income from whatever source derived (again)

[ASITStands]

'SteveSy' ....

In Springer, the Supreme Court considered the Act of 1798 to impose a capitation tax upon slaves. Regardless how France, England or any other nation viewed a capitation, the Supreme Court in Springer viewed the tax on slaves a capitation

You can read the Act starting on page 597.

Let me point it out, as it appears Weston missed it:

The act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

[Weston White]

It's funny to think about all these imaginary rules:

Imaginary Rule 1: In defining the terms in the United States Constitution, the rulings of U.S. courts do not count. We must instead use the definitions provided by an eighteenth century foreign economist.

Imaginary Rule 2: In defining the terms in the United States Constitution, we cannot use words to have meanings different from the meanings those words might have in other countries like England and France -- or if we do use different meanings, we must find support for thsoe meanings somewhere other than the actual rulings of courts of law created under the Constitution or statutes of our own legal system.

ROFL, that is just it, we didn't, we do not have to either, don't believe me? Go read the U.S. Constitution for yourself, capitation taxes is mentioned right in there! It is not "imaginary" as you would like to believe. We use it as it means, the same as excises, imposts, tariffs, duties, poll-taxes, whatever it be. The only exception being the 'direct tax', which took on its own meaning based upon historic precedence.

[Famspear]

ROFL, that is just it, we didn't, don't believe me? Go read the U.S. Constitution for yourself, capitation taxes is mentioned right in there! It is not "imaginary" as you would like to believe. We use it as it means, the same as excises, imposts, tariffs, duties, poll-taxes, whatever it be. The only exception being the 'direct tax', which took on its own meaning based upon historic precedence.

More reading comprehension problems for you Weston.

No. This is not about whether capitations are "mentioned." Don't change the subject, Weston. This is about the definition of the term. The term is not defined in the Constitution. You argue it should be defined one way. I point out that the courts have ruled that it's defined another way. The legal definition is what the courts rule it to be -- by definition. The legal definition is not controlled by Weston White or Adam Smith.

Boo-hoo.

[Weston White]

'SteveSy' ....

In Springer, the Supreme Court considered the Act of 1798 to impose a capitation tax upon slaves. Regardless how France, England or any other nation viewed a capitation, the Supreme Court in Springer viewed the tax on slaves a capitation

You can read the Act starting on page 597.

Let me point it out, as it appears Weston missed it:

The act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53. This act imposed a tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves.

Where does it use the word capitation within that? I read through a few pages and only saw the words 'a direct tax'. That would lead me to believe that is just the words that the Justice spoke as their own interpretation of the tax, while if you notice all others used the word 'direct tax'.

That being said, a poll-tax is also considered a class of capitation tax as both are head-taxes or capitations. Though each has a specific implication. As well another similar tax that is never referenced so far I am so far aware is the 'personal tax'.

Personal Tax - A tax either imposed on the person without reference to property, as a capitation or poll tax, or a tax imposed on personal property, as distinguished from one laid on real property.

[Weston White]

More reading comprehension problems for you Weston.

No. This is not about whether capitations are "mentioned." Don't change the subject, Weston. This is about the definition of the term. The term is not defined in the Constitution. You argue it should be defined one way. I point out that the courts have ruled that it's defined another way. The legal definition is what the courts rule it to be -- by definition. The legal definition is not controlled by Weston White or Adam Smith.

Boo-hoo.

Give it a rest already. You have failed in your one simple task! You should be getting your "clean out your locker and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out" notice tomorrow morning. Don't fret though there is always unemployment for ya.

[SteveSy]

Problem is under Springer, if read like you believe, the Pollock decision is impossible.

No, the decision in Pollock essentially modified the holding in Springer. From a legal standpoint, there is nothing "impossible" about conflicts among cases. Subsequent decisions modify the rules in prior decisions all the time.

It's impossible if you adopt the wording verbatim from Springer. Springer held, according to most of you, that a direct tax is only a flat tax per head or a tax directly on land. Pollock would be impossible if that were the case.

The other problem that I have and many like me have is where's the support? The first question that needs to be answered is why are direct taxes in the U.S. defined differently than every other place in the world considering we adopted our legal principles mainly from England and France?

No, that question does not really need to be answered. Why? There is no legal principle that requires that terms be defined the same way in the laws of all countries. There is no reason why the legal principles of one country must be the same as those of another country.

True, but then when the constitution was created we would see that they deviated from previous legal principle. What good is a constitution that requires amendments to change if what is written within can be redefined on demand without amendment?

If they are different then where's the support for it?

In the rulings of the US courts. We're already cited the cases, over and over.

Translation: I can not support anything they said with facts. They can make up whatever they want and I'll accept it and because I accept it you must also.

Each of those nations unequivocally place an income tax in the class of direct taxes, more specifically in the capitation tax category. Not one single time did anyone even hint a income tax was in the class of indirect taxation during the founding of the nation. In fact the only mentions of a tax on income places it in the category of direct taxes. You're going against centuries of well documented history.

Courts do sometimes consider history in making decisions but there is no legal principle that requires that law must follow an interpretation of "well documented history" in defining legal terms. The definitions of terms can vary from country to country without violating any "legal" principles.

We're talking about fundamental protections in the constitution here. If the courts can just make up nonsense then the constitution is meaningless. "arms" could be limbs. The constitution is for "We the People", not for the government or any arm of it. The constitution has allowed the courts to exist, the courts don't get to redefine their maker at will. Just like Marshall said:
"The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act"

If this reasoning is sound, and we have all accepted that it is, then this equally applies to the court.

[Weston White]

For that extra special emphasis that only Famspear deserves:


Prior to 1909:

“… We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, …”

Keeping in mind:

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

This is stating that an Act could lay simultaneously both direct and indirect categories of taxation; however, for the purposes of the IRC, this is not the case. It is discussing a 'direct tax', which includes a tax on realty, personal property, and related income; again this is aside from 'capitation tax', which is not a 'direct tax'. Ergo, this is what the XVI Amendment served to do, to remove income from direction taxation and place it within indirect taxation. Capitation taxes was never a subject or concern of this.

Furthermore this substantiates exactly what [XVI Amendment] 'incomes' are, which is to say a tax upon the gains and profits deriving from realty and personal property, whatever the source of such may actually be. And that this is where the confusion had lied; that type of 'income' is not the revenue or stock generated from laboring, being only taxable by a 'capitation tax'... this serves as the basis for obtaining that which is only taxable under a 'direct tax' and subsequently the 'income tax'.

[SteveSy]

'SteveSy' ....

In Springer, the Supreme Court considered the Act of 1798 to impose a capitation tax upon slaves. Regardless how France, England or any other nation viewed a capitation, the Supreme Court in Springer viewed the tax on slaves a capitation

What's your point? A capitation tax comes in many forms all relating to the same thing...a tax per person or head but it does not have to include everyone. It can single people out by age, race, weight, income, class, or whatever. How that tax is calculated per person is irrelevant.

But since you brought it up, that act destroys a couple of arguments made here.
1) A capitation tax is laid on all people regardless.
2) The capitation tax was only put in the constitution to protect slave owners.

[Dr. Caligari]

It was removed in preparation of the up and coming Current Tax Payment Act. To obfuscate the truth from the public... and it worked like a charm.

I already posted the link to Subchapter B and I could care less about what items of income are exempt. I do not deal in such numeration, one way or the other, exception being to my bank accounts. Though I have been searching for a local bank that does non-interest bearing accounts and strangely enough, not a single one does.

All things being equal though, you would have a very tough time explaining why such language was even included if things truly were as you claim them to be. Because there would be no need at all as everything would be applicable except as exempted within the IRC, which had been covered within its own language anyway!

Wrong again, Weston.

The language about income "items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government," was in the Regulation because, at that time, the Supreme Court had held that two classes of income could not be taxed by the federal government: Income of federal judges, and interest paid by states or cities on their bonds. Both of those cases were later overruled by the Supreme Court, so there are no longer any "items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government."