Harvester wrote:No, the Supreme Court does not contradict me. And yes, "should be interpreted where possible." But where a term has been custom defined in a statute, it is NOT POSSIBLE for any other definition to apply.
I'm going to ignore the idiocy of the phrase "custom defined" and focus on the idiocy of the conclusion you want to reach, which is that it is
not possible for section 7701(c) to mean what it says about the meaning of "includes," so that it is
not possible for private sector employees to be "employees" within the meaning of section 3401(c).
You're not claiming that sections 7701(c) and 3401(c) are ambiguous, you're claiming that the absurd result you want to reach is the
only possible result, which defies not only the plain meaning of the words on the page but also all logic and common sense.
And the conclusion you want to reach isn't even relevant to the question of whether the compensation you receive is included in your gross income under section 61.
Harvester wrote:The purpose of the 16th Amendment (and the Income Tax) was to bring tax relief to wage earners.
Because most federal revenues were derived from tariffs, which drove up the prices of commodities and so burdened the working class.
Harvester wrote:President Taft in the Congressional Record June 16, 1909:
I therefore recommend to the Congress that both Houses, by a two-thirds vote, shall propose an amendment to the Constitution conferring the power to levy an income tax upon the National Government without apportionment among the States in proportion to population.
If you think that Taft wanted the federal government to be able to tax itself, then you legally qualify as brain dead.
Harvester wrote:Senator Heflin:
"An income tax seeks to reach the unearned wealth of the country and to make it pay its share." 44th Congress, 1909
You have to remember the historical context of the 16th Amendment, which was that the Supreme Court had ruled in Pollock that Congress could not tax unearned income (e.g., rents, interest, and dividends) without apportionment, but could tax earned income (e.g., wages and salaries) without apportionment, so the purpose of the amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement from an income tax on unearned income.
Harvester wrote:Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax Amendment in N.Y. Times Feb. 26, 1911:
The poor man does not regard his wages or salary as 'an income.'
You should read the whole article in context, because it is clear that Gov. Wilson opposed the 16th Amendment because he believed that Congress would be taxing not just the wealthy on their incomes from wealth, but would also be taxing workers on their wages and salaries. In other words, Gov. Wilson opposed the 16th Amendment because he believed that it would give Congress the power that you believe it did not give Congress.
You're going to rely on Phil Hart?
Hart was stupid enough to try out his ideas on his own income tax returns, and filed returns for the years 1994 and 1995 that failed to include the wages he had earned and included an attachment stating: "The wages I earned as reflected on my W-2 form are nontaxable personal property." He then failed to file any return at all for 1996. The Tax Court rejected all of his arguments, upholding the tax deficiencies and penalties determined by the Internal Revenue Service and imposing sanctions of $20,000 for making frivolous arguments. On appeal, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Tax Court and added additional sanctions of $2,000 for a frivolous appeal. Philip Lewis Hart v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-78 (notice of deficiency upheld and $20,000 in sanctions imposed), aff'd, 88 AFTR2d Par. 2001-5170, No. 01-70173 (9th Cir. 1/9/2002) (additional sanctions of $2,000 imposed for an appeal "wholly without merit"), cert. den., No. 02-84 (8/7/2002).
See
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/phil-hart for additional information.
However, I have to admit that Hart was smarter than Hendrickson, because at least Hart never went to jail.
