much, much more thoroughly.
    * Speaking of which the above and other great writings are available for reading in PDF at my Learning Resource & Discovery Center (LRDC).


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    First of all, the term "Tax Honesty Movement" is an oxymoron. There is no honesty in relying on phony quotes (I don't know how many times I've seen tax protestors cite the losing party's brief in Lucas v. Earl and claim it was part of the Court's opinion), overruled cases (e.g., Evans v. Gore), or state court cases that have absolutely no application to federal tax law. Second, the fact that every frivolous argument has been shot down in court should tell you that they are wrong, but in your case it more likely feeds your paranoid delusion that the courts are simply part of a conspiracy of some kind.
    No, the Tax Honesty Movement is about demanding honesty in taxation not about demanding honesty within itself; which is not to say that any of the goals of the THM is to be willfully dishonest or destructive, but that the generic name THM is certainly no oxymoron.

    Also, at least for the most part it is not that those within the THM are intending to mislead, but that they are simply (and perhaps enthusiastically or even over zealously) disseminating the vast sums of information they come across from many available sources (be they public or private); being that most all of us researching the cause within the THM are learning as we go -and with time comes experience, with experience comes knowledge, and with knowledge comes wisdom- and as such many of those errors can be chalked up to rumors being spread around or more appropriately can be viewed as training in progress or otherwise newbie error.

    However, as to you being an attorney that chastises others for their unwitting mistakes makes you incongruous and apathetic to both your own affirmed duties and professional pro bono/volunteerism obligations.

    Meanwhile, you seem to overlook that most all court cases are filed (and litigated) by esquires, yet somehow in all such cases at least one of those esquires is determined to be wrong, which means that one out of every two or more opposing attorneys are incorrect in their allegations or defenses. So I ask you (rhetorically), where exactly does that place your logic of never being incorrect?

    And not it is not a paranoid delusion to think that the courts are not impartial to anything that’s outside the “safe” bounds of the status quo, it is a very real concern; just as is the government’s failure to disclose the dangers of water sodium fluoridation; vaccinating; chem-trailing; consuming GMO, hormones, pesticides, and synthetics; cell-phone use and exposure to full-body scanners; including their own involvement in conjuring up: “domestic extremism/terrorism”, Fast and Furious, countless forms of TSA abuse, the entirety of 9/11, OKC Bombing, Waco, 93’ WTC Bombing, Ruby Ridge, Gulf of Tonkin, Tuskegee, secretive domestic CIA experiments conducted on the unknowing public, ongoing FBI entrapments, global warming, etc.; and hiding the truth behind such things as our fraudulent form of inflationary currency and the Federal Reserve System, and the true agenda behind Planned Parenthood (i.e., The American Birth Control League and Margaret Sanger), etc. Simply put, you are an outright fool to think otherwise.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You are projecting, Mr. White. Such individuals are wrong about the law, but I've never said that whatever else they may have accomplished is unworthy.
    And exactly what is wrong with projecting, isn’t that was public forums are designed for?

    Well that’s quite pompous of you to throw a blanket statement out there like that.

    And yes, because the two perspectives are coupled to the individual, each on a level personally and professionally, while you have gone to lengths to insinuate that they are no longer worthy of their professional accolades, you have consequently invalidated their former (more intimate) perspective.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Mr. White, the same can be said of your refusal to accept all of the cases that have rejected the various frivolous arguments tax protesters have put forth.
    Save for the fact that your type purposefully misrepresent those cases (e.g., Glenshaw Glass, Helvering, Lucas, Springer, and now Bromley), this is of course discounting all of the thousands upon thousands of circuit cases that have (for whatever selective reasoning) failed to uphold the closely-related precedent set by SCOTUS and as well the entirety of our national fundaments.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I didn't go to Penn, Mr. White. What sort of delusion are you experiencing now?
    Pardon me I must have missed something, now how exactly would the question I posed make me delusional?

    Anyways, one down, so that leaves two, now which is it then? Please be sure to answer honestly now:

    1. Chapel Hill
    2. University of Oklahoma
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-13-2012 at 01:23 AM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  27. #146

    Default

    With further respects to various types of “income” or ‘incomes’ (as addressed in the above and prior posts), the following is highly noteworthy to that point (also noting that the prior point addressed concerning the originating term ‘gross income’ under Section 22 of the 1939 IRC -and preceding statutes- still holds valid effect, and also under the pari materia principle so applicable to the Internal Revenue Code):

    H.R. 1337, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, House of Representatives Report of the Committee on Ways and Means:

    Section 61. Gross income defined

    This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a).
    Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes “all income from whatever source derived.” This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word “income” is used in its constitutional sense. …”


    H.R. 1622, Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Senate Report of the Committee on Finance:

    Section 61. Gross income defined

    This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a).
    Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes “all income from whatever source derived.” This definition is based upon the sixteenth Amendment and the word “income” is used as in section 22(a) in its constitutional sense. It is not intended to change the concept of income that obtains under section 22(a). …”


    Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518-519 (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 that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U. S. 330, 247 U. S. 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that, in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word 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, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.


    Senate Subcommittee Hearing of the Committee on Finance on the Withholding Tax, August 21 and 22, 1942:

    [Pages 104-105]

    Senator CLARK. “Of course, you withhold not only from taxpayers but nontaxpayers.

    Mr. HARDY. “Yes. To my mind that is the great argument in favor either of this plan or of a straight sales tax, that the income tax misses, and particularly the withholding feature misses a considerable fraction of consuming power in the country. I think this point is frequently overlooked and greatly underestimated, and that is the people who are living off capital rather than off of current income. It is often assumed that that consists of just a few very rich people. It is not just a few very rich people. [u]If you are very rich you can live off the income of your capital[u], but then there are people who have retired, who are living off of their lifetime savings, who may show an income of $5,000 but who are spending several hundred thousand dollars a year because they have saved a good many years to provide their expenditures.

    Then you have people who are living off the proceeds of insurance policies, people who are unemployed but who are well enough fixed so they do not worry about it, about being unemployed, and that group is totally exempt under any such income-tax scheme, whether it is levied at the source or levied in the usual way. …


    Mr. HARDY. “To close the point I was making in regard to the advantage of assessing the tax or loan, whatever you use, assessing it on the basis of consumption, I point out that there are certain people living off of capital. You also have to account for the fact that there are a good many people who, in a given year, show losses, capital losses that are wipe out their tax liability and who, nevertheless, may be maintaining their ordinary standards of living out of capital. I made some study of the incomes of the people who report losses, and it would appear that on the average people who have negative in-come for tax purpose but have to report, with gross income large enough so they have to report, probably have $20,000 or $30,000 [which from 1942 to present (due to monetary inflation) equals: $281,463 to $422,194] normal income just on the basis of the proportion of rent and dividends, and other types of income in the gross.

    You also have got the case of farmers whom it is notoriously difficult to reach on income taxes, unless they are very well-to-do farmers, or the small businessman whose bookkeeping methods and the difficulties of auditing them on the part of the Treasury are such that he may be paying very much less than his income justifies, along with the notoriously difficulty of reaching skilled labor if it changes jobs often enough so as not to appears in forms reported to the Treasury. You have got a big class of consumption here. …

    The thing may be summed up in saying that the purpose of your fiscal system is directly to regulate, curtail, or restrict consumption. The logic that is in favor of it relates directly to the consumers’ expenditures rather than indirectly to the income which throws light on his ability to consume and not on his actual consumption.

    I will come to the objection to it, and that is that it tends to fall most heavily on very low incomes, because a higher proportion of those incomes is spent for consumption, which is the thing that I think has stood in the way of a broad use of this method of assessment in Federal taxes. …


    [Page-119]

    Mr. PAUL: “… We are just afraid, without collection at the source, with our present rate and present spread of the incidence of taxation, that the system will break down. I do not think I put it too strongly when I say not only Bureau prestige is involved but the future of the income tax may be involve.

    [Page-222]

    Mr. PAUL: “… In fact, this is about our last clear chance to get the system in the statute.

    Also interesting for notation is the only definition of the term ‘income’ included within all of 26 USC, located within Sec. 643(b) ‘Income’[ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND BENEFICIARIES]:

    “For purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D, the term “income”, when not preceded by the words “taxable”, “distributable net”, “undistributed net”, or “gross”, means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law. Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus [the principal] under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law shall not be considered income.”
    Last edited by Weston White; 05-14-2012 at 04:49 AM.
    The individual right of expressive speech precludes the piousness of Toryism. In America, the ethos of “God, King and Country” is over 3,500 miles misplaced.


    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  28. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Ron Paul says the U.S. is slipping into fascism. He is correct, but he is 70 years behind the fact.

    The U.S. slipped into fascism in 1942 when the Congress gave the reporting of the peoples wages into the hands of business and the people of this country perfected this fiction by allowing themselves to become ignorant of their own laws.
    You need to go back farther than that. The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson saw fascism on a level that would only be repeated again by Mussolini in the 30s. There were entire governmental agencies whose job was to suppress free speech, arrest "undesirables", regulate the economy, seize property, and so much more. FDR wasn't even that scary compared to Wilson. FDR just managed to make some of his lesser immediately scary programs last.
    "The bird or the cage?"-The Lutece Twins

    "A man chooses. A slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan

    "There are three things the parasite hates: free markets, free will, and free men."-Andrew Ryan

    "That every man may act... be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose"- Jesus Christ, Doctrine and Covenants 101:78-80

  29. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    Yes it does, i.e. Subtitles A and B as opposed to Subtitles C, D, and E; just as Subtitle A distinguishes between residents and non-residents (citizens and aliens), etc. Also the IRS makes this very distinction on their own public forms, schedules, and internal processing procedures as well, i.e., employee, SB/SE, non-statutory employee, etc?
    Mr. White, Subtitle B deals with gift, estate, and generation-skipping taxes, none of which has anything to do with what is included in gross income, which is an income tax concept. Similarly, nothing in Subtitles C through E has anything to do with what is included in gross income. While there are certain differences in treatment between self-employment income and compensation earned by working for someone else, nothing the IRS has published and nothing in the law suggests that one is included in gross income but the other isn't.

    So you say that I am the one confused? …How interesting. In any case historically such methods of taxation, regardless of what you label them, e.g., death, gift, inheritance, legacy, succession, etc., have always been understood to be excises and in America are correct to be taxed indirectly. To that end, I am not sure what you think you are gaining by wagering such silliness to defend your stance on the present issue.
    You are extremely confused. Yes, the estate tax is an excise, but since it can't be shifted (i.e., the executor must pay the tax out of the estate assets and can't shift it to someone else), it disproves the contention that excises are taxes that can be shifted.

    I see nowhere in Knowlton offering such a holding as you’re suggesting. In fact it referenced a proposed act of legislation from 1797 calling for (supra at 50): “… 2, the imposition of "a duty of two percentum ad valorem . . . on all testamentary dispositions, descents, and successions to the estates of intestates, excepting those to parents, husbands, wives, or lineal descendants," …”; hence, the confusion you’re attempting to kindle over this matter never at any point in our Nation’s history actually existed.
    You really should read the case before displaying such ignorance.

    But it is asserted that it was decided in the income tax cases that, in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the Constitution, it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom by law the burden of paying it is first cast can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct in the constitutional sense, and, hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost, or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity, and must be apportioned. From this assumed premise it is argued that death duties cannot be shifted from the one on whom they are first cast by law, and therefore they are direct taxes requiring apportionment.

    The fallacy is in the premise. It is true that in the income tax cases the theory of certain economists by which direct and indirect taxes are classified with reference to the ability to shift the same was adverted to. But this disputable theory was not the basis of the conclusion of the court. The constitutional meaning of the word direct was the matter decided. Considering that the constitutional rule of apportionment had its origin in the purpose to prevent taxes on persons solely because of their general ownership of property from being levied by any other rule than that of apportionment, two things were decided by the court: First, that no sound distinction existed between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and the same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property. Secondly, that the tax on the income derived from such property, real or personal, was the legal equivalent of a direct tax on the property from which said income was derived, and hence must be apportioned. These conclusions, however, lend no support to the contention that it was decided that duties, imposts and excises which are not the essential equivalent of a tax on property generally, real or personal, solely because of its ownership, must be converted into direct taxes, because it is conceived that it would be demonstrated by a close analysis that they could not be shifted from the person upon whom they first fall. The proposition now relied upon was considered and refuted in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509 , 43 L. ed. 786, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 522, where the court said ( p. 515, L. ed. p. 791, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 525):
    'The commands of the Constitution in this, as in all other respects, must be obeyed; direct taxes must be apportioned, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. But while yielding implicit obedience to these constitutional requirements, it is no part of the duty of this court to lessen, impede, or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more upon the differing theories of political economists than upon the practical nature of the tax itself.
    'In deciding upon the validity of a tax with reference to these requirements, no microscopic examination as to the purely economical or theoretical nature of the tax should be indulged in for the purpose of placing it in a category which would invalidate the tax. As a mere abstract, scientific, or economical problem, a particular tax might possibly be regarded as a direct tax, when as a practical matter pertaining to the actual operation of the tax it might quite plainly appear to be indirect. Under such circumstances, and while varying and disputable theories might be indulged as to the real nature of the tax, a court would not be justified, for the purpose of invalidating the tax, in placing it in a class different from that to which its practical results would consign it. Taxation is eminently practical, and is, in fact, brought to every man's door, and for the purpose of deciding upon its validity a tax should be regarded in its actual, practical results, rather than with reference to those theoretical or abstract ideas whose correctness is the subject of dispute and contradiction among those who are experts in the science of political economy.'
    Secondly, off the top of my head: Christian (KJV) Bible, Locke, Paine, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton (and the rest of those, you know, “domestic terrorists”), Turgot, Smith, Gallatin, Bastiat, Black, Marx and Engels, et al.

    Thirdly, yes, a several years back I had read Cooley’s Treatise on Taxation, Black’s Treatise on Income Taxation, and have read a bit about taxation in general from a legal encyclopedia; which I have been meaning to read them again, although much, much more thoroughly.
    * Speaking of which the above and other great writings are available for reading in PDF at my Learning Resource & Discovery Center (LRDC).
    The individuals in the first cited paragraph never wrote on the federal income tax, and although Mr. Cooley (writing in 1886) referred to the Civil War income tax, he never really discussed it nor did he cite the Supreme Court case that upheld its constitutionality as an excise or duty. But let's see what Mr. Black had to say in Section 229:

    A salary accruing to the taxpayer, whether payable annually or at shorter intervals, is taxable as a part of his income, and it is immaterial (except in so far as the statute makes express exceptions) whether he earns it in the capacity of a public officer or as an employe of a private corporation, or a partnership, or an individual…

    Nor does it make any difference that the amount of the salary is uncertain or varies from time to time, or that it depends on the extent of services actually rendered or the amount of business transacted, or that it may include commissions on sales. Whatever is received in the course of the year in the way of salary, wages, or compensation constitutes a part of that year's income… And it is immaterial by what name such earnings may be called, or whether they take the form of a fixed periodical compensation or accrue in each instance in consideration of particular services rendered. And the same is true of the wages or earnings of mechanics and artisans, if sufficient in annual amount to come within the purview of the statute, as may easily be the case under some of the state laws. And in all ordinary cases, whatever accrues to the taxpayer as compensation for his personal exertion or endeavor will be taxable as income, no matter what may be the nature of the employment or pursuit which he follows, since the terms of the statutes are broad enough to cover almost every conceivable kind of activity.(emphasis added)
    I guess you missed that part, Mr. White.

    Anyways, one down, so that leaves two, now which is it then? Please be sure to answer honestly now:

    1. Chapel Hill
    2. University of Oklahoma
    Neither. Don't bother listing every university in the country in the hopes of finding out which I attended. I'm not playing that game anymore.

  30. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheeljack View Post
    Let's get this straight. With respect to what is included in gross income, the courts have never been asked to distinguish between compensation earned through self-employment and that earned by working for someone else.
    Nor have they been asked to distinguish between compensation earned on odd numbered days and that earned on even numbered days, for the obvious reason that the statute doesn't make such a distinction. Similarly, both types of compensation are obviously included in gross income under Section 61(a).

    Look at it this way: if compensation received for working for someone else really isn't includable in gross income, what in the world is the purpose of Subchapter 24, the income tax withholding provisions? I think you would agree that the tax to be withheld under Chapter 24 is upon compensation received for working for someone else, right? So why would Congress draft an entire chapter covering withholding if the withheld tax is simply going to be refunded because it's not part of the income tax base?

    If Section 61(a)(1) ["compensation for services"] refers only to self-employment income, why do we also have Section 61(a)(2) ["gross income derived from business"]? Self-employment income is gross income derived from business, so why did Congress also include subsection (1)?

    If compensation earned for working for someone else isn't includable in gross income, why for the last 99 years has nobody in Congress jumped up and said, "Hold it! That type of compensation isn't covered by the statute!" Why has no professor written a law review article putting forth your interpretation of the statute? Why has no big-dollar athlete not hired a top tax attorney to make your argument so as to avoid tax on the $25 million in compensation he gets for working for his team?

  31. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Look at it this way: if compensation received for working for someone else really isn't includable in gross income, what in the world is the purpose of Subchapter 24, the income tax withholding provisions? I think you would agree that the tax to be withheld under Chapter 24 is upon compensation received for working for someone else, right? So why would Congress draft an entire chapter covering withholding if the withheld tax is simply going to be refunded because it's not part of the income tax base?

    If Section 61(a)(1) ["compensation for services"] refers only to self-employment income, why do we also have Section 61(a)(2) ["gross income derived from business"]? Self-employment income is gross income derived from business, so why did Congress also include subsection (1)?
    Sonny,

    Compensation received for working for someone else is not included in gross income. (hourly wages)

    Compensation received for the result of the work done for someone else is included in gross income. This is what Section 61(a)(1) ["compensation for services"] refers to and includes Commissions, Fees, Tips, and Fringe Benefits. These are things that employees can receive besides hourly wages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If compensation earned for working for someone else isn't includable in gross income, why for the last 99 years has nobody in Congress jumped up and said, "Hold it! That type of compensation isn't covered by the statute!" Why has no professor written a law review article putting forth your interpretation of the statute? Why has no big-dollar athlete not hired a top tax attorney to make your argument so as to avoid tax on the $25 million in compensation he gets for working for his team?
    Why did everyone believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth for centuries. Because the powers that be said so.

    No professor has written an article putting forth my interpretation because no professor has been presented with my interpretation.

    The big dollar athelete is not an employee of the team. Why would he hire an attorney to make an argument he hasn't even formulated in his own head.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •