David L. Miner

[Harvester]

Let me put it a different way: What evidence do you have, in the form of statutes, regulations, or rulings, that section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code does NOT mean what it says when it defines "gross income" as ALL income from WHATEVER source derived?

The Sec. 61 definition you speak of is given here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/61.html

(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: .....

I agree it means what it says, but what's it saying? It's certainly oddly written and it's not a definition of "income." It's a circular deceptive definition at best. Consider this:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross LPC means all LPC from whatever source derived,..."

It does not define "LPC." What is LPC? What is income? “The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.” U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, 404 (8th Circuit, 1976) Wow, that's convenient, trying to hide something. We must look to the Revenue Acts themselves for the answer. And that's why I linked to Zuniga's 47-item list. Yes, they're his conclusions but, disregarding his first few status facts, it's a handy list of items/activities that are indeed taxable income under the Revenue Acts of Congress. And oh looky, none of my income /activity is listed.

30...income from foreign oil and gas extraction (26 CFR §1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(D)).
31...income from a domestic corporation that has an election in effect under 26 U.S.C. § 936 (Puerto Rico & possession tax credit). (26 CFR §1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(E)

32...income from an insular possession of the United States. (See 26 CFR §§ 1.861-8(f)(1)(iv)(F)-(H); see also, definitions of “State”, “United States” & “citizen” at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1 and “American employer” at § 31.3121(h)-1)

33...income from a China Trade Act corporation. (See 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi)(I))

39...receive wages, remuneration, or other compensation as an officer or employee of an oceangoing vessel construed as an American employer. (See 26 CFR § 31.3121(f)-6)

[Famspear]

Harvester, it doesn't matter whether you think the statute is "oddly" worded. It doesn't matter whether the definition in the statute is "circular." It doesn't matter whether you think someone is trying to "hide" something.

Stay on task.

The issue is:

What evidence do you have, in the form of statutes, regulations, or rulings, that section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code does NOT mean what it says when it defines "gross income" as ALL income from WHATEVER source derived?

Look for a statute or a reg or a court decision to the effect that the compensation you receive for personal services you perform is not includible in gross income as defined in section 61.

EDIT: Your arguments are focusing on items that ARE income. You're on a rabbit trail. Look for a statute or a court decision that states that your compensation for services you perform is NOT includible in gross income.

[LPC]

Let me put it a different way: What evidence do you have, in the form of statutes, regulations, or rulings, that section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code does NOT mean what it says when it defines "gross income" as ALL income from WHATEVER source derived?

The Sec. 61 definition you speak of is given here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/61.html

(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: .....

I agree it means what it says, but what's it saying? It's certainly oddly written and it's not a definition of "income." It's a circular deceptive definition at best.

Your illiteracy is showing, because I never claimed that section 61 defined "income," but only that it defined "gross income."

Your claim was that the federal income tax did not tax *all* income, but only income from certain "taxable activities." Are you now conceding that all *income* is subject to federal income tax and are now challenging the meaning of "income"? Or are you too stupid to understand the difference, or too much of a liar and a fraud to care about the difference?

Pick your argument. I can gut you either way, but I want you to know what argument you're losing when you've had your ass handed to you on a platter.

[Harvester]

Correct; it's a definition of 'gross income' not 'income.' But it's obfuscatory and not helpful. That definition is crafted, with the hope that the casual reader thinks he's also getting a definition of 'income.' Or that the common use definition of income is at play. However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that "...'income,' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income.'"

So once again, the definition
"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross LPC means all LPC from whatever source derived,..."
gets us no closer to the definition of 'gross LPC' because it doesn't define 'LPC' which is used to define 'gross LPC.' How can we know what gross LPC is if we don't know what LPC is?

We must look to the Revenue Acts themselves for descriptions/definitions of taxable activities. Those are statutory 'income.' Whatever is not included is not 'income.'
It's not that complicated dude, but I guess that's why you pay the banker's tribute and I don't.

http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/ ... edPill.htm

[Famspear]

[repetitive off-topic crap deleted....]

It's not that complicated dude, but I guess that's why you pay the banker's tribute and I don't.

Well, apparently it's too "complicated" for you to come up with an answer, Harvester.

Stop evading the question.

Once again: Look for a statute or a court decision ruling that compensation for services you perform is not included in gross income under section 61.

Or, to paraphrase Hendrickson, look for a court ruling that compensation for services performed in an activity not involving a federal privilege is not included in gross income under section 61.

Come on, Harvester. Just one court decision. Look for JUST ONE COURT DECISION.

[wserra]

Surely the tp pretence of intellectuality makes double dactyls more appropriate.

Hendrickson, Shmendrickson.
Our friend the Harvester
Mangles the truth with his
Every remark.

All of his narratives
Lack in veracity.
Jurisprudentially
Lives in the dark.

[The Operative]

Correct; it's a definition of 'gross income' not 'income.' But it's obfuscatory and not helpful. That definition is crafted, with the hope that the casual reader thinks he's also getting a definition of 'income.' Or that the common use definition of income is at play.

Which is exactly what is happening...the common meaning of the word 'income' is being used. The Supreme Court has stated, "In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the “ ‘ordinary, everyday senses’ ” of the words. - Commissioner v. Soliman 506 U.S. 168, 174 (1992) quoting Malat v. Riddell, 383 U. S. 569, 571 (1966)

However, the Supreme Court has acknowledged that "...'income,' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income.'"

The 'ordinary, everyday sense' of the word income does not mean everything that comes in either. While the statute or the IRC "does not define "income," the courts have interpreted the term in its every day usage to mean gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined. [citations omitted] Clearly wages and salaries fall within this definition and are therefore constitutionally taxable. U.S. v. Richards 732 F.2d 646 (1983).

[Nikki]

Harvester, like most tax deniers and evaders, conveniently ignores the simple English statements opening 26USC61:

26 U.S.C. § 61 : US Code - Section 61: Gross income defined
(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, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
...

For his benefit, a simple explanation of that follows: if Harvester does something for someone else -- person "B" -- (i.e., provides a service to "B") and "B" compensates Harvester (gives him something -- ANYTHING -- of value) for that service, then that compensation is included in gross income.

[Pottapaug1938]

Harvester is too much of an intellectual coward to ever provide the proof which we have challenged him to provide. It's much easier for him to take the gutless way out and mine various legal sources for out-of-context quotes which fit his passionately-desired conclusions.

[grixit]

Surely the tp pretence of intellectuality makes double dactyls more appropriate.

Hendrickson, Shmendrickson.
Our friend the Harvester
Mangles the truth with his
Every remark.

All of his narratives
Lack in veracity.
Jurisprudentially
Lives in the dark.

Beautiful!

[LPC]

Correct; it's a definition of 'gross income' not 'income.' But it's obfuscatory and not helpful

Ever notice that the legal scholars who are absolutely certain about the history and meaning of the Constitution, and the intentions of the Founding Fathers on every conceivable issue, are constantly baffled by the meanings of words like "all," "income," and "whatever"?

[Demosthenes]

They don't seem to get that the Tax Code can't define "income." If Congress starts tinkering with the definitions of common words located in the Constitution, then the Constitution can be changed at the whim of Congress rather than by Constitutional Amendment.

The 16th Amendment means what it says. No weasel words games are going to change it.

[buck09]

How about the possibility that he's just trying to be an asshole, and he doesn't even believe this stuff himself. I mean, few people are really that stupid.

Actually, that's one area where most of these kooks are right - in assessing the average gullibility of people (quite high), all while failing to realize that they're included in that same group.

[Noah]

They don't seem to get that the Tax Code can't define "income." If Congress starts tinkering with the definitions of common words located in the Constitution, then the Constitution can be changed at the whim of Congress rather than by Constitutional Amendment.

The 16th Amendment means what it says. No weasel words games are going to change it.

I think their train went off the track when they discovered that in Pollock the Supreme Court defined " income as gain, profit, derived from capital, labor or both combined."

To them, income is limited to the Supreme Court's definition.

[Pottapaug1938]

They don't seem to get that the Tax Code can't define "income." If Congress starts tinkering with the definitions of common words located in the Constitution, then the Constitution can be changed at the whim of Congress rather than by Constitutional Amendment.

The 16th Amendment means what it says. No weasel words games are going to change it.

I think their train went off the track when they discovered that in Pollock the Supreme Court defined " income as gain, profit, derived from capital, labor or both combined."

To them, income is limited to the Supreme Court's definition.

That's because, having found their desired quote, they ignore everything to the contrary since then.

[LPC]

They don't seem to get that the Tax Code can't define "income."

Well, not exactly.

There are lots of things that Congress can tax that are not income, and Congress can call something "income," and tax it, as long as the tax is still otherwise constitutional. For example, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of taxing damages received on account of non-physical injuries on the grounds that, even if the amounts received were not “income” in the constitutional sense, the imposition of the tax was still constitutional as an excise. Murphy v. I.R.S., 493 F.3d 170, No. 05-5139 (D.C. Cir. 7/3/2007), vacating 460 F.3d 79 (8/22/2006).

[Cpt Banjo]

Congress can call something "income," and tax it, as long as the tax is still otherwise constitutional.

Another interesting example is the imputed income that aises when one makes a below-market loan. Under Section 7872 of the Code and subject to several exceptions, if I make an interest-free loan or one that provides for a rate that is too low, the law treats me as if I had first transferred the foregone interest to the debtor and then received the same amount back as an interest payment.

It's clear that the creditor in this situation hasn't really received income by any stretch of the imagination, yet the law will tax him as if he had. I'm unaware of any constitutional challenge to the statute, probably because it could be justified as an excise tax on the making of the loan.

[Gregg]

They don't seem to get that the Tax Code can't define "income." If Congress starts tinkering with the definitions of common words located in the Constitution, then the Constitution can be changed at the whim of Congress rather than by Constitutional Amendment.

The 16th Amendment means what it says. No weasel words games are going to change it.

I think their train went off the track when they discovered that in Pollock the Supreme Court defined " income as gain, profit, derived from capital, labor or both combined."

To them, income is limited to the Supreme Court's definition.

Not quite, their definition of income starts with "something besides what is paid to me"

[LPC]

Congress can call something "income," and tax it, as long as the tax is still otherwise constitutional.

Another interesting example is the imputed income that aises when one makes a below-market loan. Under Section 7872 of the Code and subject to several exceptions, if I make an interest-free loan or one that provides for a rate that is too low, the law treats me as if I had first transferred the foregone interest to the debtor and then received the same amount back as an interest payment.

It's clear that the creditor in this situation hasn't really received income by any stretch of the imagination, yet the law will tax him as if he had. I'm unaware of any constitutional challenge to the statute, probably because it could be justified as an excise tax on the making of the loan.

When I was in law school, the federal income tax professor talked about imputed rental income from home ownership as something that Congress could tax, but has decided not to.

But after reading the Pollock case and other decisions, it seems to me that a tax on "imputed rent" is really no different from a tax on home ownership, and a tax on the ownership of real property is a classic "direct tax."

And couldn't the same be said about other forms of imputed income, such as original issue discount, which require the recognition of income that hasn't yet been realized?

It seems to me that Congress is on shaky ground any time it requires the recognition of income without any event or transaction on which to hang the "excise" label.

Incidentally, in another very different forum, I suggested that a lot of the concerns about the Citizens United decision allowing corporate expenditures for political purposes could be addressed by an amendment to the tax laws in order to require the officers or directors of corporations that use corporate assets to pay for the political expenditures to report the expenditures as additional income to the officers or directors approving the expenditures, using section 7872 as a precedent for Congress recharacterizing transactions in which corporate officers or shareholders use corporate property for personal purposes. Nobody has yet seconded the idea, but I think it would put a little pain into the expenditures, and would survive 1st Amendment challenges.

[Paul]

My sarcastic response to the "imputed rental income from owner-occupied housing" is "what about the imputed rental income from lessee-occupied housing? " After all, a lessee could choose to sublet part or all of the place. The more reasoned response is that "imputed" income is a tax on income you could potentially earn, rather than what you do earn. The same analysis would allow them to tax you on your normally hourly wage for your leisure hours, because you could work. And taken to extremes, the same analysis would let them tax a high-school dropout for the income he could be earning as a doctor if he had chosen to stay in school and apply himself instead of doing whatever. There is no logical end to it.

And did anyone notice that Harvey was channeling the old 861 argument that Larken Rose stole from someone else and abandoned in court? Probably has no idea how Larken got to that particular reg, but that's not surprising for a moron who can't follow the statutory structure that defines your tax base -- "taxable income" -- as "adjusted gross income" minus exemptions and your standard deduction or itemized deductions, defines "adjusted gross income" as "gross income" minus adjustments, and defines "gross income" as "all income," except as expressly exempted. There's nothing circular. They could have said "tax base" rather than "income" all along, and defined "gross tax base" as "all income."

And there is nothing wrong with starting with "all income" -- even if the IRC defined income, that wouldn't be the end of it. If it defined income as "the receipts from a federally-taxable activity," you're stuck with "what is a receipt?" or "what is an activity?" You ALWAYS reach a point where the answer is "you have to just understand the words." Saying "you have to understand what 'income" means" is as good a place to stop as any.