income from whatever source derived (again)

[LPC]

This is the truth about the income tax though:

Excise:

1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee

This, of course, is woefully incomplete. Mr. White, illegally-obtained income has been held to be taxable, yet it falls into neither of the categories you listed. I guess you and Pete forgot about that one, right?

The gift tax has been upheld as an excise, yet it too falls into neither of the categories you listed. If the gratuitious transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, what in the world makes you think the transfer of property in exchange for labor can't be?

“Whether the tax is to be classified as an ‘excise’ is in truth not of critical importance. If not that, it is an ’impost’ [citations omitted] or a ‘duty’ [citations omitted].”

Chas. C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548, 581-582 (1937) (upholding the Social Security tax paid by employers as “a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment”).

[Imalawman]

You know, I have spent the good part of the last 10 years seriously engaged in the study of the tax code (through 3 degrees and actual practice in the field). Think about this - for the last year (as I earn an LLM in tax) I have spent at least 7-8 hours each day studying the tax code. Have you ever even spent one solid day studying the tax code without interruption? During final exams last semester I spent about 2 weeks straight where I studied the tax code for 12 hours a day - each day. Now, you want to tell me again how you've "researched" the tax code?

As Tommy Boy said, "I can get a good look a T-bone by sticking my head up a Bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it". Trust me on this - you're wrong. You're so dreadfully wrong. In a way, this is like going up to a mathematician and saying, "2 + 2 = 4". To a casual reader of the code, maybe this could possibly be a complicated point - to the mathematician, its the very model of simplicity - boredom to even discuss. Yet, there is humour to be found in a person that would say such obviously ludicrous statements.

I know, this all sounds pedantic and conceited. But its merely the truth. I wouldn't challenge Wes on a matter of civil tort law as he's devoted his career to the subject. Even though I clerked for a plaintiff's lawyer for 2 years, it can't possibly give the perspective of someone that has devoted their life's work to the subject. This doesn't mean that you can't be interested in, and debate, a subject. But if the expert says, "look this is stupid and ridiculous" shouldn't you take great heed in proceeding with that argument?

And I am quite certain you can cite chapter and verse and locate sections in a flash. Though how much time to you spend researching and cross-referencing originating acts (i.e. Classification Act and Public Salary Tax Act), noted the evolution of the Revenue Act from 1862 to 1913 and 1913 through present, confirming statutes/regulations in the Federal Register, verifying implementing regulations, read congressional reports concerning the crafting of the XVI Amendment, and the withholding provisions, seriously reviewed the Annotated Constitution concerning Direct taxes and the XVI Amendment, read at least Federalist Papers 12, 21, 30-36 (and Anti-Federalist Papers)? Have you ever seriously studied the history of capitation taxes or for that matter poll-taxes, personal taxes, and tallies?

Yes, I have actually, but so so so much more. That is a tiny and mostly irrelevant point of study. That study has come in rather esoteric classes that I have taken on the study of tax policy. But what matters in a more practical sense is how the courts are interpreting the tax code of 1986. I.e. the CURRENT TAX CODE. Do you understand that the 1986 tax code (and current revisions) is not dependent on previous tax codes and provisions? If the courts say that the 1986 tax code applies to private sector wages, then it does. Especially since the 86 congress very much intended that it should. That's why the tax code is so very straight forward on this issue.

You might not realize it, but you're trying to convince me that 2+2= something other than 4. You can't convince me of your point because its so absurd, not even close to having an once of plausibility.

[ASITStands]

It's interesting, in an academic sense, that Weston and all the other contrarians who post here are capable of posting reams of (dis)information in response to a challenge but are total failures when it comes to answering very simple, straight-forward questions.

Could it possibly be that they all lack the innate ability to think and are all only capable of parroting concepts framed by others?

I think that's a fairly accurate observation of these sort of exchanges.

We also see an obvious lack of reading comprehension and an inability to express themselves in precise language with all the attendant spelling and grammar errors. It would be comical were it not for the risk they pose to themselves by not being able to think clearly.

I think the observation made by 'Wes' is fairly accurate too:

It's like "debating" with a first-grader.

Whatever you might say, or however you might carefully explain a concept, they'll always argue the opposite. It's as though they have trouble admitting error, or they're stubborn.

I realize there can be legitimate differences of opinion, even in the realm of law, but it is inexplicable to hold to an argument long after you've shown an inability to provide evidence of its truth and long after you've been shown the correct, opposing, legal conclusion.

It's a stubbornness most tax contrarians are loathe to admit. It's a rare few who successfully work through all the errant legal theories and arrive at a correct view of the income tax.

It's a rare few who can successfully escape the irrationality of what they don't know.

[Weston White]

Saying it does not make it so.

Exactly, that is why I have troubled myself to better shown you.

Read the case and try to see what the Supremes said:
The full case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426

Better yet you go read it and tell me what it says.

Your contention that compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) was "never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC." is directly contradicted by the statements of the court in Glenshaw Glass and, as yet, has not been supported so is merely your opinion or imagination.
Your claim does violence to the plain meaning of the statute.

That case is about taxable receipts, not all receipts are taxable. That case is not about direct taxes, that case is irrelevant.

[jg]

The case is about what is comprehended in the definition of gross income in the tax code.

It says your contention that compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) was "never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC." is wrong.

The probative test for whether the payments in that case were comprehended in the definition of gross income was that there they had "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

Your claim that revenue from work is not within the definition of gross income does violence to the plain meaning of the statute.

[Weston White]

This is the truth about the income tax though:

Excise:

1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee

This, of course, is woefully incomplete. Mr. White, illegally-obtained income has been held to be taxable, yet it falls into neither of the categories you listed. I guess you and Pete forgot about that one, right?

The gift tax has been upheld as an excise, yet it too falls into neither of the categories you listed. If the gratuitious transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, what in the world makes you think the transfer of property in exchange for labor can't be?

Illegally obtained income, if it is still income, it would really matter now would it? Illegal income, are you serious? Big WHO CARES!

Although sure there are many other sub-classes of taxes within various classes of indirect taxes such as excises, for example: 'inheritance tax/legacy tax/succession tax or duty', 'franchise tax', 'estate tax', ‘occupation tax’, ‘license tax’, ‘privilege tax’, etc.; and of course ‘income tax’, and the one thing they all have in common, all indirect taxes. Similarly, capitations retain the sub-class of poll-taxes and personal taxes.

"The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison
THURSDAY. JULY 12. IN CONVENTION

Mr. GOVr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.

General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, *2 concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of £600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a 3 taxing Exports. "

So, exports and imports, that would cover duties and imposts, right?
That leaves consumption, what could that be? Umm, oh I know excises! Also known as internal taxes.

Also note what that "S. Carola." underlined comment is saying, it is discussing fruit of labor in the context of proportion, gee that sounds like AI,S9,C4, doesn't it?

And look at this gem, this is exactly what Dr. Adam Smith exemplified in Wealth of Nations. This passage is equating representation to taxation, ergo, the context is applied to those types of taxes which are to be "direct". It is also referencing the value of labor in relation to such principles.

"The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787
by James Madison
WEDNESDAY. JULY 11. IN CONVENTION

— He could not agree that any substantial objection lay agst. fixig numbers for the perpetual standard of Representation. It was said that Representation & taxation were to go together; that taxation and wealth ought to go together, that population & wealth were not measures of each other. He admitted that in different climates, under different forms of Govt. and in different stages of civilization the inference was perfectly just. He would admit that in no situation, numbers of inhabitants were an accurate measure of wealth. He contended however that in the U. States it was sufficiently so for the object in contemplation. Altho' their climate varied considerably, yet as the Govts. the laws, and the manners of all were nearly the same, and the intercourse between different parts perfectly free, population, industry, arts, and the value of labour, would constantly tend to equalize themselves. The value of labour, might be considered as the principal criterion of wealth and ability to support taxes; and this would find its level in different places where the intercourse should be easy & free, with as much certainty as the value of money or any other thing. Wherever labour would yield most, people would resort, till the competition should destroy the inequality. Hence it is that the people are constantly swarming from the more to the less populous places — from Europe to Ama. from the Northn. & Middle parts of the U. S. to the Southern & Western. They go where land is cheaper, because there labour is dearer. If it be true that the same quantity of produce raised on the banks of the Ohio is of less value, than on the Delaware, it is also true that the same labor will raise twice or thrice, the quantity in the former, that it will raise in the latter situation."

[Weston White]

Yes, I have actually, but so so so much more. That is a tiny and mostly irrelevant point of study. That study has come in rather esoteric classes that I have taken on the study of tax policy. But what matters in a more practical sense is how the courts are interpreting the tax code of 1986. I.e. the CURRENT TAX CODE. Do you understand that the 1986 tax code (and current revisions) is not dependent on previous tax codes and provisions? If the courts say that the 1986 tax code applies to private sector wages, then it does. Especially since the 86 congress very much intended that it should. That's why the tax code is so very straight forward on this issue.

Mostly irrelevant? Wow really nice attitude you have there. The past is what serves to pave the future, if there was an error made in the past, that means the future is burdened by that error, one unrelated example that is very good to show how such a principle works is slavery… which has sine been corrected.

And know I would think that you know that the tax codes are concurrent. The tax codes are and have been operating upon the same exact foundation as they were first and initially established in 1913… the only difference is the shuffling around of statutes, the omitting of context, the expansion of new types of taxes, repeals of others, modifications, mergings, implementations of new Acts, etc.. Although in reality all is just as it was since 1913 and even prior, so far as the intended subjects and scope are concerned, no those have not changed, only the instruments, only the mechanics.

You might not realize it, but you're trying to convince me that 2+2= something other than 4.

No that’s not what I am trying to do. What I am trying to show you that 2+2 does not equal 5.

You can't convince me of your point because its so absurd, not even close to having an once of plausibility.

You only say that because you think, your opinion is that foundational and originating documents are of no or of little consequence. So of course you can’t see the forest through the trees.

[Weston White]

Al Capone had a goodly amount of illegal income and because he failed to report that income he got into a whole bunch of trouble. So yes, the reporting and taxation of even illegal income is of some import.

Remember what the 16th Amendment says, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The part of the sentence that reads "...from whatever source derived,..." does include illegal income - like gambling, prostitution, drug-running, moonshinin', selling illegal de-tax scams, etc.

And yes all the information about what the writers of the Constitution were thinking is interesting and may give insight as to their intent - based on the world as they knew it at that time - and even though they may be referred to in court decisions, they are not law.

They do more than just maybe give insight, they do give insight. Such documents serve to show the what and the why; the meat and potatoes. They are not the law true, but they are what served to create the law, they made the case for establishing the law... the fundamental law and that does not change... except through the amendment process. You do not just thereafter toss that out, discard, it throw it away as if it means nothing, because it does.

[The Operative]

Weston,

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.

A simple question: Do you think the courts would agree with that statement?

[Weston White]

The case is about what is comprehended in the definition of gross income in the tax code.

It says your contention that compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) was "never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC." is wrong.

The probative test for whether the payments in that case were comprehended in the definition of gross income was that there they had "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

Your claim that revenue from work is not within the definition of gross income does violence to the plain meaning of the statute.

You know you keep saying that but yet you can’t directly show that can you! Nothing like I have been able to show you great works that do directly support my own beliefs.

BTW, out of curiosity, do other Acts pertaining to say oceans or immigration or whatever specifically exclude that which is not the indented subject therein? i.e. a ‘vessel’ excludes a motor vehicle, an aircraft, etc.; an ‘alien’ excludes an American citizen or resident or an extraterrestrial life form, etc?

[jg]

You know you keep saying that but yet you can’t directly show that can you! Nothing like I have been able to show you great works that do directly support my own beliefs.

From the case:

Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." 6 The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of [348 U.S. 426, 431] his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions. Helvering v. Bruun, supra, at 468-469; United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., supra, at 3.

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income to the recipients. Respondents concede, as they must, that the recoveries are taxable to the extent that they compensate for damages actually incurred. It would be an anomaly that could not be justified in the absence of clear congressional intent to say that a recovery for actual damages is taxable but not the additional amount extracted as punishment for the same conduct which caused the injury. And we find no such evidence of intent to exempt these payments.

What I said: "The probative test for whether the payments in that case were comprehended in the definition of gross income was that there they had "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.""

Compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) is an undeniable accession to wealth, clearly realized. Compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) is comprehended in gross income subject to the income tax.

Your inability to understand or your denial of the existence of the SCOTUS decision as to what comprehends gross income subject to the income tax does nothing to remove payments you get from the scope of that ruling.

[LPC]

You know you keep saying that but yet you can’t directly show that can you! Nothing like I have been able to show you great works that do directly support my own beliefs.

WW has shown us "great works"?

I just started a thread describing his brain as "imploding" and I'm scared to think I might be right.

[Weston White]

Weston,

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.

A simple question: Do you think the courts would agree with that statement?

Just take out the word 'labor' and I agree with that statement.

That reminds me are there any actual cases where it was directly and wholeheartedly argued that they were incorrectly taxed or that the IRC has been misapplied, because their pay or remuneration could only have been taxed as a capitation tax?

Or are there only cases where they argued I am not an “employee”, I had no “income”, “income” is not “wages”, "wages" are not "income", I had no “wages”, the IRC only applies to those that live in “Federal Zones”, the IRC only applies to federal employees and nobody else, the IRC only applies to money earned outside of the USA, the 16th Amendment was never ratified, the IRS is not a government agency, your flag means you’re an admiralty court and I am not subject to you, the IRC is not a law, etc., etc.?

I have never seen one and if there was one unless it was a loosing cause I am sure PH would have it posted all over LH and on the other hand if there was a loosing one I am sure all of you would have it plastered all of this forum.

So if there is none, I would have to wonder why, it must mean it has either never been argued before, which I find hard to believe, or such defenses never actually make it to trial.

[Weston White]

WW has shown us "great works"?

I just started a thread describing his brain as "imploding" and I'm scared to think I might be right.

"imploding" - This is just really his way of saying "He is learning, he is catching onto us, we better watch it because he is figuring our scam out!"

OK, let me guess, you don’t consider the transcripts from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Wealth of Nations, or the CRS Annotated Constitution significant either? …But I but you consider your FAQ as such, right.

…Don’t bother answering, I really don’t care.

[Weston White]

What I said: "The probative test for whether the payments in that case were comprehended in the definition of gross income was that there they had "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.""

Compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) is an undeniable accession to wealth, clearly realized. Compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) is comprehended in gross income subject to the income tax.

Your inability to understand or your denial of the existence of the SCOTUS decision as to what comprehends gross income subject to the income tax does nothing to remove payments you get from the scope of that ruling.

OMG, is that ever vague, there are so many elements left out of that, that is means nothing to anybody. There are no facts present there is only a quotation of something, it is missing all the required elements. There is nothing to set its context.

You are attempting to be a magician working your art of misdirection.

[Paul]

There are no facts present there is only a quotation of something, it is missing all the required elements. There is nothing to set its context.

Kinda like saying that employee compensation isn't compensation for services, without saying just what it is that an employee does that is not a service for his or her boss, or what services are performed only by non-employees and can therefore have their compensation taxed as income, or where in the IRC or the constitution or anywhere else these terms are defined, and giving no examples of any of these things.

[LPC]

That reminds me are there any actual cases where it was directly and wholeheartedly argued that they were incorrectly taxed or that the IRC has been misapplied, because their pay or remuneration could only have been taxed as a capitation tax?

Not exactly. I did find this:

Several of the Tilleys' claims are frivolous and fail as a matter of law. In one claim, the Tilleys argue that "the taxes were unconstitutional, since a tax measured by an individual's so-called income is in the nature of a capitation tax and can only be imposed by apportionment." (Compl. par. VI(d)(3)). The Sixteenth Amendment puts such an argument to rest, stating:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, WITHOUT APPORTIONMENT among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

U.S. Const. amend. XVI (emphasis added). Therefore this claim should be dismissed.

Tilley v. United States, 270 F.Supp.2d 731, KTC 2003-521, No. 1:02CV629 (M.D.N.C. 2003).

Of course, the fact that no one else has been insane in exactly the same way that you are insane does not mean that you're not insane.

[Doktor Avalanche]

OK, let me guess, you don’t consider the transcripts from the Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Wealth of Nations, or the CRS Annotated Constitution significant either?

Wow, Weston, you catch on quick.

It's not that we don't find any of those papers historically significant it's just that those papers aren't the law of the land.

And they especially have nothing to do with taxes.

[Nikki]

Weston is falling back on one of the last refuges of the "tax honesty" movement -- Unless you can cite a Supreme Court decision (and it MUST be the Supreme Court) which specifically addresses, verbatim, his allegations, he stands unrebutted.

The SC decision can't vary from WW's claims by as much as a misplaced comma because it would not be addressing HIS claims.

Denial of cert. doesn't count because it's not a decision.

Rulings in essentially identical cases don't count because they're only essentially identical.

And, even if you DO manage to find a SC case which is, indeed, the silver bullet, you still haven't driven a stake through his heart. He has a hundred more in-depth analyses of the law (dating back to the Magna Carta) to support his position.

It's time to put away the troll food and and allow WW to stalk away in umbrage, only to make his next Internet appearance on Tax Notes Today via the quotation of a DoJ announcement.

[The Operative]

Weston,

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.

A simple question: Do you think the courts would agree with that statement?

Just take out the word 'labor' and I agree with that statement.

You believe you can properly read the federalist papers, Adam Smith, and the statutes, yet you cannot understand a simple question. I did not ask if YOU agreed with the statement, I asked if you think the COURTS would agree with that statement.

That reminds me are there any actual cases where it was directly and wholeheartedly argued that they were incorrectly taxed or that the IRC has been misapplied, because their pay or remuneration could only have been taxed as a capitation tax?

Or are there only cases where they argued I am not an “employee”, I had no “income”, “income” is not “wages”, "wages" are not "income", I had no “wages”, the IRC only applies to those that live in “Federal Zones”, the IRC only applies to federal employees and nobody else, the IRC only applies to money earned outside of the USA, the 16th Amendment was never ratified, the IRS is not a government agency, your flag means you’re an admiralty court and I am not subject to you, the IRC is not a law, etc., etc.?

I have never seen one and if there was one unless it was a loosing cause I am sure PH would have it posted all over LH and on the other hand if there was a loosing one I am sure all of you would have it plastered all of this forum.

There doesn't have to be a court case using words that only you will accept. The courts are going to phrase their decision based upon the law. Besides, there is at least one court case where the court stated that "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. C.I.R. 687 F.2d 264 (1982). In that case, Mr. and Mrs. Funk did not report as income wages received during two years. They are argued that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax. The court determined they were wrong. Therefore, arguments that compensation for labor are not subject to the income tax are wrong.

Now, are you going to answer my original question?

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.

Do you think the courts would agree with that statement?