Accountant Forums


Reply
Thread Tools

Court Decisions on Income Tax

 
 
shrubkiller
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 07:49 PM
from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com


READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOME TAX

THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *

COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT:

Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4

Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)

Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
TAXES:

Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)

Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)

Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)

Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)

INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
CAPITAL ASSET:

Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)

Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)

Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)

THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:

Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)

Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)

Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)

Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)

Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967

1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
common law by changing our court system from public law to public
policy

"The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Abbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 08:14 PM
Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Not that any of the detax
infestation will read the cases.

shrubkiller wrote:
> from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
>
>
> READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOME TAX
>
> THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *
>
> COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> GOVERNMENT:
>
> Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4
>
> Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)
>
> Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
>
> THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> TAXES:
>
> Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)
>
> Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
>
> Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)
>
> Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
>
> Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)
>
> INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> CAPITAL ASSET:
>
> Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
>
> Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
>
> Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)
>
> THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:
>
> Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
>
> Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)
>
> Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)
>
> Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)
>
> Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
> Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967
>
> 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> policy
>
> "The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
> are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
> corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rudy-canoza@excite.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 08:49 PM

Abbot wrote:
> Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
> http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Not that any of the detax
> infestation will read the cases.





Get your ass in gear Squirmy and dig up some court decisions that show
the ones below have been overturned.

Don't just post a URL to some criminally insane LIEYER'S op ed.








>
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
> >
> >
> > READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOME TAX
> >
> > THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *
> >
> > COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> > GOVERNMENT:
> >
> > Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> > 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4
> >
> > Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)
> >
> > Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
> >
> > THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> > TAXES:
> >
> > Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)
> >
> > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> >
> > Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)
> >
> > Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
> >
> > Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)
> >
> > INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> > CAPITAL ASSET:
> >
> > Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
> >
> > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> >
> > Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)
> >
> > THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> > AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:
> >
> > Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
> >
> > Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)
> >
> > Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)
> >
> > Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)
> >
> > Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
> > Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967
> >
> > 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> > Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> > common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> > policy
> >
> > "The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
> > are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
> > corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Abbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:12 PM
> > Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
> > http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Not that any of the detax
> > infestation will read the cases.

>
> Get your ass in gear Squirmy and dig up some court decisions that show
> the ones below have been overturned.


Abbot 2) Just did. And have been doing so on these same issues for
years.

> Don't just post a URL to some criminally insane LIEYER'S op ed.


Abbot 2) But that's exactly what you did. Why don't you pick one issue
and I'll be happy your butt on it, Ron. Then we can move on to another.

>
> > shrubkiller wrote:
> > > from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
> > >
> > >
> > > READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOME TAX
> > >
> > > THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *
> > >
> > > COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> > > GOVERNMENT:
> > >
> > > Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> > > 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4
> > >
> > > Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)
> > >
> > > Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
> > >
> > > THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> > > TAXES:
> > >
> > > Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)
> > >
> > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > >
> > > Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)
> > >
> > > Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
> > >
> > > Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)
> > >
> > > INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> > > CAPITAL ASSET:
> > >
> > > Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
> > >
> > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > >
> > > Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)
> > >
> > > THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> > > AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:
> > >
> > > Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
> > >
> > > Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)
> > >
> > > Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)
> > >
> > > Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)
> > >
> > > Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
> > > Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967
> > >
> > > 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> > > Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> > > common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> > > policy
> > >
> > > "The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
> > > are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
> > > corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)


 
Reply With Quote
 
rudy-canoza@excite.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:16 PM

Abbot wrote:
> > > Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
> > > http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Not that any of the detax
> > > infestation will read the cases.

> >
> > Get your ass in gear Squirmy and dig up some court decisions that show
> > the ones below have been overturned.

>
> Abbot 2) Just did. And have been doing so on these same issues for
> years.
>
> > Don't just post a URL to some criminally insane LIEYER'S op ed.

>
> Abbot 2) But that's exactly what you did.




Squirmy, did you go blind from whackin' your peanut?

I handed you cites of court decisions.





Why don't you pick one issue
> and I'll be happy your butt on it, Ron. Then we can move on to another.
>
> >
> > > shrubkiller wrote:
> > > > from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOMETAX
> > > >
> > > > THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *
> > > >
> > > > COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> > > > GOVERNMENT:
> > > >
> > > > Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> > > > 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4
> > > >
> > > > Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)
> > > >
> > > > Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
> > > >
> > > > THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> > > > TAXES:
> > > >
> > > > Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)
> > > >
> > > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > > >
> > > > Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)
> > > >
> > > > Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
> > > >
> > > > Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)
> > > >
> > > > INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> > > > CAPITAL ASSET:
> > > >
> > > > Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
> > > >
> > > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > > >
> > > > Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)
> > > >
> > > > THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> > > > AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:
> > > >
> > > > Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
> > > >
> > > > Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)
> > > >
> > > > Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)
> > > >
> > > > Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)
> > > >
> > > > Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
> > > > Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967
> > > >
> > > > 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroadv.
> > > > Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> > > > common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> > > > policy
> > > >
> > > > "The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
> > > > are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
> > > > corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)


 
Reply With Quote
 
Abbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:30 PM

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Abbot wrote:
> > > > Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
> > > > http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html Not that any of the detax
> > > > infestation will read the cases.
> > >
> > > Get your ass in gear Squirmy and dig up some court decisions that show
> > > the ones below have been overturned.

> >
> > Abbot 2) Just did. And have been doing so on these same issues for
> > years.
> >
> > > Don't just post a URL to some criminally insane LIEYER'S op ed.

> >
> > Abbot 2) But that's exactly what you did.

>
> Squirmy, did you go blind from whackin' your peanut?
>
> I handed you cites of court decisions.
>
> Why don't you pick one issue


Abbot 3) Sure, let's see what Eisner v Macomber really means. I note
too that you incorrectly cited the case. That means you and the author
didn't want the reader to look it up.

You imply that income is only profits and gains made through the sale
or conversion of a capital asset.

But Evans tells us:

"NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only
corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra,
many of these cases state: "income may be defined as gain derived from
capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED". See, e.g., Bowers v.
Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant's Loan & Trust
Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); EISNER V. MACOMBER, 252
U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185
(1918); Stratton's Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415
(1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,.
Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income
statute at the time as imposing a tax on "every person residing in the
United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing
from all sources".

> > and I'll be happy to kick your butt on it, Ron. Then we can move on to another.


Abbot 3) Now that I have kicked you butt, Ron, we can move on to
another case. You pick this time.

> > >
> > > > shrubkiller wrote:
> > > > > from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > READER: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES REGARDING PERSONAL INCOME TAX
> > > > >
> > > > > THE INCOME TAX IS VOLUNTARY - Flora v U.S., 362 U.S. 145 (1960) *
> > > > >
> > > > > COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> > > > > GOVERNMENT:
> > > > >
> > > > > Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> > > > > 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4
> > > > >
> > > > > Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)
> > > > >
> > > > > Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
> > > > >
> > > > > THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> > > > > TAXES:
> > > > >
> > > > > Brushaber v Union Pacific RR Co., 24-0 U.S. 1 at 10, 11, 12, 19 (1916)
> > > > >
> > > > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > > > >
> > > > > Peck v Lowe, 247 U.S. 163 (1918)
> > > > >
> > > > > Stanton v Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
> > > > >
> > > > > Flint v Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 153, 165 (1911)
> > > > >
> > > > > INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> > > > > CAPITAL ASSET:
> > > > >
> > > > > Doyle v Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179 (1916)
> > > > >
> > > > > Eisner v Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 at 205 (1920)
> > > > >
> > > > > Conner v U.S., 303 F. Supp. 1187 pg 119 (1968)
> > > > >
> > > > > THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> > > > > AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:
> > > > >
> > > > > Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 at 113 (1943)
> > > > >
> > > > > Butchers Union Co. v Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 at 756-767 (1884)
> > > > >
> > > > > Coppage v Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 at 14 (1916)
> > > > >
> > > > > Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 400 (1923)
> > > > >
> > > > > Diversified Metal Product v IRS et al., CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.,
> > > > > Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg 5967
> > > > >
> > > > > 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> > > > > Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> > > > > common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> > > > > policy
> > > > >
> > > > > "The regional Federal Reserve Banks are not government agencies but
> > > > > are independent, privately owned and locally controlled
> > > > > corporations." Lewis V. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)


 
Reply With Quote
 
cptbanjo@aol.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:38 PM
shrubkiller wrote:
> from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com



There's too much bullshit here -- let's just hit the high (or low)
points:

> COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> GOVERNMENT:
>
> Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4


Irrelevant, since a tax on personal earning has never been held to be a
direct tax.

> Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)


A lie. The Court held only that a tax on the income from property,
such as interest and dividends, is a direct tax that has to be
apportioned. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment.
>
> Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)


Irrelevant, since this case dealt with the estate tax, not the income
tax.

> THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> TAXES:


Since a tax on personal earnings has always been considered an indirect
tax, Congress doesn't need the 16th Amendment to impose such a tax.
See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

> INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> CAPITAL ASSET:


Income includes such profits and gains, but isn't limited thereto.

> THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:


And where did you get the inane idea that "fundamental rights" can't be
taxed? None of the cites you posted dealt with the income tax, except
the Diversified Metal Product case, which the government won, you
blithering idiot.

> 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> policy


Absolute nonsense. All the Erie case did was to hold that in a case
based upon diversity of citizenship, a federal court is to apply the
common law of the state in which it sits to issues of common law.
Previously, federal courts had applied federal common law to such
issues.

 
Reply With Quote
 
rudy-canoza@excite.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:47 PM

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> shrubkiller wrote:
> > from readers' letters at http://www.whatreallyhappened.com

>
>
> There's too much bullshit here -- let's just hit the high (or low)
> points:
>
> > COMPENSATION IS A DIRECT ITEM OF INCOME NOT TAXABLE BY THE FEDERAL
> > GOVERNMENT:
> >
> > Constitution for the united States of America, Art. I, Sec. 2, Clause
> > 3, Art. I, Sec. 9, Clause 4

>
> Irrelevant, since a tax on personal earning has never been held to be a
> direct tax.
>
> > Pollack v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 at 637 (1895)

>
> A lie. The Court held only that a tax on the income from property,
> such as interest and dividends, is a direct tax that has to be
> apportioned. This result was overturned by the 16th Amendment.
> >
> > Knowlton v Moore, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

>
> Irrelevant, since this case dealt with the estate tax, not the income
> tax.
>
> > THE 16TH AMENDMENT AND THE INCOME TAX IS LIMITED TO INDIRECT EXCISE
> > TAXES:

>
> Since a tax on personal earnings has always been considered an indirect
> tax, Congress doesn't need the 16th Amendment to impose such a tax.
> See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880).
>
> > INCOME IS PROFITS AND GAINS MADE THROUGH THE SALE OR CONVERSION OF A
> > CAPITAL ASSET:

>
> Income includes such profits and gains, but isn't limited thereto.
>
> > THE RIGHT TO LABOR IN AN UNREGULATED OCCUPATION IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
> > AND NOT A TAXABLE PRIVILEGE:

>
> And where did you get the inane idea that "fundamental rights" can't be
> taxed? None of the cites you posted dealt with the income tax, except
> the Diversified Metal Product case, which the government won, you
> blithering idiot.
>
> > 1938 the United States Supreme Court in a case called Erie Railroad v.
> > Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 in effect did away with the constitution and the
> > common law by changing our court system from public law to public
> > policy

>
> Absolute nonsense. All the Erie case did was to hold that in a case
> based upon diversity of citizenship, a federal court is to apply the
> common law of the state in which it sits to issues of common law.
> Previously, federal courts had applied federal common law to such
> issues.




You haven't cited a SINGLE court decision Squirmy. All you've done is
shuck and jive in your own bullshit and cite an UNRATIFIED amendment.

****!! You're stupid.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Abbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 09:53 PM
> You haven't cited a SINGLE court decision Squirmy. All you've done is
> shuck and jive in your own bullshit and cite an UNRATIFIED amendment.
>
> ****!! You're stupid.


Abbot) MoRon, you are the dolt here my response is above cptbanjo's and
cites several cases as well as destroying your argument.

 
Reply With Quote
 
bunghole-jonnie@lycos.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      11-16-2006, 10:05 PM

Abbot wrote:
> > You haven't cited a SINGLE court decision Squirmy. All you've done is
> > shuck and jive in your own bullshit and cite an UNRATIFIED amendment.
> >
> > ****!! You're stupid.

>
> Abbot) MoRon, you are the dolt here my response is above cptbanjo's and
> cites several cases as well as destroying your argument.



You've destroyed nothing except your own argument Squirmy.

You reaffirmed that income tax is applicable on ALL capital assets
ONLY.

Labor and time are NOT listed on any capital cost sheet.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Future regulations, taxes, taxation, standards and public expectations, corporate and social responsibility (CSR) and impact on business leaders, management decisions and profitū. Charmaine Chen Accounting 0 09-21-2008 08:23 AM
Appealing to VAT Decisions Mark & Ana Jones UK Accountancy 2 01-17-2005 04:42 PM
ERO decisions IraS1 Tax 2 01-16-2005 09:44 PM
good website for bank interest rate decisions (savings) Tracy Ramsden UK Finance 0 05-17-2004 05:41 PM
At a loss over pension decisions? John Smith UK Finance 1 04-05-2004 03:56 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49 PM.
Posts in this forum do not constitute the advice of AccountantForums.com or its members. Financial advice should always be taken from qualified advisors before committing to a financial decision.