Free Enterprise Society Fresno Ca.

[LPC]

Here the ominous fact is IRC never taxes compensation for labor, it taxes only compensation for services.

A distinction without a difference.

There obviously is a very good reason for this and it has to do with maintaining the constitutionality of the Code.

Do you just make this stuff up as you go along, or are you reading from a script?

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

Here the ominous fact is IRC never taxes compensation for labor, it taxes only compensation for services. There obviously is a very good reason for this and it has to do with maintaining the constitutionality of the Code.

The ominous fact is that there is no meaningful difference between taxing compensation for labor and taxing compensation for services. Maintaining such a non-existent distinction, even if it existed, would have nothing to do with "maintaining the constitutionality of the Code." There obviously is a very good reason why tax protesters strain to make false distinctions like this. The reason is that they cannot come up with any real reason why the income from their labor cannot be taxable under the law.

It doesn't matter what you "call" it, Weston.

Also it is worthy to note it is not the income from labor being taxed, it is the income deriving from labor that is being taxed.

No, it is the income from labor that is being taxed. Playing word games gets you nowhere, Weston.

Nowhere does he make any mention of or quote Dr. Adam Smith.

Ooohh, how ominous. He also doesn't mention Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. Daffy and Bugs are not primary authorities for purposes of performing a legal analysis of the U.S. Federal income tax law, and neither is Adam Smith, the famous Eighteenth Century economist.

And, as a potential secondary authority or source for the definition of the term "direct tax" (which is what many tax protesters use Smith for), Adam Smith was rejected -- by formal federal court ruling -- long before my parents were even born.

Weston, learn what the term judicial precedent really means. For starters, learn what these terms mean: stare decisis and obiter dicta.

[The Operative]

Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).

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

Here the ominous fact is IRC never taxes compensation for labor, it taxes only compensation for services. There obviously is a very good reason for this and it has to do with maintaining the constitutionality of the Code.

The courts say you are wrong.

Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors. Funk v. CIR 687 F.2d 264 (1982)
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -1448.html

Also it is worthy to note it is not the income from labor being taxed, it is the income deriving from labor that is being taxed.

Nowhere does he make any mention of or quote Dr. Adam Smith. Obfuscation is in full effect my friends.

The above is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the U.S. Government can tax income.

There really aren't two "sides" to this issue, though Weston. There is no "truth" (in the sense that you mean it) that could be "circumvented." There is simply no truth in tax protester (tax denier) arguments. Those arguments are, by definition, both legally meritless and (worse) legally frivolous. You are quite wrong.

So now after specifically pointing out what "real research" is and how it is accomplished, we are making a convenient exception, isn't that right?

No, we are not making a convenient exception. We are not making an exception at all.

[Weston White]

This is typical tax denier dishonesty.

I presented a simple challenge, which is to identify any example of any flaw or mistake in my Tax Protester FAQ, and you respond with semantic evasions, vague unsupported allegations, and a new and irrelevant criticism (that the FAQ is "total overkill").

Let me restate my challenge so that you can't pretend not to understand:

If you can find a single statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that is a "con" to anything I have written, cite it.

I will either tell you why you're wrong or will incorporate it into the FAQ (or both).

And give it your best shot. I only need (or want) one citation, so make it your best.

No, you changed ‘service’ to read as ‘labor’, that is disingenuous, conniving, trite, whatever. Being that 'service' has numerous legal meanings and that 'service' has an established meaning as a 'term' within related acts of law.

…And I already have, you make ZERO mention of anything from Wealth of Nations, not a single word. That was my challenge to you not the IRC itself, but whether or not it even applies to those in consideration of their labor.

[Weston White]

The above is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the U.S. Government can tax income.

Yes it is, the XVI Amendment say so! They included that language for a reason, it was not included just to be merely redundant.

No, we are not making a convenient exception. We are not making an exception at all.

Yes you are, you are saying that it does not apply to your own views; that it applies only to those that appose your views.

[The Operative]

The above is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the U.S. Government can tax income.

Yes it is, the XVI Amendment say so! They included that language for a reason, it was not included just to be merely redundant.

derive - To obtain or receive from a source.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no discernible difference between the phrases 'income from labor', in the context that it is used within the FAQ and this thread, and 'income derived from labor.' Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional. When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income. The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.

No, we are not making a convenient exception. We are not making an exception at all.

Yes you are, you are saying that it does not apply to your own views; that it applies only to those that appose your views.

What am I, or any of us, saying does not apply to our views? Secondly, which views are side by side to my own to which this supposed exception is being applied? Or do you mean, oppose? Two different words Weston, two different meanings.

Edited to fix quotes.

[Weston White]

The ominous fact is that there is no meaningful difference between taxing compensation for labor and taxing compensation for services. Maintaining such a non-existent distinction, even if it existed, would have nothing to do with "maintaining the constitutionality of the Code."

There obviously is a very good reason why tax protesters strain to make false distinctions like this. The reason is that they cannot come up with any real reason why the income from their labor cannot be taxable under the law.

It doesn't matter what you "call" it, Weston.

Yes it does, that’s is why within acts, they frequently create ‘terms’, legalize, words of art, etc.. That is why they make these special things called legal dictionaries.

No, it is the income from labor that is being taxed. Playing word games gets you nowhere, Weston.

No 26 USC 61 “Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:” it is income deriving from labor. As CRS has stated “The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.”.

Ooohh, how ominous. He also doesn't mention Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. Daffy and Bugs are not primary authorities for purposes of performing a legal analysis of the U.S. Federal income tax law, and neither is Adam Smith, the famous Eighteenth Century economist.

Name one court case that refers or makes reference to cartoons for the purpose of considering a verdict. I bet you can’t.

And, as a potential secondary authority or source for the definition of the term "direct tax" (which is what many tax protesters use Smith for), Adam Smith was rejected -- by formal federal court ruling -- long before my parents were even born.

Show me the case where that was so… I bet you can’t.

Do you really, truly, honestly think that they can change the already established legal definitions of established classes of taxes? Is that really within the power of a court? To say this is what a capitation tax has meant since the 1700’s, we find that to be incorrect it really means this instead.

"The IRS is an extraordinary example of the end justifying the means. The means of this agency is growth. It is interesting that the revenue officers within the IRS refer to taxpayers as 'inventory'. The IRS embodies the political realities of the selfish human desire to dominate others. Thus the end of this gigantic pretense of officialdom is power, pure and simple. The meek may inherit the earth, but they will never receive a promotion in an agency where efficiency is measured by the number of seizures of taxpayers' property and by the number of citizens and businesses driven into bankruptcy." - George Hansen, Congressman and author of "To Harass Our People"

[Nikki]

It borders on the obscene that someone like Congressman George Hansen would make such a statement, knowing full well that the IRS operates according to laws passed by him and his fellow senators and representatives.

Members of the legislative branch seem to take great pleasure in raking the IRS over the coals for doing things which Congress has specifically ordered.

Whatever plays well with the voters at home, I guess.

[ASITStands]

To Weston, for what it's worth:

DCN Indus. v. Warner Bros., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13073 (S.D.NY 1998):

On November 15, 1980 Warner Bros. entered into a license agreement with DCN. That agreement gave DCN the exclusive right to market, in the United States and Canada, stuffed dolls depicting 26 specifically enumerated cartoon characters from the well-known Looney Tunes cartoon series. The agreement was [*2] subsequently renewed through December 31, 1993, when it expired. The agreement provided in pertinent part:

1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the following respective meanings:

(a) "Name and Character": The fictional characters, Bugs Bunny, Honey Bunny, Sylvester, Sylvester Jr., Tweety, Speedy Gonzalez, Porky Pig, Slowpoke Rodriguez, Petunia Pig, Elmer Fudd, Mrs. Fudd, Daffy Duck, Sniffles, Henry Hawk, Sheep Dog, Yosemite Sam, Beaky Buzzard, Foghorn Leghorn, Marc Antony, Road Runner, Ollie Owl, Wile E. Coyote, Pepe Le Pew, Mary Jane, Granny, Tasmanian Devil and such other characters as may hereafter be added, at Licensor's discretion . . . .

(b) "Licensed Product(s)": (i) stuffed dolls of all sizes; (ii) Hand puppets of plush or cloth; (iii) Talking and/or musical stuffed dolls (except as to BUGS BUNNY which is separately licensed*); (iv) Pajama bags; (v) Bean bag dolls

Kane v. Lancaster County Dep't of Corrections, 960 F. Supp. 219 (Neb. 1997):

Kane contends that he was beaten, starved and robbed by guards while he was incarcerated in the Lancaster County, Nebraska, jail. Kane named the unknown guards as "Officer John Doe," "Officer Richard Roe," "Officer Donald Duck," "Officer Daffy Duck," "Officer Mickey Mouse," and "Officer Minnie Mouse." Instead of naming Lancaster County, Nebraska, as a defendant, Kane sued the "Lancaster County Department of Corrections." The "Lancaster County Department of Corrections" is not a "person" for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § [**2] 1983 because it is only a part of Lancaster County, Nebraska.

Haynes v. City of Circleville, 474 F.3d 357 (6th Cir. 2007):

Later in the day on March 10, 2003, officers went to Haynes's house to pick up his canine equipment. Haynes gave the officers a box wrapped in Christmas paper that contained the equipment. Affixed to the box was a Daffy Duck tag addressed to Chief Gray that read "Do not open until [*361] Christmas." Haynes described this action as "controlled venting."

Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Does, 876 F. Supp. 407 (E.D.NY 1994):

From these papers, submitted ex parte, it appears that plaintiff Time Warner Entertainment Company Click for Enhanced Coverage Linking Searches("Warner") is the owner of all copyrights, trademarks, and other proprietary rights in and to the internationally famous Looney Tunes characters, among [*409] which are Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Tazmanian Devil, Wile E. Coyote, Yosemite Sam, Foghorn Leghorn, Sylvester, Sylvester Jr., Henery Hawk, Road Runner, Porky Pig, Speedy [**3] Gonzales, and Tweety. Since as early as 1930, Warner has produced and distributed hundreds of animated copyrighted cartoons with the Looney Tunes characters. In addition, Warner has sold and licensed merchandised apparel and other goods bearing Warner's copyrighted and trademarked Looney Tunes characters.

Abilene Music, Inc. v. Sony Music Entm't, Inc., 320 F. Supp. 2d 84 (S.D.NY 2003):

Despite the song's popularity, not everybody subscribes to its message of a pastoral world of "skies of blue and clouds of white," where all men are brothers and the sound of "babies cryin'" is music to one's ears. (MacPherson Decl. Ex. A.) Thus, in 2001, hip-hop artist Dennis Coles, known professionally Ghostface Killah, a former member of the well-known [**4] group Wu-Tang Clan, wrote and recorded The Forest for inclusion on an album entitled Bulletproof Wallets. (Id. P 2.) The Forest portrays a dark view of the world by imagining popular cartoon characters in a "wonderland," engaged in acts of violence, sex, and theft. A few of the less scatological or obscene lines will give the flavor of the work:

Bugs still sniffin', Daffy Duck snitchin' And heard that crazy Bird took the stand on the Simpsons Bet you "my golly, oh glory" with a story to tell Droopy got knocked, now he Muslim in jail His name is Abdrool, Colorful, Snow White tattoo ….

(Id. Ex. A.) Before beginning its recitation of the evil ends to which even popular cartoon characters can come, The Forest opens with an off-key rendition of the first verse of Wonderful World. While the singers are unaccompanied and the tempo and rhythm are different from the original, the melody of Wonderful World is recognizable. (Id.) Coles also changed the lyrics, inserting slang references to marijuana, where the original describes trees and flowers:

I see buds that are green, red roses too

I see the blunts for me and you

And [**5] I say to myself, what a wonderful world.

Haynes v. City of Circleville, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35926 (S.D.OH 2005):

3. Disrespect- On 3/4 you stated to Lt. Gaines that the Police Chief was ["]an idiot[.]["] You also stated to the Lt. that the city owed you $ 600 dollars and that you wouldn't perform training until you received these monies. You distributed [*30] copies of said letter dated 2/24 to fellow officers. You also [stated] to your Lt. when you were advised of your administrative leave, you commented that it would be like a paid vacation and that your fitness-for-duty would be determined by kissing our ass. On 3/10 you sent your remaining equipment, wrapped in Christmas paper with a Daffy Duck tag to read "Do not open until Christmas" to the Chief.

[Weston White]

derive - To obtain or receive from a source.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no discernible difference between the phrases 'income from labor', in the context that it is used within the FAQ and this thread, and 'income derived from labor.' Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional. When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income. The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.

You see that is not what it says though (the law that is), so that is what the problem is… because the FAQ is suppose to be based upon and in support of the law.

61(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services, …;
…


Though to debate your view point:

‘Income from labor’ – Would mean, ‘income’ was received through the performance of my labor, without any other consideration. Such as being employed in the stock market or insurance, mining, or railroad professions or being a broker or investor or whatever.

* Ergo, I gained ‘income’ as a result of my particular designation of labor. The source of my ‘income’ was attributed to the direct and special consideration of my particular profession, so stipulated within the IRC itself.

‘Income derived from labor’ – Would mean, ‘income’ was attributed through the performance of labor. Such as working at Taco Bell saving up that money earned through that process of labor in an interest bearing account and realizing a gain of more than $10.00 within a given year.

* Ergo, I gained ‘income’, which derived from my performing labor. The source of my ‘income’ was the money I had earned during the act of carrying out the task of common work.

LABOR.
“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.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY - 3rd EDITION

Now if what you are claiming were remotely true they would not need to make any reference or mention of the source, just as your own example or that within the FAQ has done, because it would already be accounted for consideration within the use of 'income', it would simply read as:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income, [including (but not limited to) the following items:"

Amendment XVI would read:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional.

I am not claiming that now am I? Only that it is being grossly misapplied.

When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income.

No you receive revenue. You only have income once you have realized a gain or profit from that revenue.

The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.

True, but only when you have realized an ‘income’, compensation is not ‘income’.

Considering all things even why does the IRS not call themselves the IIS? Internal Income Service? I mean really, that is what an excise tax is anyways, an “internal tax”… sort of strange the way things connect.

What am I, or any of us, saying does not apply to our views? Secondly, which views are side by side to my own to which this supposed exception is being applied? Or do you mean, oppose? Two different words Weston, two different meanings.

Should have been oppose.

Several have clarified as to what “research” is to mean. Though go on to state, by effect of their own posts thereafter, that such rules do not apply to them, I take because they are right and I am wrong. Very convenient, that is.

[Weston White]

To Weston, for what it's worth:

Heh, not exactly what I had in mind. But it works.

[Weston White]

It borders on the obscene that someone like Congressman George Hansen would make such a statement, knowing full well that the IRS operates according to laws passed by him and his fellow senators and representatives.

Members of the legislative branch seem to take great pleasure in raking the IRS over the coals for doing things which Congress has specifically ordered.

Whatever plays well with the voters at home, I guess.

Yes, sort of like Geitner, right? Oh, these are going to be a fun four years. You know with the executive being filled to the brim with criminals and all.

[Nikki]

Someone who has a tax obligation which he pays is not a criminal.

Only someone who is convicted of a crime, such as sending an explosive device through the mail, is a criminal.

[The Operative]

derive - To obtain or receive from a source.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no discernible difference between the phrases 'income from labor', in the context that it is used within the FAQ and this thread, and 'income derived from labor.' Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional. When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income. The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.

You see that is not what it says though (the law that is), so that is what the problem is… because the FAQ is suppose to be based upon and in support of the law.

[SNIP]

Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional.

I am not claiming that now am I? Only that it is being grossly misapplied.

It is not being misapplied. Let me rephrase. Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is, that in large part, the income tax, as it is applied today, is legal and constitutional.

When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income.

No you receive revenue. You only have income once you have realized a gain or profit from that revenue.

WRONG! No court since 1913, and possibly since the beginning of the Republic, has ever stated anything of the sort. In fact, dozens or possibly hundreds of courts have ruled that wages or salaries or compensation for labor are subject to the income tax and arguments to the contrary are without merit.

The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.

True, but only when you have realized an ‘income’, compensation is not ‘income’.

See above. One addendum, compensation, in and of itself, may sometimes not be income (i.e. insurance proceeds for a property loss). Also, the IRC does exempt or allow deductions for certain things from income taxes. However, compensation for a person's labor IS income.

Considering all things even why does the IRS not call themselves the IIS? Internal Income Service? I mean really, that is what an excise tax is anyways, an “internal tax”… sort of strange the way things connect.

A change in the name would have no bearing on whether or not the income tax, as it is currently applied, is legal or constitutional.

What am I, or any of us, saying does not apply to our views? Secondly, which views are side by side to my own to which this supposed exception is being applied? Or do you mean, oppose? Two different words Weston, two different meanings.

Should have been oppose.

Several have clarified as to what “research” is to mean. Though go on to state, by effect of their own posts thereafter, that such rules do not apply to them, I take because they are right and I am wrong. Very convenient, that is.

To the best of my knowledge, no one here has done any such thing. I was the one that gave a necessarily simple explanation of research and Famspear provided a necessarily simple explanation of what constitutes legal research. To the best of my knowledge, I NEVER said that I have researched the tax laws and cases. I have STUDIED tax law and cases to a limited extent. There is a distinct difference. I have also openly stated that I am not a lawyer and that I do not have a law degree. Pete Hendrickson has not RESEARCHED tax law and what he did was not research or legal research. He can say he STUDIED tax law. However, he is wrong in his assertions. Not because I say he is wrong, but because the courts say he is wrong.

[Paul]

Another maroon who doesn't understand what "whatever" means.

[Famspear]

Earlier in the thread, I wrote:

And, as a potential secondary authority or source for the definition of the term "direct tax" (which is what many tax protesters use Smith for), Adam Smith was rejected -- by formal federal court ruling -- long before my parents were even born.

Weston responded:

Show me the case where that was so… I bet you can’t.

Bet I can: Pollock -- the very case the tax protesters cite over and over and over. In Pollock, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the Adam Smith definition of direct tax, and REJECTED it. I thought we'd already been through this, Weston.

And don't ask for the quote from the case unless you really want it.

Weston wrote:

Do you really, truly, honestly think that they [courts of law] can change the already established legal definitions of established classes of taxes? Is that really within the power of a court? To say this is what a capitation tax has meant since the 1700’s, we find that to be incorrect it really means this instead.

First of all, under the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution, with respect to terms such as "direct tax" and "capitation," there is no such thing as an "already established legal definition of established classes of taxes" as being anything other than what the courts have ruled the definitions of those terms to be. Under our legal system, definitions of legal terms are not established by foreign economists like Adam Smith, no matter how eminent they may be in the field of economics.

Yes, under the U.S. legal system, Weston, it is within the power of a U.S. federal court in an actual case to reject the definition of "direct tax" provided by foreign economist, and to rule that "direct tax" and "capitation" and other terms mean what the Court rules those terms to mean. That's how our legal system works. I don't make the rules.

[LPC]

This is typical tax denier dishonesty.

I presented a simple challenge, which is to identify any example of any flaw or mistake in my Tax Protester FAQ, and you respond with semantic evasions, vague unsupported allegations, and a new and irrelevant criticism (that the FAQ is "total overkill").

Let me restate my challenge so that you can't pretend not to understand:

If you can find a single statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that is a "con" to anything I have written, cite it.

I will either tell you why you're wrong or will incorporate it into the FAQ (or both).

And give it your best shot. I only need (or want) one citation, so make it your best.

No, you changed ‘service’ to read as ‘labor’, that is disingenuous, conniving, trite, whatever. Being that 'service' has numerous legal meanings and that 'service' has an established meaning as a 'term' within related acts of law.

…And I already have, you make ZERO mention of anything from Wealth of Nations, not a single word. That was my challenge to you not the IRC itself, but whether or not it even applies to those in consideration of their labor.

Okay, let me phrase the issue differently:

If you can find a single statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that is a "con" to anything I have written, cite it.

A text by a British economist is not a statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority.

[Weston White]

Someone who has a tax obligation which he pays is not a criminal.

Yea, funny, nearly Obama's entire cabinet, had the same exact problem until they "paid" as at such time they were being “tapped”. Yea, sure an honest mistake on their parts, really, each and every one of them.

If they get to do it and without penalty, so should every other "taxpayer".

[LPC]

The quotation from Adam Smith that WW and other tax deniers love so much is as follows:

"Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor…."

Of course, that quote says that a capitation can be a direct tax on wages, but it doesn't say that a direct tax on wages is a capitation.

Saying that a poodle is a dog doesn't mean that all dogs are poodles.

The Adam Smith legend is a common enough tax denier misconception that I will probably add it to the FAQ, and explain why it is legally, logically, and economically irrelevant.

[Weston White]

Okay, let me phrase the issue differently:

If you can find a single statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority that is a "con" to anything I have written, cite it.

Why is it exactly do you think that SCOTUS cites Wealth of Nations? Just for SAG? Look to the Annotated Constitution, notice what is specifically missing from all discussion? Hint, never is tax upon labor review, cited, mentioned, or discussed.

A text by a British economist is not a statute, regulation, court decision, or other authority.

Wealth of Nations is depended upon even to this very day for establishing economic principles. The same as those in the psychological or philosophical fields revere Plato and Socrates, those in the astronomy, art, writing, and classical composition fields revere the works of those great from ancient times, etc..

The fact is that within the Wealth of Nations Dr. Adam Smith merely documented what the understood terms concerning taxation, (from both France and England, and in fact he even discussed North America in many instances) was and how the implementation of those classes of tax would be fair and just on a fruitful and prosperous society. You can fully see Dr. Adams Smith’s influence in how our Forefathers structured the Constitution, such taxes to be “apportioned” upon property and such taxes to be “uniform” upon commerce; granted those specific devices were determined by the Framers during the Convention, though this is essentially what Dr. Adam Smith prescribed within Wealth of Nations to a great effect.

Also to note legal dictionaries (use to anyways, from what I have understand current dictionaries have completely changed the original definition) define capitation taxes in accordance with what Dr. Adam Smith proclaimed within Wealth of Nations.