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

[Weston White]

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PWN

[Wheeljack]

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

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

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

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

[Sonny Tufts]

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

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

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

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

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

[Wheeljack]

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

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

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

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

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

[Sonny Tufts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wheeljack]

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

As you say, an accession to wealth.

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


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

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

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

[Weston White]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover noting its context:

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

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

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

[Sonny Tufts]

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

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

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

[Sonny Tufts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Wheeljack]

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

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

[Weston White]

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

Exactly, just that, an increase in WEALTH. That is the precise purpose of awarding punitive damages, to increase one’s wealth at the negligence of another. Political economists have timelessly upheld that for individuals earning a livelihood, their recompense brings about no such acknowledged wealth, but merely just that a livelihood, which services their family’s subsistence, competence, and survival—with exception to merchants and men of industry, for them their labor-forces intends to bring about such desired WEALTH as you so very often speak to.

Funny how the high Court will readily hear such an idiot argument such as the one shown above, but will not give the time of day to the present debate, now ongoing, and growing momentum for the last several decades.

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

Negative, I just referred to several USSC cases absolutely proving otherwise. And two, the taxing power has to exist within the federal government’s constitutional powers (hence the purpose of having both a U.S. Constitution and a Bill of Rights), which is fixed to the intended purpose of the expanded context of the Sixteenth Amendment. Additionally, for example, the federal government lacks the power to tax the incomes of Canadians, as they are outside the breadth of established American federalism.

If the source were intended to be irrelevant the Legislature would have instead ratified an earlier revision of the Sixteenth Amendment, but those several earlier version failed, didn’t they (rhetorical question).

And just to further rub your face in your own wrongness, here is yet another quoted reference, from Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U.S. 221, 227-228 (1918):

The government opposes both contentions by an elaborate argument containing definitions of capital and income drawn from legal and economic sources and given breadth to cover a number of other cases submitted with this. The argument, in effect, makes any increase of value of property income, emerging as such and taxable at the moment of realization by sale or some act of separation, as by dividend declared or by distribution, as in the instant case.

To sustain the argument, these definition are presented:

“1. Capital is anything, material or otherwise, capable of ownership, viewed in its static condition at a moment of time, or the rights of ownership therein. 2. Income is the service or return rendered by capital during a period of time. . . . 4. Net income (‘profits’) is the difference between income and outgo. . . . 7. In the actual production and distribution of capital, there is a constant conversion of capital into income, and vice versa. 8. The attempt to conceal this conversion by treating ‘income’ as the standard return from intact ‘capital’ only leads to confusion of the value of capital with capital itself.”

From these definitions are deduced the following propositions, which are said to be decisive of the problems in the cases:

“1. Income being derived from the use of capital, the conversion or transfer of capital always produces income. 2. Mere appreciation of capital value does not produce ‘income,’ nor mere depreciation ‘outgo.’ 3. Net income is the difference between actual ‘income’ and actual ‘outgo.’ 4. Income is not confined to money income, but includes anything capable of easy valuation in money.”

Face it you and your Quatloosian buddies are all flat out wrong and the IRS is blatantly negligent in its perpetrated powers and mission-creep.

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

1. Do try and keep up Mr. “Tufts”, nobody is debating anything pertaining to an income tax being a capitation, but a capitation is exactly what it is NOT and for very good reason.
2. While it is true that the Court has not decided the issue of taxes upon wages or personal earnings being a direct tax, neither has it decided that they are indirect, simply for the fact that it has steadfastly refused to accept hearing any such arguments by average American individuals. Regardless, following the underpinning rules established by the Court pertaining to taxation in general (e.g., the shadow is of its source), regardless of the label it is legislatively packaged under, any taxes assessed or levied upon labor or the wages of labor falls within the very definition of a capitation or personal tax.
3. I love it whenever you bring up Springer, it indicates that you are approaching your desperation and bailout point. As I have earlier pointed out, on many prior occasions, Mr. Springer led a privileged, well-traveled lifestyle. Starting out as a young attorney and deeply involved in politics, he worked in various state and federal positions throughout his life; and at the time of his case challenging the income tax during the Civil War before the U.S. Supreme Court, he had being serving as a congressman for over a decade and for several additional years afterward. The relevant figure pertaining to his income tax filing from 1865 was $50,798, which in today’s inflated dollars is the equivalent of more than $750,000, respectively. Not even remotely comparable to the average laborers annual wages, certainly not then and definitely not now. Clearly, Mr. Springer was in possession of ‘net income’ and was to be justly taxed by the federal government. So what is next on the agenda, Hylton revisited?

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

You are referring to sin taxes being imposed upon specified items, namely upon the manufacturer or producer who then passes it onto their purchasers, which are excises. General sales taxes are entirely distinct and separate. If Congress could undeniably levy intrastate sales taxes at the till, it would have begun doing so long before any formula of income taxation had been dreamt up.

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

Again, the definition of “duties, imposts, and excises”, does not include intrastate sales taxes. The federal government may however, set taxes upon specific merchandise and the like (e.g., 26 USC Subtitles D and E taxes, such as coal, luxury purchases, ATFE, sport wagers, etc.), but not a national sales tax. More importantly however, is that the several states have established sales taxes as their primary source of generating revenue—making the Tenth Amendment absolutely the point.

[Sonny Tufts]

I am not really certain why you are so very set on this $50,000 figure

You claimed that $2.3 trillion in taxes are being extracted from the "working class". The 50K figure was my arbitrary definition of who the working class is. Of course, under your inane definition referring to anyone employed by or beholden to business, the term would encompass everyone in the country, including Gates and Buffet. thereby making the term meaningless.

it is not like the DOJ is going to go after people like Gates or Buffet or corporations such as Wal-mart, BP, or AT&T.

That's because they don't make idiotic tax-protester arguments.

Indirect taxes require uniformity throughout their application (i.e.., uniformly imposed tax-rates upon all property to be taxed with total equality), not just geographically, which pertains to only one aspect of uniformity. It is because of this exact mentality that the IRC has been morphed into a mess of behavioral modification prescriptions.

Take it up with SCOTUS, who rejected your argument over 100 years ago and held that the Uniformity Clause means only geographic uniformity:

By the result, then, of an analysis of the history of the adoption of the Constitution it becomes plain that the words 'uniform throughout the United States' do not signify an intrinsic but simply a geographical uniformity. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 106 (1900)

the USSC has never been willing to grant certiorari (or even bothering to write a published explanation for denying this writ) for the myriad tax cases respective of day-laborers.

Why should it? The argument that wages aren't income is so preposterous that the Court needn't waste its limited time on such idiocy.

here is a Webpage where the party involved thoroughly includes all of his documents for open viewing, claiming that his case, involving 10-years of alleged wrongdoing by the IRS, was dismissed with prejudice shortly after the DOJ failed to answer any of his interrogatories and had even motioned for one (or more) extensions: RAM v. IRS (See tab: Documentation).

The reason for the dismissal was that McNeil complied with the summons, as you well know. http://www.codebusters.org/rober-a-m...mons-t199.html

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

Mr. White, one can only hope that some day in the far, far distant future, you will be able to distinguish between a tax on the mere ownership of property (which is a direct tax) and a tax on the receipt of income (which is not). But I'm not holding my breath.

[Sonny Tufts]

for example, the federal government lacks the power to tax the incomes of Canadians, as they are outside the breadth of established American federalism.

Guess again. If a Canadian who's a non-resident of the U.S. has gross income as defined in Section 872, he's subject to the federal income tax.

And just to further rub your face in your own wrongness, here is yet another quoted reference, from Lynch v. Turrish, 247 U.S. 221, 227-228 (1918)

The case involved the transitional rule under which the income tax for the year 1913 applied only to income arising or accruing from March 1 to December 31. Since the income received by Turrish had accrued before March 1, the government lost.

2. While it is true that the Court has not decided the issue of taxes upon wages or personal earnings being a direct tax, neither has it decided that they are indirect, simply for the fact that it has steadfastly refused to accept hearing any such arguments by average American individuals.

Guess again. The Springer case held precisely that the tax on Mr. Springer's personal earnings was neither a capitation nor a direct tax.

Not even remotely comparable to the average laborers annual wages, certainly not then and definitely not now. Clearly, Mr. Springer was in possession of ‘net income’ and was to be justly taxed by the federal government.

So what? Neither the Constitution nor the statutes say there's some threshold below which pay-for-work isn't income.

The federal government may however, set taxes upon specific merchandise and the like (e.g., 26 USC Subtitles D and E taxes, such as coal, luxury purchases, ATFE, sport wagers, etc.), but not a national sales tax. More importantly however, is that the several states have established sales taxes as their primary source of generating revenue—making the Tenth Amendment absolutely the point.

Where does Congress' power to impose taxes on specific merchandise come from? Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. Does this provision limit the taxing power to any specific merchandise? No. Has SCOTUS held that the taxing power is limited to any particular merchandise? No, in fact is has said just the opposite: "it [the taxing power] reaches every subject and may be exercised at discretion". So Congress could clearly impose a national sales tax if it wished. A sales tax is simply a type of excise, and the only requirement for a federal excise is that it be geographically uniform and that it not be a tax on exports.

[Weston White]

You claimed that $2.3 trillion in taxes are being extracted from the "working class". The 50K figure was my arbitrary definition of who the working class is. Of course, under your inane definition referring to anyone employed by or beholden to business, the term would encompass everyone in the country, including Gates and Buffet. thereby making the term meaningless.

The working class includes, for example, anybody (be it blue collar or white collar) dependent upon a paycheck to support the lifestyle they are accustomed to, this including the supervisor earning $80,000 as well as the division manager earning $120,000 annually. Congress has zero constitutional powers to dictate the costs of living or individual spending habits of living of its American masses. The exceptions are the professions and professionals explicitly enumerated throughout the IRC, including persons functioning as fictitious entities; such as the personal services of those functioning as professional corporations, etc.

If you think Gates or Buffet fit that “inane definition”, you really have no business working within law, accounting, or for that matter politics.

That's because they don't make idiotic tax-protester arguments.

Of course neither they really have any need to: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/op...rich.html?_r=0

While on the other hand, perhaps they do, being that rather than using his power and affluence to demand greater financial accountability throughout government, in lowering federal taxation, he fully supports “Obama’s” Buffet Rule: http://www.rollcall.com/news/warren_...-212591-1.html

Even Herman Cain acknowledges America’s tax and spend addiction, concerning the VAT (what is but a disguised national sales tax): http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/22/dont-be-vat-stupid/

Take it up with SCOTUS, who rejected your argument over 100 years ago and held that the Uniformity Clause means only geographic uniformity:

Negative, for example:

Equality: Equality is a fundamental principle of taxation. The taxing power of the legislature must always be exercised in such a way that the burdens imposed by taxation are laid as equally as possible on all classes.

Uniformity: The principle of uniformity of taxation bears a close relation to the concept of equality because similar items are taxed equally only if the mode of assessment is the same or uniform.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/uniformity

What is UNIFORMITY?
In taxation. Uniformity In taxation implies equality in the burden of taxation, which cannot exist without uniformity in the mode of assessment, as well as in the rate of taxation. Further, the uniformity must be coextensive with the territory to which it applies. And it must be extended to all property subject to taxation, so that all property may be taxed alike and equally. [Citations omitted.]

Law Dictionary: What is UNIFORMITY? definition of UNIFORMITY (Black's Law Dictionary)

Further, in Knowlton it was with respect to what was clarified by Mr. Martin:

Mr. Martin said (1 ib., p. 369):

“Though there is a provision that all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform -- that is, to be laid to the same amount on the same articles in each state -- yet this will not prevent Congress from having it in their power to cause them to fall very unequally and much heavier on some states than on others, because these duties may be laid on articles but little or not at all used in some other states, and of absolute necessity for the use and consumption of others, in which case the first would pay little or no part of the revenue arising therefrom, while the whole or nearly the whole of it would be paid by the last, to-wit, the states which use and consume the articles on which imposts and excises are laid.”

Why should it? The argument that wages aren't income is so preposterous that the Court needn't waste its limited time on such idiocy.

But the argument that a federal income tax assessed on non-privileged, intrastate wages and labor is direct, therefore requires apportionment and exists outside the historical breadth of the Sixteenth Amendment, is not the least bit preposterous and is very much a federal issue DIRECTLY affecting the majority of the population—as well there are several additional issues respective to this matter needing to be addressed, each pertaining to a blatant abuse of federal taxing powers and a federal bureaucracy operating far outside of its statutory authority.

The reason for the dismissal was that McNeil complied with the summons, as you well know. http://www.codebusters.org/rober-a-m...mons-t199.html

Well, “Famspear”, it is a bit more complex than that; and the only update I am aware of concerning the many aspects involved are a reply he had responded in inquiry to, writing in part: “Since defeating both summonses in Federal Court in 2008, I have not had any personal contact with the IRS or DOJ. No phone calls... no meetings... no 6:00am raids... no indictments.... nothing.”

But overall, so far that I am aware, his situation sounds like another Dave Champion style win against the IRS.

Mr. White, one can only hope that some day in the far, far distant future, you will be able to distinguish between a tax on the mere ownership of property (which is a direct tax) and a tax on the receipt of income (which is not). But I'm not holding my breath.

Well regardless, any tax assessed upon labor or its wages, regardless of whatever crafty, stealthy name it is to be decreed to the public under is and has always has been a DIRECT capitation or personal tax. Furthermore, the USSC has found that Congress may not circumvent its constitutional constraints by indirectly taxing a source’s shadow, when to otherwise tax the source itself would require apportionment (there are literally a dozen USSC cases addressing various aspects of this sound reasoning).

To receive is to indicate ownership, possession, or control. An indirect tax imposed upon a business for the wages paid out to its employees or the effective result of that productivity is one thing, while a tax upon the wages or labor of employees is another requiring apportionment.

Historically economists have consistently theorized a person’s labor and wages are their personal property and exist as a human right; including the USSC, e.g. (one of several cases), Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 110-111 (1959): “…and it is quite clear, generally, that accrued salaries are property and rights to property subject to levy.”

That is to indicate, not upon the ownership, possession, or control of the property itself, but all of the income that has emanated as a result of the successful employment in ownership, possession, or control of that property, e.g., Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 15 (1916):

“Again, the situation is aptly illustrated by the various acts taxing incomes derived from property of every kind and nature which were enacted beginning in 1861, and lasting during what may be termed the Civil War period. It is not disputable that these latter taxing laws were classed under the head of excises, duties, and imposts because it was assumed that they were of that character inasmuch as, although putting a tax burden on income of every kind, including that derived from property real or personal, they were not taxes directly on property because of its ownership. And this practical construction came in theory to be the accepted one, since it was adopted without dissent by the most eminent of the text writers.”

Guess again. If a Canadian who's a non-resident of the U.S. has gross income as defined in Section 872, he's subject to the federal income tax.

Who in the world had stated anything about having United States income? At no time was that ever mentioned.

The case involved the transitional rule under which the income tax for the year 1913 applied only to income arising or accruing from March 1 to December 31. Since the income received by Turrish had accrued before March 1, the government lost.

To which your response has no relevance to the government’s own “elaborate” definition of what ‘net income’ is; and that still today describes, inculcating, that very meaning as outlined by the federal government’s own Congressional Research Service.

Guess again. The Springer case held precisely that the tax on Mr. Springer's personal earnings was neither a capitation nor a direct tax.

Again, in 1865 Mr. Springer reported $50,798 in income, clearly at the absolute minimum a very large portion of his earnings for that year qualified as ‘net income’, making it taxable, regardless. Mr. Springer was not a factory worker he was an attorney, lifelong active in politics and the like.

So what? Neither the Constitution nor the statutes say there's some threshold below which pay-for-work isn't income.

Because, it indicates that he was involved in more than living a subsistence lifestyle (as I had shown in my earlier post). The majority of the population does not make over $700,000 a year just by working for a paycheck twice a month.

How is it possible that you fail so poorly at such very basic logic? Really, I would like to know.

Where does Congress' power to impose taxes on specific merchandise come from? Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. Does this provision limit the taxing power to any specific merchandise? No. Has SCOTUS held that the taxing power is limited to any particular merchandise? No, in fact is has said just the opposite: "it [the taxing power] reaches every subject and may be exercised at discretion". So Congress could clearly impose a national sales tax if it wished. A sales tax is simply a type of excise, and the only requirement for a federal excise is that it be geographically uniform and that it not be a tax on exports.

It is indicative of the very definitions used, including America’s well-established separation of governmental powers over the last two-centuries, viz., ‘excises’. You seem to utterly fail in contextualizing the usage and purpose of specifically included terms.

Further clarification provides:

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 472, 474-475 (1866):

“There would be great force in it if the licenses were regarded as giving authority, for then there would be a direct conflict between national and state legislation on a subject which the Constitution places under the exclusive control of the states. . . .

Upon the whole, we conclude:

5. That the recognition by the acts of Congress of the power and right of the states to tax, control, or regulate any business carried on within its limits is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such business for national purposes.”

Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 662-663 (1874):

It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens subject at all times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but a despotism. It is true it is a despotism of the many, of the majority, if you choose to call it so, but it is nonetheless a despotism. It may well be doubted if a man is to hold all that he is accustomed to call his own, all in which he has placed his happiness, and the security of which is essential to that happiness, under the unlimited dominion of others, whether it is not wiser that this power should be exercised by one man than by many.

The theory of our governments, state and national, is opposed to the deposit of unlimited power anywhere. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branches of these governments are all of limited and defined powers.

[Sonny Tufts]

But the argument that a federal income tax assessed on non-privileged, intrastate wages and labor is direct, therefore requires apportionment and exists outside the historical breadth of the Sixteenth Amendment, is not the least bit preposterous

To the contrary, it is utterly frivolous for the simple reason that there is no language in the 16th Amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution) or in any court decision that even remotely suggests that the power to impose a federal income tax requires a privilege or some sort of interstate connection. The law has never required a privilege in order to tax, and the taxing power doersn't depend in any way on the power to regulate interstate commerce. A federal tax on wages has NEVER been viewed as a direct tax in the United States, and even if it had been the plain language of the 16th Amendment (which you obviously cannot comprehend) makes it clear that a tax on income needn't be apportioned. Your argument has a 100% losing record, and it is so patently idiotic that many who have made it have ended up being fined.

Well regardless, any tax assessed upon labor or its wages, regardless of whatever crafty, stealthy name it is to be decreed to the public under is and has always has been a DIRECT capitation or personal tax.

That is a lie, Mr. White, and you know it. No court in this country has ever held that a federal tax on wages is a direct tax or a capitation. In fact, the Springer case rejected such an argument. Your pathetic attempt to distinguish that case on the basis of how much income Mr. Springer had is meritless. The Court didn't base its decision on the amount of income he had (it was so irrelevant that it was never mentioned in the decision), and there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that wages don't constitute income subject to taxation if they fall below some undefined subsistence level.

Historically economists have consistently theorized a person’s labor and wages are their personal property and exist as a human right; including the USSC, e.g. (one of several cases), Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108, 110-111 (1959): “…and it is quite clear, generally, that accrued salaries are property and rights to property subject to levy.”

Like most people who are uneducated in the law, you make the common error of taking a rule out of one context and trying to apply it somewhere else where it doesn't belong. The fact that wages are property subject to levy does not mean that a tax on the receipt of wages is a tax on the property itself and is therefore a direct tax. That is Pollock-like thinking that was rejected by the 16th Amendment and that was later characterized as erroneous by the Supreme Court. Moreover, a levy is not a tax; it is a method of seizing property to satisfy a debt owed the federal government.

Again: a tax on the mere ownership of property can be imposed more than once. The classic example is a real property tax, which is imposed annually. An income tax is imposed only once with respect to the receipt of a given item of income, and it is not imposed on the mere ownership of the income but upon its receipt.

It is indicative of the very definitions used, including America’s well-established separation of governmental powers over the last two-centuries, viz., ‘excises’. You seem to utterly fail in contextualizing the usage and purpose of specifically included terms.

Please write in English instead of gibberish. This bit of unintelligible word salad is completely unresponsive to my comment. The issue is what kind of taxes Congress is authorized to impose under I.8.1. There are no "definitions" in that provision, nor is there any issue of spearation of powers. The plain fact is that the Constitution specifies only one thing Congress can't tax (exports).

[Wheeljack]

In any event, Congress clearly has the power to impose an unapportioned sales tax.

Congress could have established a national sales tax, but that would have been truly destructive to the low income working class, and that would not have been beneficial for congressional re-election. (National Sales Tax = Congress is the bad guy.)

So, Congress went after corporations and excessive profits with a federal income tax. (Corporations are the bad guys, Congress is the good guy)

What the people fail to recognize is that the federal income tax is incorporated into the price of the goods that they buy, therefore, in essence they are
paying a national sales tax as it passes through the businesses.

When these commentators say that 43 to 47% of the people do not pay federal income tax, they are showing that they have no clue as to what goes on in business.

[Sonny Tufts]

When these commentators say that 43 to 47% of the people do not pay federal income tax, they are showing that they have no clue as to what goes on in business.

But most of the people who don't pay income tax do pay FICA and Medicare taxes, and a like amount of these taxes is paid by their employers as well. This latter amount (which economists say would otherwise be paid to the employee as wages) is added to the prices of goods and services. I doubt that many people give any thought to this.

Congress is well adept at packaging legislation so as not to attract attention to what it's really doing -- e.g., the so-called "stealth tax", under which itemized deductions and personal exemptions are phased out for high-income earners. This is less obvious than a simple tax hike.

[Weston White]

To the contrary, it is utterly frivolous for the simple reason that there is no language in the 16th Amendment (or anywhere else in the Constitution) or in any court decision that even remotely suggests that the power to impose a federal income tax requires a privilege or some sort of interstate connection. The law has never required a privilege in order to tax, and the taxing power doersn't depend in any way on the power to regulate interstate commerce. A federal tax on wages has NEVER been viewed as a direct tax in the United States, and even if it had been the plain language of the 16th Amendment (which you obviously cannot comprehend) makes it clear that a tax on income needn't be apportioned. Your argument has a 100% losing record, and it is so patently idiotic that many who have made it have ended up being fined.

Again you could not possibly be any less correct, the various subtitles of the IRC stipulates such exceptions all throughout itself, e.g., federal officials, officers, and military personnel; seaman; insurance salespersons; joint-stock companies; professional corporations; railroads; wagering companies; ATFE manufacturers; foreign income of Americans; United States income of aliens; federal possessions and territories; etc.

Yet still as clarified by, Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Wisconsin, 275 U.S. 136, 140 (1927) and REAFFIRMED in National Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 277 U.S. 508, 521 (1928):

“Certainly since Gillespie v. Oklahoma, 257 U. S. 501, 257 U. S. 505, it has been the settled doctrine here that, where the principal is absolutely immune, no valid tax can be laid upon income arising therefrom. To tax this would amount practically to laying a burden on the exempted principal. Accordingly, if the challenged Act, whatever called, really imposes a direct charge upon interest derived from United States bonds, it is pro tanto void.

The fundamental question often presented in cases similar to these is whether, by the true construction of the statute, the assessment must be regarded as a tax upon property or one on privileges or franchise of the corporation. Society for Savings v. Coite, 6 Wall. 594; Home Insurance Co. v. New York, 134 U. S. 594.”

It was only my intent to account for known exceptions that exist within the Internal Revenue Code; but to simplify it for you—being that you have such serious issues comprehending the plain context of a statement (which is not surprising for Internet attorneys and telephone tough-guys such as you):

But the argument that a federal income tax assessed on the wages and labor of California’s resident employees is direct, therefore requiring apportionment and existing outside the historical breadth of the Sixteenth Amendment, is not the least bit preposterous.

Furthermore, various federal statues, including the IRS itself, define such a tax as being a direct form of taxation (e.g. 19 CFR § 351.102(b)(16)) and the legislative history shows the tax to be not intended upon income, generally, but only income in its constitutional sense, i.e., ‘constitutional income’; thereby, making you doubly wrong.

No, the federal income tax upon incomes only needn’t be apportioned when it hath been derived from a constitutionally valid source, otherwise when seeking to operate directly upon a source, it requires apportionment, as further clarified in Brushaber (as quoted earlier), et al.

Correctly stated, it is that a federal income tax imposed upon the incomes of wages and labor has NEVER been viewed as a direct tax; however, a federal income tax imposed upon wages and labor has ALWAYS required apportionment. There, you see, I can obviously comprehend it just fine, and just dandy.

That is a lie, Mr. White, and you know it. No court in this country has ever held that a federal tax on wages is a direct tax or a capitation. In fact, the Springer case rejected such an argument. Your pathetic attempt to distinguish that case on the basis of how much income Mr. Springer had is meritless. The Court didn't base its decision on the amount of income he had (it was so irrelevant that it was never mentioned in the decision), and there is absolutely nothing in the law that says that wages don't constitute income subject to taxation if they fall below some undefined subsistence level.

Oh a lie, really now? You say I lied and then reference the courts as if I had made such a reference, which I did not. No, that was all you, buddy. See how dishonest you are? You blatantly lie and consistently deceive.

However, no, the Court in Springer based its decision upon the limited framing of the case, which unlike the vastly expansive review in Pollock provided very little consideration to the underpinning matter—such as the fact that in Springer the issue was not about wages, it was not about his salary, and it was not about his labor, but only about his “gains, profits, and incomes”. Moreover, the Court acknowledged that capitations are included within the meaning of direct taxes.

You are partially correct in one aspect however, the question as to his income was irrelevant, only in that it was so readily apparent that given his position in life, he did in fact have ‘net income’, as the vast wealth he was in possession of given that period of time is indicative of this fact.

Apropos, I have already argued this case with you at length HERE. The Springer case can hardly be found to be on-point, with consideration to the laboring class of society anyway. Further still, Pollock supersedes the (partially overruled) Springer case of 1880 (long before 1913 by the way).

Like most people who are uneducated in the law, you make the common error of taking a rule out of one context and trying to apply it somewhere else where it doesn't belong.

No, nothing is being taken out of context that decision clearly states with respect to tax obligations—and that it intently upholds the writings of renowned economists throughout history—that the recompense of individuals is a form of property and that there is an existing right to such personal or private property, which may be levied when so legally justified.

The fact that wages are property subject to levy does not mean that a tax on the receipt of wages is a tax on the property itself and is therefore a direct tax.

Well, actually it is more correctly stated that the tax is upon the receipt of income derived from wages and the like (you are yet again attempting to confabulate qualified Subtitle C wage withholdings with Subtitle A gross income), and that is precisely what it means, just like, to name one of a dozen other relatable examples, how a tax upon importers is a tax upon imports and therefore void; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 444:

“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.”

That is Pollock-like thinking that was rejected by the 16th Amendment and that was later characterized as erroneous by the Supreme Court.

Honestly, if you believe that you are a huge fool and still fundamentally miscomprehend the sum of these underpinning concerns—being that it is opposes the very findings of Pollock. As Pollock found that qualifying incomes requires apportionment, that is, when its derivation itself requires apportionment. Here now, we find that qualifying incomes requires only uniformity, regardless if its derivation requires apportionment or uniformity.

Moreover, a levy is not a tax; it is a method of seizing property to satisfy a debt owed the federal government.

And by “debt” you mean a failure in paying an outstanding tax obligation (i.e., the Sims case pertains to IRS tax matters); making the levy the end result of taxes (presumably) verified as being due.

Again: a tax on the mere ownership of property can be imposed more than once. The classic example is a real property tax, which is imposed annually.

Again?

At any rate, this has nothing to do with anything being discussed within this thread, but thanks for the info. As if we did not know the obvious already, we all so needed you to clarify this concept for us (insert rolling eyes here).

However, applying the logic you use in determining an employee’s recompense and labor to be indirectly taxable to the realty within the several states, such may be made indirectly taxable by the federal government simply by its branding such a tax upon the land possessed by each state’s residents as a national land registration fee or similar tax based upon a percentage of total land value or acres owned and justified under its census powers, aiding the general welfare of national housing markets, providing housing to low income families, or something similar in effect.

An income tax is imposed only once with respect to the receipt of a given item of income, and it is not imposed on the mere ownership of the income but upon its receipt.

There is no conceivable distinction between owning $100 and receiving $100. A tax upon receipt is synonymous to a tax upon ownership; which is contrary to owning $100 and gifting (or transferring) $100.

Furthermore, additional taxes are imposed upon that income regardless if it saved, spent, or transferred; and its perceived spending power exponentially decreases (attributed to the negative reciprocating effects of the Federal Reserve System's monetizing of governmental debt) the longer it is held in one’s possession. So no, the receipt of income is not taxed singularly as you are asserting.

Please write in English instead of gibberish. This bit of unintelligible word salad is completely unresponsive to my comment. The issue is what kind of taxes Congress is authorized to impose under I.8.1. There are no "definitions" in that provision, nor is there any issue of spearation of powers. The plain fact is that the Constitution specifies only one thing Congress can't tax (exports).

Wow, even that was too difficult for you to comprehend? Seems you have proved my point for me all on your own. Thank you.

At any rate that is the very meaning of what is an indirect ‘excise’ tax. Further, the precedent under Tenth Amendment protections have been long established by virtually every single state since the conception of intrastate sales taxes. If you cannot understand this concept, you can blame my so-called “word salad” all you like that does not however, relieve you of your own personal inadequacies. Perhaps you should try laying off the diet soda pops?

[Sonny Tufts]

Again you could not possibly be any less correct, the various subtitles of the IRC stipulates such exceptions all throughout itself, e.g., federal officials, officers, and military personnel; seaman; insurance salespersons; joint-stock companies; professional corporations; railroads; wagering companies; ATFE manufacturers; foreign income of Americans; United States income of aliens; federal possessions and territories; etc.

B.S. Your complaint was that "the argument that a federal income tax assessed on non-privileged, intrastate wages and labor is direct, therefore requires apportionment and exists outside the historical breadth of the Sixteenth Amendment, is not the least bit preposterous." You obviously attached importance to whether the wages arose from non-privileged, intrastate activity, when in fact these are totally irrelevant factors because Congress can reach such wages with an unapportioned tax regardless of whether the activity is privileged or intrastate. And how do we know this? Because (a) the Constitution doesn't require either a privilege or an interstate nexus, and (b) neither does Section 61.

Furthermore, various federal statues, including the IRS itself, define such a tax as being a direct form of taxation (e.g. 19 CFR § 351.102(b)(16)) and the legislative history shows the tax to be not intended upon income, generally, but only income in its constitutional sense, i.e., ‘constitutional income’; thereby, making you doubly wrong.

Dear God, not the 19 CFR crapola again...why is it that tax protesters can't read? That regulation defines "direct tax" for purposes of the Tarriff Act of 1930 and the regulations under Part 351 of 19 CFR. Guess what that Part deals with, Mr. White? Is it the income tax? No, doofus, it deals with antidumping and countervailing duties, and it was drafted by the Department of Commerce, not the IRS.

Moreover, you still have a reading-comprehension problem with the 16th Amendment, which says that an income tax needn't be apportioned. So it doesn't matter whether an income tax is a direct tax -- it still doesn't have to be apportioned.

No, the federal income tax upon incomes only needn’t be apportioned when it hath been derived from a constitutionally valid source

More B.S. That is not the law, or don't you know the meaning of "from whatever source"?

however, a federal income tax imposed upon wages and labor has ALWAYS required apportionment. There, you see, I can obviously comprehend it just fine, and just dandy.

No, you're still clueless. Cite any language in the Constitution or any caselaw that says such a tax had or has to be apportioned.

However, no, the Court in Springer based its decision upon the limited framing of the case

Another lie. The Springer decision was based on the premise that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were taxes on land and capitations and that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty.

No, nothing is being taken out of context that decision clearly states with respect to tax obligations—and that it intently upholds the writings of renowned economists throughout history—that the recompense of individuals is a form of property and that there is an existing right to such personal or private property, which may be levied when so legally justified.

While it's true that personal earnings are property that can be levied upon, it doesn't follow that a tax on such earnings is a tax on property and therefore a direct tax that has to be apportioned. That was where you were trying to go, and you failed miserably.

Well, actually it is more correctly stated that the tax is upon the receipt of income derived from wages and the like (you are yet again attempting to confabulate qualified Subtitle C wage withholdings with Subtitle A gross income), and that is precisely what it means, just like, to name one of a dozen other relatable examples, how a tax upon importers is a tax upon imports and therefore void; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, 25 U. S. 444

The Brown case dealt with a state tax and is therefore irrelevant. To show you how off base you are consider: Congress cannot tax exports. May it tax the income from exports? You bet. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1916).

There is no conceivable distinction between owning $100 and receiving $100. A tax upon receipt is synonymous to a tax upon ownership; which is contrary to owning $100 and gifting (or transferring) $100.

Wrong. A tax on receipt is a tax upon an event. A tax on ownership is a tax on a legal relation between a person and property.

Furthermore, additional taxes are imposed upon that income regardless if it saved, spent

Hopelessly wrong. Or do you think that if you were to put the income under your mattress it will somehow be taxed again? You really have no clue about any of this, Mr. White.

[Weston White]

B.S. Your complaint was that "the argument that a federal income tax assessed on non-privileged, intrastate wages and labor is direct, therefore requires apportionment and exists outside the historical breadth of the Sixteenth Amendment, is not the least bit preposterous." You obviously attached importance to whether the wages arose from non-privileged, intrastate activity, when in fact these are totally irrelevant factors because Congress can reach such wages with an unapportioned tax regardless of whether the activity is privileged or intrastate. And how do we know this? Because (a) the Constitution doesn't require either a privilege or an interstate nexus, and (b) neither does Section 61.

B.S. that the IRC does not provide such stipulations? So even that you are adamantly denying as well? As was stated earlier, you have devolved yourself to the point of utter untrustworthiness. You have left nobody any reason to believe anything you say. You Mr. Tufts, or “Famspear”, are ineffectual.

At any rate, no, I was removing ambiguity while providing focus to the underpinning issue, but you apparently have very serious problems comprehending context and still refuse to “get it”. You can lead a horse to water, but as they say...

There is, regardless, a vast difference; for example, military personnel are under the immediate authority of the federal government and obtain many additional perks for working under the federal government, therefore the federal government can stipulate and dictate its own obligations upon its own employees, such as compelling them to give their lives by the mere order of a military officer, or to take vaccinations upon demand, or to travel overseas, or do twenty pushups, permit inspection of their personal property, work on Sunday, work for three-days straight without any sleep, man a post until relieved, etc. (Noting also that they get away with not paying taxes on their room and board (including full meals, electricity, water, showers, laundry, etc.), haircuts, special allowances and chits, gym usage, medical and dental treatments and surgeries (regardless if work related or not), etc.) Furthermore, as I had posted earlier, on average, federal employees earn more than double that of their “civilian” counterparts, so even with the federal government taxing their pay, they still come out far ahead then do most American citizens, at least in following the ideologies of the status quo. Further noting a little known fact, military personnel ordered into war zones, receive tax exempt pay (in additional to their COLA, hazard duty pay, and double pay), now where did that novel concept ever manifest itself from?

There is simply no importance respective to the intrastate core earnings of everyday, average state resident citizen employees, with exception to the actual income that has derived through their labor or pay and which is not explicitly exempted (e.g., that which goes beyond a mere exchange, such as their added contractual benefits including: bonuses, gifts, employee time-bank cash-outs, etc.)

Dear God, not the 19 CFR crapola again...why is it that tax protesters can't read? That regulation defines "direct tax" for purposes of the Tarriff Act of 1930 and the regulations under Part 351 of 19 CFR. Guess what that Part deals with, Mr. White? Is it the income tax? No, doofus, it deals with antidumping and countervailing duties, and it was drafted by the Department of Commerce, not the IRS.

It does not matter, the context would not change regardless of what the scope of the section itself is confined to; it is withstanding. Just as similarly to how the intent of ‘income’ is exposed within IRC Section 643(b), its thru-and-thru functionality is exposed within IRC Section 83(a), and just a similarly to how direct and indirect taxes are defined by the IRS on its very own public learning Website portal. They are all IDENTICAL DEFINITIONS, which is how they are further DEFINED within legal dictionaries, treaties, and USSC cases.

Oh and yes it does address income, income that had been DERIVED through… wait for it… wait for it… wait for it… United States antidumping and countervailing duties.

(Wow that one was a zinger. Budum-dum-bum!)

Moreover, you still have a reading-comprehension problem with the 16th Amendment, which says that an income tax needn't be apportioned. So it doesn't matter whether an income tax is a direct tax -- it still doesn't have to be apportioned.

No, that is not it. I totally agree with that assessment of the Sixteenth Amendment. However, basic recompense is not qualified as ‘incomes’ within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment--it may however eventually lead to the realization of such ‘incomes’ through its future employments as invested principal.

More B.S. That is not the law, or don't you know the meaning of "from whatever source"?

…Or it could be that you do in-fact know, but that you are paid to troll the Internets to disseminate misinformation because it serves not the continued interest and security of the United States. For example, it is noteworthy that you intentionally left out the term “derived” from your above quotation as if it simply holds zero relevance to the income tax equation.

At any rate, thankfully, the USSC has clarified exactly what “from whatever source” means. And (as quoted already within my earlier post) that very definition concerns tangibility, inherent value, physical transference, etc.

No, you're still clueless. Cite any language in the Constitution or any caselaw that says such a tax had or has to be apportioned.

Have you not been paying attention, I already have. …And still you remain completely oblivious. It is found in the very definitions pertaining to this matter, and still further shown by political economists throughout the last several centuries, within treaties on income taxation, within a dozen USSC cases therein addressing varying nuances of the underpinning matter, establishing common law rules to be acknowledged, thought upon, and followed by the dictates of our Nation’s founding. And the list goes on. Virtually everything—obviously however, excluding the published modern opinions of a majority of trial and appellate courts, such as the case the IRS loves to quote that grossly misquoted the Brushaber decision, which is indicative of a fundamental breakdown in reasoning and understanding of the lower and appeals courts; thus, exhibiting their preference to centerline with socialistic mantras and progressivist ideologies—vindicates, corroborates, or substantiates the modern day arguments made by the vast majority of the Tax Honesty Movement.

Another lie. The Springer decision was based on the premise that the only direct taxes under the Constitution were taxes on land and capitations and that the Civil War income tax was in the nature of an excise or duty.

The decision of the case is made with respect to, and only to the pleadings of the case, which establishes its limited framing. There were several key aspects to be addressed within the framing of the Spinger case (such as the levying and selling of his estates). These are attributable to the case being “on-point” or not. Do fail to grasp the distinctions?

If you feel I am a liar that is perfectly fine with me, I will let the Courts words speak for me instead:

The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax.

While it's true that personal earnings are property that can be levied upon, it doesn't follow that a tax on such earnings is a tax on property and therefore a direct tax that has to be apportioned. That was where you were trying to go, and you failed miserably.

It is you that has failed. Take notice that you neglected to explain the logic you have contorted within your reply and that is because you cannot, as you have attempted in absolute desperation to expound on this very notion before, even still it always very easily frays apart without much retort on the part of myself or others. Furthermore, the Courts disagree with your assessment, historical economists disagree with your assessment—my goodness, even Alexander Hamilton disagrees with your assessment, as does also Mr. Henry Black.

Ergo, a tax upon recompense is a DIRECT tax upon labor, both of which are personal property, and both of which require apportionment under any method of taxation. Aspects of the Sixteenth Amendment simply are not relevant on this matter.

The Brown case dealt with a state tax and is therefore irrelevant. To show you how off base you are consider: Congress cannot tax exports. May it tax the income from exports? You bet. See Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1916).

That is one of many such examples, it has been relied upon within cases dealing directly with federal issues, including Pollock. It is not that it dealt with a state issue (which was already apparent by the context of the case to begin with), it is the logic being exuded which pertains to taxation, regardless if at the state or federal level, which is of great importance.

Again you are attempting to confabulate a tax upon exports or the sales of exports (or for that matter imports) with a tax upon the gains, profits, and incomes derived therefrom. However, none of this is at all relative to a laborer who works in exchange for their own competence and to the financial benefit of their employer—to wit there is an inconvertible distinction between proletariats and bourgeois.

Wrong. A tax on receipt is a tax upon an event. A tax on ownership is a tax on a legal relation between a person and property.

Do try to retain the context of this discussion; which in this instance pertains to an event that under our wondrous U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence requires apportionment, just as it has always has, despite the Sixteenth Amendment.

As the Court has previously clarified many, many, many times now (paraphrasing its foundational logic of course), you can certainly brush over blue with yellow in order to acquire green, but that does not alter the fact that beneath its veneer still lays blue.

Hopelessly wrong. Or do you think that if you were to put the income under your mattress it will somehow be taxed again? You really have no clue about any of this, Mr. White.

You will be taxed through its continued devaluation (i.e., inflation), as I had earlier pointed out. Moreover, throughout every level of government you will be taxed approximately 70-cents for each dollar you subsequently spend, of money that under the status quo had already been taxed and had itself realized no bona fide income, zero additional or outside growth.

However, try doing that with bullion and then prepare to become vastly impressed with your newly realized WEALTH.

(Speaking of the future, why don’t you try using a bit more foresight prior to posting such rabid nonsense?)

[Weston White]

Congrats to Wheeljack and all libertarian thread participants, it is now the number-one viewed subforum! Views: 24,562.

[Weston White]

I just posted the eight revised edition of my discourse on personal taxation; it includes many new quotable sources and is downloadable here (Please enjoy and pass along to friends, family, coworkers, public servants, etc. Thank you.):

A Discourse on the Crux of the Federal Taxation of Individuals.

[HVACTech]

heh, I see the "problem"

Moreover, you still have a reading-comprehension problem with the 16th Amendment, which says that an income tax needn't be apportioned. So it doesn't matter whether an income tax is a direct tax -- it still doesn't have to be apportioned.

taxes = theft. there is only one way to steal fairly.
everybody pays, and they all pay the same.
is there another way?

[Wheeljack]

Good day, Weston.

I just read through your discourse. I still have hope for you.

In chapter 6.2 you cover personal and professional services, then in chap 8.2 you equate Michael Jordon to a laborer, that is the mistake that has trapped us in this mess.

When Congress empowered business to be their tax assessor and collector for their employees. What happened is that those who run the businesses began to assess the workforce, as a whole, as they themselves were previously assessed, individually, by the government.

Your heading @8.2 Your job is labor as a source is true and the law acknowledges this in the way it is written.

If you look to the Social Security regs., what is taxed is compensation for employment. Labor and personal services are what make up employment.

Now, if you look at the Income Tax regs., the word employment is not used, even though these regs. were written after the S.S. regs. the law does not allow the use of the word employment. Therefore, depending on who you are or where you are, what is taxed is as follows;

If you are a non-resident alien, working in the U.S., then it is compensation for labor or personal services.

If you are a citizen, working abroad, then it is compensation for labor or personal services.

If you are a citizen, working in a U.S. Territory and claiming that territory as your tax home, then it is compensation for labor or personal services.

If you are a citizen, working in a U.S. Territory and still claiming a State as your tax home, then it is compensation for personal services.

If you are a citizen, working in the U.S., then it is compensation for personal services.

[Weston White]

Hello and thank you. Although I always felt we mostly agreed with one another on such matters.

I think the underlying distinction pertains to say an artist painting a Mona Lisa for their employer to sell and an artist painting a Mona Lisa to sell on their own or a self-employed accountant versus an accountant working for Payroll Services Unlimited, LLC. The point on mentioning Mr. Jordan was merely to identify exactly what labor is, the true significance of it. Ergo, “compensation”, generally pertains not to income as wages or salaries, but incomes born from a prudent application of wages or salaries.

However, in my personal view, I would go so far as to argue that the core of Mr. Jordan’s salary, being respective of him as a laborer of basketball (i.e., a professional athlete) and so far as that is concerned all such earnings of his are not properly taxable under the income tax—although all of his respective royalties, commissions, unearned income etc., are properly taxable as income. Additionally, there are other considerations as well including international and foreign incomes, tariffs and tax treaties, etc. that may come into play; all becoming overwhelmingly complex.

Although that being stated I am not personally familiar with how professional athletes and movie stars contract their professions, perhaps they function as an LLC or similar entity. And keeping in mind as well that such individuals did not used to make such insane amounts of money, such as: $100,000 per speech, $1-million per episode, $25-million per movie, $4-million per record album, or $12-million per signing contract. This all is symbolic as to how modern society has degenerated, which is another issue to be addressed all on its own.

Certainly, geography and citizenship status plays an important part in this discussion, but the throughout context of my updated work focuses mostly on American citizens living and working intrastate for or local employers (both public and private). But your concern would make for a good addition to a future revision. For example (IIRC), Dave Champion claims to have spent a week or so at the National Archives with a team of investigators going through Treasury memorandums for the last century and found that the context of every last one of them excluded Americans living and working only within the United States or addressed ‘income without the United States’ and ‘aliens/non-residents with United States income’—which is also the precise context of the 26 CFR introduction concerning wage withholdings.

[Wheeljack]

Hello and thank you. Although I always felt we mostly agreed with one another on such matters.

We do mostly. This is about the clear distinction between labor and personal services. What you describe in the following paragraph, with the artist and accountant, is the difference between employment and self-employment. Labor and personal services both happen under the umbrella of employment.
Example: Two artist are hired by a school. The first, a student looking for summer employment, is paid $10/hr. to paint the hallways. The second, a nationally recognized artist, negotiates a $50,000 contract to paint a mural in the auditorium over the summer. They both are expected to be there 8 hrs. a day. The first is a laborer, because she can quit this job at any time and is not required to have all the hallways painted by the end of the summer. The second, has sold her personal services and is required by contract to have the mural completed by the end of the summer. She may even hire helpers to do menial tasks for her that are not representative of her skills.

I think the underlying distinction pertains to say an artist painting a Mona Lisa for their employer to sell and an artist painting a Mona Lisa to sell on their own or a self-employed accountant versus an accountant working for Payroll Services Unlimited, LLC. The point on mentioning Mr. Jordan was merely to identify exactly what labor is, the true significance of it. Ergo, “compensation”, generally pertains not to income as wages or salaries, but incomes born from a prudent application of wages or salaries.

At no time is Mr. Jordan a laborer, he has sold his personal services. The work that he does is to fulfill his contractual obligations.

However, in my personal view, I would go so far as to argue that the core of Mr. Jordan’s salary, being respective of him as a laborer of basketball (i.e., a professional athlete) and so far as that is concerned all such earnings of his are not properly taxable under the income tax—although all of his respective royalties, commissions, unearned income etc., are properly taxable as income. Additionally, there are other considerations as well including international and foreign incomes, tariffs and tax treaties, etc. that may come into play; all becoming overwhelmingly complex.

Although that being stated I am not personally familiar with how professional athletes and movie stars contract their professions, perhaps they function as an LLC or similar entity. And keeping in mind as well that such individuals did not used to make such insane amounts of money, such as: $100,000 per speech, $1-million per episode, $25-million per movie, $4-million per record album, or $12-million per signing contract. This all is symbolic as to how modern society has degenerated, which is another issue to be addressed all on its own.

Certainly, geography and citizenship status plays an important part in this discussion, but the throughout context of my updated work focuses mostly on American citizens living and working intrastate for or local employers (both public and private). But your concern would make for a good addition to a future revision. For example (IIRC), Dave Champion claims to have spent a week or so at the National Archives with a team of investigators going through Treasury memorandums for the last century and found that the context of every last one of them excluded Americans living and working only within the United States or addressed ‘income without the United States’ and ‘aliens/non-residents with United States income’—which is also the precise context of the 26 CFR introduction concerning wage withholdings.

I put that out there, so that it can be understood that we can not make blanket statements about labor not being taxable at all.

[Sonny Tufts]

(IIRC), Dave Champion claims to have spent a week or so at the National Archives with a team of investigators going through Treasury memorandums for the last century and found that the context of every last one of them excluded Americans living and working only within the United States or addressed ‘income without the United States’ and ‘aliens/non-residents with United States income’—which is also the precise context of the 26 CFR introduction concerning wage withholdings.

Mr. Champion (who has been enjoined from peddling his tax-evasion scams) must have overlooked this:

Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some individuals and groups maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections. These frivolous assertions are contrary to well-established legal precedent.

The Law: As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b) provides, “[i]n general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.” Sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable nor determine or define gross income.

The IRS warned taxpayers of the consequences of making these frivolous arguments. Rev. Rul. 2004-28, 2004-1 C.B. 624 (discussing section 911); Rev. Rul. 2004-30, 2004-1 C.B. 622 (discussing section 861); Notice 2010-33, 2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

Some groups and individuals have adopted a variation of this argument and argue that income derived within the United States is actually foreign earned income and then they claim the foreign earned income exclusion. This contention has been rejected as frivolous by the courts.

Relevant Case Law:

United States v. Ambort, 405 F.3d 1109 (10th Cir. 2005) – the court affirmed the conviction and 108-month sentence of Ernest G. Ambort for willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false income tax returns, specifically for the seminars he conducted during which he falsely instructed the attendees that they could claim to be nonresident aliens with no domestic-source income, regardless of place of birth, so that they were exempt from most federal income taxes.

Webb v. United States, 100 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 2007-6290 (E.D.N.Y 2007) – the court characterized the argument that income derived within “the 50 states” is foreign sourced income as “an absurd proposition” that is as absurd as arguing that “the State of Illinois is not part of the United States” and as nothing more “than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions.”

Great-West Life Assurance Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) – the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under sections 1 and 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”

Takaba v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 285, 295 (2002) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that income received from sources within the United States is not taxable income, stating that “[t]he 861 argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous.” The court imposed sanctions against the petitioner in the amount of $15,000, as well as sanctions against the petitioner’s attorney in the amount of $10,500, for making such groundless arguments.

Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that their income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required the petitioners to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”

Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000) – the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, http://www.irs.gov/Tax-Professionals...s-Introduction

[Peace&Freedom]

Mr. Champion (who has been enjoined from peddling his tax-evasion scams) must have overlooked this:

He overlooked nothing. Regardless of Tuft's usual loaded language, and the injustice and censorship performed on Champion's truthful expose of the misapplication of the income tax, the misdirection and color of law tactics employed in the IRS's propaganda statements were rebutted a while ago.

Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.

Some individuals and groups maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections. These frivolous assertions are contrary to well-established legal precedent.

As per SEDM's response document to the IRS "frivolous arguments" handout:
http://sedm.org/Forms/08-PolicyDocs/friv_tax_rebuts.pdf

Citing Tax Court rulings as “well established legal precedent” amounts to gross negligence in the legal field. We have a saying: “Never believe a man who says ‘trust me’”. Extending this metaphor, “Never believe an IRS operative who uses the term ‘well established legal precedent’ and ‘Tax Court’ in the same sentence!”

As we said before, only Supreme Court cases may be applied universally to all taxpayers by IRS’ own admission in the Internal Revenue Manual:

"Decisions made at various levels of the court system... may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position...
A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts...
Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers."
[Internal Revenue Manual (I.R.M.) Section 4.10.7.2.9.8 (05/14/99)]

Do you see any citations of Supreme Court rulings in the list of Relevant Case Law below? The IRS subterfuge above states: “These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income.” This simply is NOT true, as it completely ignores the meaning of “source”. A “source” is an activity that is taxed. One can have income that isn’t gross income if it doesn’t derive from a taxable source. A “source” consists of a combination of a taxable event within a taxable jurisdiction and the exchange of money as a result of that event.

In the Treasury Regulations (26 C.F.R.) under Section 863 (concerning income from sources inside and outside the U.S.), the following is stated:

“Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.86114T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States."
[26 C.F.R. 1.863-1(c)]

(The vast majority of tax professionals do not use these sections to determine taxable income from sources within the United States of America. At this point, the average Citizen reading this report may guess that there must be some "context," or some other section, or something somewhere which would justify the tax professionals blatantly disregarding and disobeying the clear language used in the sections above. There is not.)

Note how sections 1.861-8 and following of the regulations are identified as the sections "for determining taxable income from sources within the United States," as well as being the sections to be used whether the income is from sources within or without the United States** (the federal zone). A similar structure occurs in the regulations under Section 862 (dealing with income from outside the United States**):

"(b) Taxable income.

The taxable income from sources without the United States... shall be determined on the same basis as that used in Sec. 1.861-8 for determining the taxable income from sources within the United States."
[26 C.F.R. 1.862-1]

The amount of tax is computed on the basis of the income that derives from the taxable source. 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8(f) indentifies the only legitimate sources of income that may be taxed, and these are:

[List of sources on page 58 of the pdf file]

None of these "sources" apply to United States citizens who live and work exclusively within the 50 states of the United States of America. (federal "possessions," such as Guam, Puerto Rico, etc., are considered "foreign" under federal law. This is the only list of "sources" in Part 1 of Subchapter N, or the regulations thereunder, which (as the regulations say) "determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax." We can see quite clearly that all these taxable sources are part of the "federal zone", which includes the District of Columbia and all federal possessions, or pertains to foreign commerce as allowed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution.

Thus the "relevant case law" listed by the IRS, besides being irrelevant (as it cannot be applied universally to all taxpayers by IRS’ own admission) studiously avoids dealing with the distinctions above, in order to reach their color of law conclusions. The SEDM similarly deposes of the other propaganda rhetoric and tricks used throughout the IRS "frivolous arguments" document.

[Sonny Tufts]

As we said before, only Supreme Court cases may be applied universally to all taxpayers by IRS’ own admission in the Internal Revenue Manual

The courts aren't bound by the Internal Revenue Manual.

The 861 argument has a 100% losing record. It's so bogus that its chief proponent, Larken Rose, didn't even rely on it at his own trial.

One can have income that isn’t gross income if it doesn’t derive from a taxable source. A “source” consists of a combination of a taxable event within a taxable jurisdiction and the exchange of money as a result of that event.

Absolute nonsense. The "taxable source" argument is another loser.

Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-431 (1955).

According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment is broad enough to grant Congress the power to collect an income tax regardless of the source of the taxpayer’ income. United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

[Condo] asserts that the sixteenth amendment only allows taxing income from ‘sources’ (entities and monopolies created by law), not persons. The sixteenth amendment authorization, however, is for a tax on income from whatever source derived. United States v. Condo, 741 F2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985).

[A]ppellant suggests that before an ‘item’ of income may be considered, the particular ‘source’ of the ‘item’ must be identified. ... He is wrong. By the terms of both the Sixteenth Amendment and section 61(a), ‘source’ is not to be a limitation on taxable income. Rather, income is to be taxed regardless of its source. Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR2d 99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).

Incidentally, there need not be an exchange of money in order that gross income be realized.

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

[Weston White]

Mr. Champion (who has been enjoined from peddling his tax-evasion scams) must have overlooked this:

The Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) has nothing to do with the context of his assertions, only T.O. and T.D.—apples and oranges. Pointing to frivolity really only displays the utter desperation of both the IRS and petty people such as you.