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

[Weston White]

QUOTING: “No, it is not a courtesy on the part of the filer. You are submitting a self-assessment. The W-2 is presented to you by the employer for your validation. The IRS in turn requires that you send them a copy to verify that you have seen what the employer reported and that by this submission you validate that it is true and correct.”

No, a W-2 is not required to be submitted along with a 4852 Form, for that is the entire purpose of that specific form, to correct and replace it, or to outright substitute it in instances where no W-2 was ever provided to the filer. Moreover, as to status quo filings (and including all filings, in general), it is the information provided and attested to upon the face of the 1040 or similar form itself that completes one’s “self-assessment” and not a third-party W-2 copy.

As to your reasoning, the same would also be made true if the numbers match precisely upon both the 1040 and W-2. Neither is a there a statute or jurat that stipulates for the specified enclosure of the W-2 as a personal validation of the data contained upon it as being “true and correct” or anything to that effect (there is only a generalized jurat for whatever included schedules and attachments).

Also, I seem to recall that there are various lower court cases (district, tax court, etc.), finding that a filing is still valid even without a W-2 and that a 1040 form is not even a requirement in being used, i.e., the Beard Test. If there is a statute stipulating the legal requirement of certain forms and attachments to create a valid tax filing, I have yet to come across it and if you happen to know of it then please post it and correct my error in logic on this point. Thank you.


QUOTING: “Why didn't you simply say to her what you wrote in (2) above - The 4852 is a government form that serves as a substitute W-2.”

I did, in so many words (which clearly only upset her further as she picked up my small stack of papers and hastily slid them across the counter back at me telling me that they are not helping me with anything, not even a few other papers I was wanting to file that did not require a W-2), though she probably finds such filings atrocious and probably will get docked by her higher-ups for permitting such filings into her office, while she and her crew are most certainly instructed to keep all such filings out of her office at all costs.

I also had a similar problem last year (with the same manager and the same counter clerk) when I went to my local office to personally submit amended returns and to seek local aid in dealing with several unlawful aspects of my family’s current liens and levies. I was basically told they are not trained to handle any those types of things, they don’t want to hear about them, they will not try to contact or research my issues with anybody outside of their office, that they cannot even make the effort to help me because I have not even filed my tax returns yet (and when I questioned them as to this oddity that if I officially have no tax returns on file then how could I have penalties imposed upon me for those non-existing filings, they again simply did not care to get involved, that it just did not matter; ergo, it is, what it is –also to note: I do in fact have several FOIA replies showing that my returns are on file though the IRS to date is refusing to process them, and I am aware from the experiences of others that if you do send a copy of your original filing or draft a new one that is not status quo and submit either in an effort to comply with the IRS’ ACS request by letter or notice for a new return to be mailed to them, you will only be charged with a new frivolous penalty, talk about “entrapment”), and that I just need to start doing what the IRS instructs of me and to cooperate with them, and that I can either call the phone numbers on the notices I received for help (which I had many times over the years and they only ever state to arrange for payment of the penalties, to visit your local office for further help, or to file in tax court), or just pay the penalties and address the matter in tax court.


QUOTING: “You Lose. We just had a discussion about judges being taxed on their salaries. The Executive and Legislative branches are also taxed on their salaries.
If you give me the line that the tax falls on all federal workers, then I will throw the B.S. card on you. The janitor in the Pentagon has the same protection as the janitor in a Mcdonald's.
The tax also falls on the salaries of executives of all corporations. It applies to the salaries of all small business owners.”

Surely, it must be kept in mind, the present status quo misconception as to federal powers and purposes of taxation, be it in whatever mode or method, while perhaps it is incorrect (immoral, etc.) for such classes of workers to be taxed upon their labor as well, it would certainly seem justly a valid exercise of the federal power to impose such a tax; being in the form of an indirect excise, which is what the federal income tax truly is –within its proper core the income tax is merely a subset of excise taxation. To tax federal employees of whatever branch, class, or instrumentality would be merely a tax upon specific occupation. Just as to the federal income taxes imposed upon railroad, mining, and sea occupations; BATFE occupations; associations; corporations; joint-stocks; insurance companies; foreign employments; resident aliens; etc., for they had been directly mentioned (or targeted) within various Subtitles of the IRC.

Individuals engaged in operating a business entity are rightfully taxed under the federal income tax as they are in fact earning a ‘profit’, e.g., if you are an attorney charging $200 an hour for your ‘services’, you have traversed far beyond simply earning a livelihood; similarly, if you are selling a $5 at cost pair of fancy sneakers for $125.

Further to note, presuming that the janitor at the Pentagon is not a privately contracted out foreigner working for minimum wage without benefits, while in hopes of acquiring permanent citizenship someday, then those two employees are compensated very, very differently (e.g., the Pentagon employee -aside from owing his employment directly to the will of the federal government- is probably earning well above minimum wage, while enjoying a host of additional perks). Also many government employees work in a professional capacity requiring specialized certifications or licenses, or in unique fields that simply do not exist outside of the government itself. More pointedly, most all federal employees are compensated very differently from their “civilian” counterparts; while, also noticing that those working for the federal government subjugate themselves to that very will, this could mean the surrendering of certain individual rights or mandated participation in certain activities, concessions, programs, etc., as similarly this can to a certain degree apply to private employment just the same, although would be much more limited in degree.

Also noticing that such language is observed all throughout the IRC:

“employee” as: “… includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.”

“… any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, …”

Page eight (8) of IRS Publication 15 – known widely as ‘Circular E’ and entitled: ‘Employer’s Tax Guide’, states [in part] the following with no further clarification other than referring to the statutory term “employers” throughout: “Federal Government employers. The information in this guide applies to federal agencies …” and closes the same paragraph by cross-referencing: ‘Treasury Financial Manual (I TFM 3-4000)’, for additional information.

Treasury Financial Manual – ‘I TFM 3-4000: Federal Income, Social Security, and Medicare Taxes’; Section 4080 – ‘Levy for Unpaid Tax Liability’, reiterates that only the ‘accrued salary or wages’ of “any officer, employee, or elected official of the United States or the District of Columbia” can be lawfully reached by a notice of levy. TFM Subsection 4080.20 – ‘Designation of Individuals to Receive Service of Notice of Levy’ clarifies that “Each Government agency should designate one or more persons on whom a levy may be served” for that agency’s employees. No levy provision is made for the salary or pay of private-sector or non-federally connected workers.

QUOTING: “You can not make the blanket statement that gross income does not include wages or salaries.”

Neither was I attempting to; for of course not, the IRC is so entirely expansively diverse and convoluted such would be an utter impossibility. The IRC has become a century old quagmire existent within a hotchpotch. I am merely addressing the menial labor as to their inherent right in achieving an honest and fruitful means of livelihood.

It must be recognized that indirectly taxing “compensation for services” is not the same as directly taxing wages or salaries; further noting that salaries are earned only by supervisors, managers, professionals, and the like, while wages are earned by their subordinate workers.

While the requirement of withholding might in fact be upon wages (and notice that never is “salaries” mentioned within Subtitle C) the assessment of the individual income tax is to be only upon the gains, profits, and incomes having derived from wages and salaries and not the wages and salaries themselves. “Withholding” itself does not establish one’s taxable liabilities; it only establishes a valid claim for credit or refund on whatever was overpaid after assessment, 26 USC §§ 31(a)(1), 6201(a)(1), 6401(c). Ergo, if no process of withholding took place that alone would not relieve one of whatever tax liabilities realized during a taxable period.


QUOTING: “I do not need a SCOTUS case”

Our United States of America is a common law republic, so why not? The fact that there are no such cases existing within the high court is to me very, very telling, indeed.

[Weston White]

Nice post Enforcer, with many great points addressed!

I would only add (aside from what Wheeljack had also pointed out, concerning correctly taxable income), that if in fact an individual's laboring holds a zero-based value and all subsequently taken in is a pure gain, then to that respect should an individual be double-crossed and left unpaid they hold no legal basis in seeking damages for they lack the ability to establish a valid cause of action.

Also the “Quatloos!” claim (among many additional misstatements) that one owes federal income taxes as determined by the W-2' received by the IRS, regardless if the individual actually received those monies or not. So, really they only work to discredit themselves.

And it is worth noting the distinctions between income-as-gain-or-profit and income-as-capital, Alexander Hamilton had touched upon such aspects within his legal writings and arguments. So while it may be true that earning a livelihood produces income, the question as to if that income is taxable as a bona fide gain or profit remains inadequately addressed by the IRS and those “Quatloos”.

[Wheeljack]

No, a W-2 is not required to be submitted along with a 4852 Form, for that is the entire purpose of that specific form, to correct and replace it, or to outright substitute it in instances where no W-2 was ever provided to the filer. Moreover, as to status quo filings (and including all filings, in general), it is the information provided and attested to upon the face of the 1040 or similar form itself that completes one’s “self-assessment” and not a third-party W-2 copy.

That is not what I meant. You never submit a W-2 along with a 4852. Either one or the other, never both.

QUOTING: “Why didn't you simply say to her what you wrote in (2) above - The 4852 is a government form that serves as a substitute W-2.”

I did, in so many words (which clearly only upset her further as she picked up my small stack of papers and hastily slid them across the counter back at me telling me that they are not helping me with anything, not even a few other papers I was wanting to file that did not require a W-2), though she probably finds such filings atrocious and probably will get docked by her higher-ups for permitting such filings into her office, while she and her crew are most certainly instructed to keep all such filings out of her office at all costs.

I also had a similar problem last year (with the same manager and the same counter clerk) when I went to my local office to personally submit amended returns and to seek local aid in dealing with several unlawful aspects of my family’s current liens and levies. I was basically told they are not trained to handle any those types of things, they don’t want to hear about them, they will not try to contact or research my issues with anybody outside of their office, that they cannot even make the effort to help me because I have not even filed my tax returns yet (and when I questioned them as to this oddity that if I officially have no tax returns on file then how could I have penalties imposed upon me for those non-existing filings, they again simply did not care to get involved, that it just did not matter; ergo, it is, what it is –also to note: I do in fact have several FOIA replies showing that my returns are on file though the IRS to date is refusing to process them, and I am aware from the experiences of others that if you do send a copy of your original filing or draft a new one that is not status quo and submit either in an effort to comply with the IRS’ ACS request by letter or notice for a new return to be mailed to them, you will only be charged with a new frivolous penalty, talk about “entrapment”), and that I just need to start doing what the IRS instructs of me and to cooperate with them, and that I can either call the phone numbers on the notices I received for help (which I had many times over the years and they only ever state to arrange for payment of the penalties, to visit your local office for further help, or to file in tax court), or just pay the penalties and address the matter in tax court.

I have to tell you if you submitted those 28 pages with your 4852, then I can understand why they had no interest in your case. Just looking through your reports made my head spin trying to keep it straight, and you are giving this to people who you say have no training. If you hope to convince people to your position you have to come up with a simpler explanation that they can absorb and not be overwhelmed by.

I use a three page attachment with my 4852. It contains most of what I put in my original post plus a cite from a federal case in which the government openly concedes to my position. I also cite as evidence the very existence of form SS-8 and then take the argument the IRS puts forth in their Rev. Ruling 2007-19 and I dismantle it in two sentences.

[Weston White]

May I please PM you my email for you to send me a copy/copies of what you send the IRS (taking care to omit all personal information)? I would be interested in studying your references and arguments.

Also care should be kept in mind that whatever you submit to the IRS cannot later be denied evidentiary value in court should it be necessary to take action against the IRS or should they force action against you (as it then serves as part of your official tax filing); whereas otherwise the court will likely deny most all evidence submitted in your favor. Thus, so long as it remains prudent there is no harm in thoroughly “padding” your claim of refund; though it is also just as important to not overwhelm the IRS with one’s kitchen sink.

[Wheeljack]

May I please PM you my email for you to send me a copy/copies of what you send the IRS (taking care to omit all personal information)? I would be interested in studying your references and arguments.

Also care should be kept in mind that whatever you submit to the IRS cannot later be denied evidentiary value in court should it be necessary to take action against the IRS or should they force action against you (as it then serves as part of your official tax filing); whereas otherwise the court will likely deny most all evidence submitted in your favor. Thus, so long as it remains prudent there is no harm in thoroughly “padding” your claim of refund; though it is also just as important to not overwhelm the IRS with one’s kitchen sink.

Weston,

No email. We will discuss references and arguments here for all involved.

What am I claiming that I need to file a 4852 for?
That my employer does not understand the difference between a "contract of service" and a "contract for services".

I found on the internet a write-up on this by a UK Human Resources company, which is what you see in the original post. It is truly disappointing to look this up and find what others have written and see that they can not even use the word service in its proper context.
They write a "contract of service" and a "contract for service". The singular form of services is "a service".

Service is used in the context of employment (for working) . Services is used in the context of business (for the result of the work).

If you look up service in Black's Law (I have the 6th Edition) you will find that it cites a Texas case. Googling this cite I uncovered a federal case in which the government made this statement.

U.S. v. Graham Mortgage Corp., 740 F.2d. 414
The problem with this argument is that, as the government concedes, the meaning of the term "service" varies depending upon the context in which the term is used. See, e.g., Central Power & Light Co. v. State, 165 S.W.2d 920, 925 (Tex.Civ.App.1942), appeal dismissed, 319 U.S. 727, 63 S.Ct. 1033, 87 L.Ed. 1691 (1943).

Now does the IRS know this? Yes they do.

This is where I assert that Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status is evidence that this is so.

Any questions so far?

[Weston White]

I would find it very interesting as to how the IRS responds to the submission of this form by an employee. Though the form appears to be somewhat of a paradox, namely to be submitted by an employer that wants to clarify if outside, temporary, or other such 3rd party hires are under their responsibility as to federal withholding or not; while it also does seems to touch lightly upon the topic of employees and W-2 receipts as well, i.e., “Worker; for services performed”. See at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf


I believe that I have also myself addressed a portion of this aspect in the context of the originally defined ‘net/gross income’, quoting various definitions from Black’s Law 3rd Edition at: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...php?p=589#p589

[Weston White]

Also an amendment idea I had concerning the definition of 'gross income', 26 USC Sec. 61: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...php?p=692#p692

[Wheeljack]

I believe that I have also myself addressed a portion of this aspect in the context of the originally defined ‘net/gross income’, quoting various definitions from Black’s Law 3rd Edition at: http://www.iwarrior.defendindependen...php?p=589#p589

I was going to comment on Sec. 22, especially the salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service.

Tell me, how do you distinguish between personal service and personal services.

[Sonny Tufts]

Wheeljack:

In a case arising under Section 22(a) of the 1938 Revenue Act, the Supreme Court stated as follows:

Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act defines 'gross income' subject to the Act as including 'gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service ..., of whatever kind and in whatever form paid ....'...Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act 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. CIR v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945)

Are you suggesting that Congress intended to narrow the definition of gross income in the 1954 Code by excluding salaries and wages from the definition of gross income?

[Weston White]

Well, most certainly, this Sonny Tufts is nothing more than an utter Quatfool that has joined here as of just yesterday, after he/she must had read post I made linking back to this article as of a couple of days ago. They, the “Quatloos!”, enjoy quoting/citing to this case all too frequently, which had to do with nothing other than employee awarded stock options. The case is moot on the core point, for earning merely a livelihood is nothing near considerable to be so “broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation”, while surely and justly, stock options (et cetera) received as such compensation would be appropriate as ‘taxable income’.

However, this is precisely why Title 26 will forever remain non-positive law, as otherwise it would force a properly overt representation of the statutes sum of parts. Whereby, instead leaving it in a perpetual status of prima facie (convolution and flux) the IRS can go about in blissful ignorance to its true scope, while continuously doling that gross misrepresentation onto the populace. Regardless, the fact remains, the Internal Revenue Code undeniably falls under the constructive principle of pari materia. 26 USC Sec. 22, clearly meant to ‘indirectly tax’ neither wages nor salaries, but rather all that had forthwith exuded out from such sources within a relative period of time.

‘Gross income’ may only consider as ‘taxable income’ all that is constitutionally considerable and nothing more. A 1945 SCOTUS case cannot simply toss out 32-years of very well established SCOTUS precedent (as neither can the thousands upon thousands of Circuit Court cases since heard). More pointedly, if such be the case than in 1988 that finding of CIR v. Smith case was made further irrelevant by South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U. S. 505, 522 (1988) [Footnote 13]: “… We disagree. The legislative history merely shows that the words “from whatever source derived” of the Sixteenth Amendment were not affirmatively intended to authorize Congress to tax state bond interest or to have any other effect on which incomes were subject to federal taxation, and that the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 17-18 (1916). …”

While, additionally, neither does the Congressional Research Service (CRS) agree with the position lent by the so-called “Sonny Tufts”. Plainly, in order for the presently devised ‘stoppage at the source’, mandatory (perpetually double-dipped) federal and individual state (to those states joined in this utter atrocity) income tax withholdings scheme to work, without arising much question or suspicion from those (namely, at the very least) within the tax profession, the term ‘gross income’ had to be entirely rewritten, so as to thereafter quietly omit certain aspects, thus ceasing any visibly apparent conflict with the then newly devised “collection at the source” provisions of Subtitle C.

[Icymudpuppy]

I would love to do this. Which lawyer with a history of winning such cases is willing to defend me at my inevitable trial for tax evasion for only a cut of the back taxes I am owed, and a promise to support my family if he loses?

[Wheeljack]

Wheeljack:

In a case arising under Section 22(a) of the 1938 Revenue Act, the Supreme Court stated as follows:



Are you suggesting that Congress intended to narrow the definition of gross income in the 1954 Code by excluding salaries and wages from the definition of gross income?

No,

If you read section 22 properly, you will see that salaries, wages or compensation for personal service is not included in the definition of gross income in the first place.

You must understand the difference between "from" and "for".

Compensation for employment is that part of your hourly wage or yearly salary paid to you for the time that you actually work.
Compensation derived from employment is that part of your hourly wage or yearly salary paid to you for any time that you do not work. (i.e. vacation, holiday and sick pay, yearly bonuses, attendance awards)

Why does the rewording of the IRC in 1954 change nothing from the wording of 1939 IRC?

Because compensation derived from employment is the same thing as compensation for services.


What I am trying to show you is that personal service as Congress used the term in sec. 22 is not the same as personal services.

Personal service is when one person places himself under the direction and control of another person. (employment)
Personal is a totally unnecessary adjective to use with service, as service is always a personal thing.


Personal services is when a person provides a service to someone for a price and then is the one who performs the work to complete the contract.
(self-employment)

Services is when a person (individual or corporate) provides a service for a price and then has an employee perform the work to complete the contract.

[Weston White]

Wheeljack, your perspectives continues to impress. Great work!

[Danke]

I would love to do this. Which lawyer with a history of winning such cases is willing to defend me at my inevitable trial for tax evasion for only a cut of the back taxes I am owed, and a promise to support my family if he loses?

Any lawyer will avoid taking on the IRS or cops/courts/judges with a ten foot pole.

[Icymudpuppy]

Any lawyer will avoid taking on the IRS or cops/courts/judges with a ten foot pole.

Exactly my point. Show me someone who has successfully gotten away with this, and I'm on board. Until then, I will continue to think it's a bunch of bunk that will get me a one way ticket to a small US military installation on the island of Cuba.

[Danke]

Exactly my point. Show me someone who has successfully gotten away with this, and I'm on board. Until then, I will continue to think it's a bunch of bunk that will get me a one way ticket to a small US military installation on the island of Cuba.

Oh, I see. To "get away" with following the Constitution, one needs a lawyer.

[Icymudpuppy]

Oh, I see. To "get away" with following the Constitution, one needs a lawyer.

So tell me, are you paying income taxes?

[Sonny Tufts]

If you read section 22 properly, you will see that salaries, wages or compensation for personal service is not included in the definition of gross income in the first place.

But this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the Smith case that the statute includes any financial benefit that the employer bestows on the employee. Or, for that matter, with the Court's statement in Lucas v. Earl that "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them". Or with the many other cases holding that salaries, wages, and compensation for workingt is taxable, regardless of whether it's base pay or a bonus.

[Weston White]

Exactly my point. Show me someone who has successfully gotten away with this, and I'm on board. Until then, I will continue to think it's a bunch of bunk that will get me a one way ticket to a small US military installation on the island of Cuba.

Actually, it is rather simple, compare this issue (the abuse of national powers of taxation) with that of the federal governments present view on say your individual right to bear arms (which they claim only applied to the militia –which is really every American anyway, but that federal bureaucrats claim it is only those in the “U.S. Military”, which is neither the organized/unorganized militia, but our “National Guard”); your I Amendment rights (which of now is protected only in “free speech zones” –conveniently located several blocks away outside of the fenced off event in some vacant parking lot); your right to travel freely (that is, at least, as determined by the DHS’ TSA goon-squad and in due course just so long as you do not owe any back taxes to the federal government); your right to remain as a part of a “American family” (that is presuming your name does not become mysteriously placed on some secretive “terrorist watch-list” –which if the case arbitrarily revokes your individual right to travel and to own or purchase firearms and/or bullets), etc., etc. I could easily go on, though I think the point has been made.


More pointedly, one aspect of federal taxation that is little addressed, is that under AI,S8,C1 the federal government may only impose its powers of general taxation under any of three very distinctive parameters (“…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”). And that if be such that the federal income tax was additionally intended to publicly levy taxes DIRECTLY upon the earnings of every individual (without regard as to apportionment of such taxes) than even still it becomes unconstitutional as for it was well debated by our Nation’s Framers that all forms of direct taxation would only be assessed under the most exigent (dire) of circumstances. As for the federal income tax it has -as by status quo methodology at least- been applied as both a forthright and perpetual means of pseudo DIRECT-INDIRECT taxation annually upon the masses since 1913 (now realizing the federal government well over $2.3-trillion in related forms of individual taxes per annum, which is to say the very least an utterly astronomically astonishing sum). Therefore, with all of the other the points of view, arguing, bickering, theorizing, debating, etc., aside, the federal income tax, regardless, is itself outright unconstitutional on those above two grounds alone, period.

[Weston White]

So tell me, are you paying income taxes?

It is not such much a question of does one pay taxes or not, it is much about calling and then exposing the bluff. The magician’s trick has gone far past becoming old and now it is time to be put into an ever-resting slumber.

We all possess an inherent right to redress our government and to nullify its actions of public tyranny and that is what we need to start applying, we should not be cowards to their cause. They want to illegally seize 30% or more of your annual ability, we need to call them on that by learning what the fundaments to national taxation are really and truly about and pass and openly discuss our knowledge with others; they want to ban firearms and ammunitions from the population , we need to purchase our own in home weapons cache safes and encourage others to do the same; they want to make home gardens illegal, we need to begin growing our own home gardens and encouraging others to do the same; they want to outlaw all that is non-GMO, we need to start using and buying only organic sustenance and heirlooms seeds for our home gardens; they want to roll their eyes at the mention of your individual rights and protections and at their governmental limitations beset by our U.S. Constitutional and other fundamental documents, we collectively need to make utter asses out of them in eyes of the masses and get them either impeached, recalled, or otherwise voted right out from their offices or positions; etc., etc.

But mostly, we need to realize and value our gifted American birthright, our ever-ascending spirit and to replace whatever degree of cowardice now existent within us with forthcoming and unceasing petulance.


“I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant.” - H.L. Mencken

[Weston White]

But this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the Smith case that the statute includes any financial benefit that the employer bestows on the employee. Or, for that matter, with the Court's statement in Lucas v. Earl that "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them". Or with the many other cases holding that salaries, wages, and compensation for workingt is taxable, regardless of whether it's base pay or a bonus.

Certainly, that was to be taken to mean any financial benefit within the meaning what are “financial benefits”, while earning merely at a subsistence level is most definitely no such financial benefit. Moreover, the framing of the cases you referenced, may address only the subject at bar (viz., employee stock options and in Lucas the case was not so much addressing taxation as it was aspects of contract law), they may not subsequently pass inference upon all other matters not related to the pleadings of the case being heard. Conveniently, SCOTUS has never heard matters concerning “base pay” of the masses and national taxation, nor will it likely ever be willing to do so. The cases you continue to reference -while at the exact same time, yourself conveniently discounting about one-dozen much more relevant SCOTUS cases as they so completely annihilate the entirety of your now plainly exposed stance- are very weak on the discussion of national taxation, empirical evidence, American fundaments, maxims, etc.

Clearly, you willfully misread the core of the statute itself, Congress did not set forth what you are claiming that “…income includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services”, what it did do however, was what the XVI Amendment called upon it to only do, to include as income all that “derived out of wages, salaries, and compensation for services”. On a varied level Alexander Hamilton had much earlier argued the matter himself, thereafter crystalizing the distinction between whatever was to become income as a gain or profit and income as capital. It is very apparent that Congress meant only to impose income taxes, INDIRECTLY, upon the former. Plainly, you are outright incorrect “Sonny Jim”.

[Wheeljack]

But this is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's statement in the Smith case that the statute includes any financial benefit that the employer bestows on the employee.

No, it is totally consistent. You better learn the difference between compensation and benefits.

Or, for that matter, with the Court's statement in Lucas v. Earl that "There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them".

The statute does tax wages and salaries received for the performance of services.

Or with the many other cases holding that salaries, wages, and compensation for workingt is taxable, regardless of whether it's base pay or a bonus.

In all those cases, this argument was never raised, therefore the court has never addressed it.

When the IRS and the defendant issued their stipulation of facts in these cases and the defendant agreed they had received compensation for services, because they were under the impression that services includes being paid for working, without knowing the legal distinction between service and services, the court had no course but to rule against them. And in those cases in which the IRS and the defendant did not stipulate this as a fact, and because the defendant did not raise this argument, the court was left to it own impression, which is that services includes being paid for working.



Look at the how the IRS describes employment in this.

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2007-14

April 2, 2007

Rev. Rul. 2007-19

ISSUE
Whether Taxpayer A may avoid federal income tax liability by maintaining that the Internal Revenue Code does not tax wages or other compensation received in exchange for personal services.

FACTS
Taxpayer A receives wages in exchange for personal services. Taxpayer A then does one or more of the following: (1) furnishes a Form W-4 to the employer on which Taxpayer A claims excessive withholding allowances or claims complete exemption from withholding; (2) fails to file a federal income tax return; (3) fails to report the wages on the federal income tax return; (4) claims a refund for any withheld income tax; or (5) claims deductions for personal, living and family expenditures to offset the wages reported on the federal income tax return. Taxpayer A claims that compensation received for personal services is not subject to federal income tax.


HOLDING
1. Wages fall within the definition of income set forth in section 61(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code. Taxpayer A’s wages and other compensation for services are income subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.
2. The payment of wages and other compensation for personal services is not an equal exchange of property. The full amount of wages received by Taxpayer A is subject to federal income tax and must be reported on Taxpayer A’s federal income tax return.
3. Wages and other compensation received by Taxpayer A in exchange for personal services are subject to federal income tax without reduction of Taxpayer A’s personal living expenses.

[Wheeljack]

Clearly, you willfully misread the core of the statute itself, Congress did not set forth what you are claiming that “…income includes wages, salaries, and compensation for services”, what it did do however, was what the XVI Amendment called upon it to only do, to include as income all that “derived out of wages, salaries, and compensation for services”.

Congress said, compensation for personal service, not services.

[Weston White]

Congress said, compensation for personal service, not services.

Yes, however, under 26 USC Sec. 7701(p)(1)(1),(2), et seq., the plural is as the singular and visa versa, male is as the female, et cetera.

[Wheeljack]

Yes, however, under 26 USC Sec. 7701(p)(1)(1),(2), et seq., the plural is as the singular and visa versa, male is as the female, et cetera.

Then you have missed the point of this thread. Use that Black's Law Dictionary and look up these two words. You will find two distinct definitions.

Service denotes a condition, the placement of oneself under the direction and control of another. A condition either is or it is not, there is no plural form. a person can not be in service to another person multiple times at the same time.

Services are things purchased that have no physical characteristics. The singular form of this word is "a" service.


Let's take the word good.

Good denotes a condition, means valid or effectual

Goods, on the other hand, means all forms of personal property. Is goods the plural of good. Hell no.

This is precisely the mindset that I pointed out to Sonny Tufts 3 posts back.

[Weston White]

Alright, so let’s break it down a bit more (just as a primer on the issue):

Initially ‘net income’ was ratified as intending to in part include “…gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service…”

Thereafter amended to be ‘gross income’ to mean (although maintaining that the former still to date bears strict statutory relevance), “all income from whatever source derived, including …Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…”


Thus, to the former we have singularity and to the latter we have multiplicity. So then to view a few interesting legal definitions in rendering out their various contexts:

GAIN. Profits; winnings; increment of value. [Citations omitted.]
Difference between receipts and expenditures; pecuniary gain. [Citations omitted.]


PROFIT. The advance in the price of goods sold beyond the cost of purchase. The gain made by the sale of produce or manufactures, after deducting the value of the labor, materials, rents, and all expenses, together with the interest of the capital employed. [Citations omitted.]
The excess of receipts over expenditures; that is, net earnings. [Citations omitted.]
The receipts of a business, deducting current expenses; it is equivalent to net receipts. [Citations omitted.]
An excess of the value of returns over the value of advances. The same as net profits. [Citations omitted.]
… In distinction from the wages of labor, it is well understood to imply the net return to the capital of stock employed, after deducting all the expenses, including not only the wages of those employed by the capitalist, but the wages of the capitalist himself for superintending the employment of his capital or stock. [Citations omitted.]
…
The benefit, advantage, or pecuniary gain accruing to the owner or occupant of land from its actual use; as in the familiar phrase “rents, issues and profits,” or in the expression “mesne profits.”
…


FEE. …
A reward, compensation, or wage given to one for the performance of official duties (clerk of court, sheriff, etc.) or for professional services, as in the case of an attorney at law or a physician;–frequently used in the plural form. [Citations omitted.] A recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or compensation for particular act or service. [Citations omitted.]

Fees differ from costs in this, that the former are a recompense to the officer for his service; and the latter, an indemnification to the party for money laid out and expended in his suit; [Citations omitted.] Fees are synonymous with charges; [Citations omitted.] and also with “percentage” or “commission”; [Citations omitted.]
“Salary,” as relating to the compensation of public officers, is generally regarded as a periodical payment dependent upon time, while “fees” depend on services rendered, the amount of which is fixed by law and payable when the judgment allowing them is entered. [Citations omitted.]


LABOR. Work; toll; service. Continued exertion, of the more onerous and inferior kind, usually and chiefly consisting in the protracted expenditure of muscular force, adapted to the accomplishment of specific useful ends.
…
“Labor,” “business,” and “work” are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Labor implies toll; exertion producing weariness; manual exertion of a toll some nature.


LABORER. One who, as a means of livelihood, performs work and labor for another. [Citations omitted.]
In English statutes, this term is generally understood to designate a servant employed in husbandry or manufactures, and not dwelling in the home of his employer. Wharton; Mozley & Whitley. A person without particular training, employed at manual labor under a contract terminable at will. [Citations omitted.]
As used in mechanics’ lien statute “laborer” is said to include all who work with their hands, crude implements, or teams in work demanding that character of service, [Citations omitted.] …
A laborer, as the word is used in the Pennsylvania act of 1872, giving certain preference of lien, is one who performs, with his own hands, the contract which he makes with his employer. …


PAY. Compensation. [Citation omitted.] A fixed and definite amount given by law to persons in military service in consideration of and as compensation for their personal services. [Citation omitted.]


SALARY. A reward or recompense for services performed.
In a more limited sense salary is a fixed periodical compensation paid for services rendered; a stated compensation, amounting to so much by the year, month, or other fixed period, to be paid to public officers and persons in some private employments, for the performance of official duties or the rendering of services of a particular kind, more or less definitely described, involving professional knowledge or skill, or at least employment above the grade of menial or mechanical labor. [Citations omitted.]

The word “salary,” is synonymous with “wages,” except that “salary” is sometimes understood to relate to compensation for official or other services, as distinguished from “wages,” which is the compensation for labor. [Citations omitted.]


WAGES. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services; the compensation agreed upon by a master to be paid to a servant, or any other person hired to do work or business for him. [Citations omitted.]
Agreed compensation for services by workmen, clerks or servants–those who have served an employer in a subordinate or menial capacity and who are supposed to be dependent upon their earnings to pay their present support, whether they are to be paid by the hour, the day, the week, the month, the job, or the piece. …
…
In Political Economy
The reward paid, whether in money or goods, to human exertion, considered as a factor in the production of wealth, for its co-operation in the process.

“Three factors contribute to the production of commodities,–nature, labor, and capital. Each must have a share of the product as its reward, and this share, if it is just, must be proportionate to the several contributions. The share of the natural agents is rent; the share of labor, wages; the share of capital, interest. The clerk receives a salary; the lawyer and doctor, fees; the manufacturer, profits. Salary, fees, and profits are so many forms of wages for services rendered.” …

–Wage earner. One who earns his living by labor of a menial or mechanical kind or performed in a subordinate capacity, such as domestic servants, mechanics, farm hands, clerks, porters, and messengers. In the United States bankruptcy act of 1898, an individual who works for wages, salary, or hire, at a compensation not exceeding $1,500 [at current inflation is around $39,000] per year. [Citations omitted.]


COMPENSATION. Indemnification; payment of damages; making amends; making whole; giving an equivalent or substitute of equal value; that which is necessary to restore an injured party to his former position. An act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court or other tribunal orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury to another, in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury.

“Compensation” is a misleading term, and is used merely for lack of a word more nearly expressing the thought of the law which permits recovery for an imponderable and intangible thing for which there is no money equivalent. …

The word “compensation,” as used in Workmen’s Compensation Acts, means the money relief afforded an injured employee or his dependents according to the scale established and for the persons designated in the act, and not the compensatory damages recoverable in an action at law for wrong done or a contract broken. …
As used in Workman’s Compensation Acts, “compensation” is distinguishable from “benefits”; the former applying to an allowance where the employee is only injured, and the latter applying in case of death. … The term “compensation” may include funeral benefits. …
...
The remuneration or wages given to an employee or, especially, to an officer. Salary, pay, or emolument. [Citations omitted.]

The ordinary meaning of the term “compensation,” as applied to officers, is remuneration, in whatever form it may be given, whether it be salaries and fees, or both combined. It is broad enough to include other remuneration for official services; [Citations omitted]; such as mileage or traveling expenses; [Citations omitted]; and also the repayment of amounts expended; [Citations omitted.]
But the term is not necessarily synonymous with “salary.” [Citations omitted.]
A “reasonable compensation” is that which will fairly compensate the laborer when the character of the work and the effectiveness and ability entering into the service are considered. [Citations omitted.]
Compensation is not synonymous with “pension,” which is ordinarily a gratuity from the government or some of its subordinate agencies in recognition of, but not in payment for, past services. [Citations omitted.]


SERVICE.
In Contracts
The being employed to serve another; duty or labor to be rendered by one person to another, the former being bound to submit his will to the direction and control of the latter. [Citations omitted.] The act of serving; the labor performed or the duties required. [Citations omitted.]

“Service” and “employment” generally imply that the employer, or person to whom the service is due, both selects and compensates the employee, or person rendering the service. [Citations omitted.]

The term is used also for employment in one of the offices, departments, or agencies of the government; as in the phrases “civil service,” “public service,” “military service,” etc. [Citations omitted.]
…

PROFESSIONAL. A term applied in the Immigration Law, May 19, 1921, 2, subd. “d” (42 State. 6), to one undertaking or engaging for money as a means of subsistence in a particular art. It is opposed to amateur, and as used in the statute refers to one who pursues an art and makes his living therefrom. [Citations omitted.]


PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT. Within the meaning of a statute authorizing actions for misconduct or neglect, professional services by an attorney are not limited to litigation, but include giving advice, managing a business, devising plans, and making collections, and the employment may be recognized as professional, although including services not ordinarily classed as professional services; whether the attorney is professionally employed depending on the relations and mutual understanding of what was said and done, and on all the facts and circumstances of the particular undertaking. …


EMPLOY. To engage in one’s service; to use as an agent or substitute in transacting business; to commission and intrust with the management of one’s affairs; and, when used in respect to a servant or hired laborer, the term is equivalent to hiring, which implies a request and a contract for a compensation, and has but this one meaning when used in the ordinary affairs and business of life. [Citations omitted.]


EMPLOYEE. This word “is from the French, but has become somewhat naturalized in our language. Strictly and etymologically, it means ‘a person employed,’ but, in practice in the French language, it ordinarily is used to signify a person in some official employment [NOTICE: this is noteworthy with consideration to the Classification Act quoted earlier], and is generally used with us, though perhaps not confined to any official employment, it is understood to mean some permanent employment or position.” The word may be more extensive than “clerk” or “officer,” and may signify any one in place, or having charge or using a function, as well as one in office. [Citations omitted.]
One who works for an employer; a person working for salary or wages; applied to anyone so working, but usually only to clerks, workmen, laborers, etc., and but rarely to the higher officers of a corporation or government or to domestic servants. [NOTICE: this is noteworthy with consideration to the IRC frequent referencing to corporate officers and federal employees and instrumentalities] [Citations omitted.]
“Employee” must be distinguished from “independent contractor,” “officer,” “vice-principal,” “agent,” etc. The term is often specially defined by statutes; and whether one is an employee or not will depend upon particular facts and circumstances even though the relation or master and servant, or some other form of contractual relation does or does not exist. [Citations omitted.]


OCCUPATION. …
A trade; employment; profession; business; means of livelihood. …

… The word “occupation” must be held to have reference to the vocation, profession, trade or calling which the assured is engaged in for hire or for profit. [Citations omitted.]
“Occupation” as used in Workmen’s Compensation Act means that particular business, profession, trade or calling which engages the time and efforts of an individual, the employment in which he regularly engages or the vocation of one’s life. [Citations omitted.]
…


WORKMAN. One who labors; one employed to do business for another; one engaged in some form of manual labor, whether skilled or unskilled. [Citations omitted.]
A “workman,” in the broad sense, is one who works in any department of physical or mental labor, but in common speech is one who is employed in manual labor, such as an artificer, mechanic, or artisan; while an “employee” in a broad sense is one who receives salary, wages, or other compensation from another, but the term is usually applied to clerks, laborers, etc., and not to the higher officers of a corporation. [Citations omitted.]

Under Workman’s Compensation Acts
The term “workman” in the Workman’s Compensation Act means, as the act states, one who engages to furnish services subject to the control of an employer, and the relation necessary to constitute one an employer and another a workman under the act is the relation of master and servant originating in a contract for personal services, subject to complete control of the details of work and the mode of its performance. [Citations omitted.]

[Wheeljack]

Weston,

You are hitting this with your kitchen sink again.

Why didn't you post the definition of services?

[Weston White]

I am only meaning to show the sum of related terms involved.

As to the term ‘services’ there is only the definition as pertaining to a tortfeaser coming between a husband and his wife.

As to the term ‘personal’ there is only the definition of being an individual and partaking in the enjoyments of human begins and of personalty.

As to the term ‘personal service’ there is only the discussion of establishing proper service of process.

As to the term ‘domestic’ it pertains only to those, servants, working within the home of those they serve and excludes workmen and laborers working outside of the home of those they serve.

And I updated ‘compensation’ to include a few more interesting paragraphs that were on the preceding page.

[Wheeljack]

In my Black's 6th Ed. service is found on page 1368.

It covers these contexts:
Contracts
Domestic Relations
Feudal Law
Practice

Then there are seven more definitions Service charge, Service contract, Service establishment, Service Life, Service mark, Service occupation tax, and Service of process. After which I come to Services on page 1369.

Are you telling me that your Black's 3rd has no distinct definition for services?

[Weston White]

Yes, mine edition covers everything under "service", with only brief mention of "services".