Court Decisions on Income Tax

Discussion in 'US Taxes' started by shrubkiller, Nov 16, 2006.

  1. shrubkiller

    shrubkiller Guest

    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)
     
    shrubkiller, Nov 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    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)
     
    Abbot, Nov 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. shrubkiller

    Guest

    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)
     
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #3
  4. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    > > 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)
     
    Abbot, Nov 16, 2006
    #4
  5. shrubkiller

    Guest

    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)
     
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #5
  6. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    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)
     
    Abbot, Nov 16, 2006
    #6
  7. shrubkiller

    Guest

    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.
     
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #7
  8. shrubkiller

    Guest

    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.
     
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #8
  9. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    > 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.
     
    Abbot, Nov 16, 2006
    #9
  10. shrubkiller

    Guest

    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.
     
    , Nov 16, 2006
    #10
  11. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    wrote:
    > 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.


    Abbot 2) Ignoring that you couldn't figure out who was posting you have
    now denied/ignored your own argument to say you were really claimimg
    labor is not taxable.

    That's a loser too!

    See Evans again:

    "[anti-taxers claim] Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is our
    property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and a
    "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.

    It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right in
    something you haven't done yet. If your labor were "property" like
    other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do nothing.
    However, if you "sell" your labor and are paid for it, you still have
    to work to earn it.

    Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of property,
    the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal Revenue Code does
    not tax labor itself, but the compensation received for labor (i.e.,
    the income from labor).

    If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and
    making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell your
    pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and have more
    money than you had before. Similarly, if you "sell your labor" by
    agreeing to work in someone else's factory (or farm) for a week, you
    have sold your labor and the compensation you realize is taxable.

    As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax the
    value of property directly (or at least not without apportionment), but
    can only tax exchanges or transfers of property. For example, the
    federal estate tax is clearly a tax on the value of property, and yet
    it has been held to be constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer
    of the property at death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900).
    Similarly, Congress cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax
    sales or transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the
    receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that allows
    the constitutional imposition of a tax.

    Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue has
    ruled against the tax protester raising it.

    "Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a tax on
    them is a property tax, and because the tax the Commissioner is
    attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is unconstitutional.
    However, as we and innumerable other courts have repeatedly explained,
    wages are income, and income taxes do not need to be apportioned."
    Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not
    only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000
    against the taxpayer).
    "It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is
    constitutional." Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir.
    1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985). "

    Source: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#property

    --------------------------------

    Game, set, match to Abbot
     
    Abbot, Nov 16, 2006
    #11
  12. shrubkiller

    Tim Guest

    http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html

    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)
    >



    --
    /s/ Timothy I. McCrory

    www.nontaxpayer.net
    mailto:

    Why the Citizens of the Several States
    Are Not Generally Liable for the
    Federal Income Tax
    http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
     
    Tim, Nov 16, 2006
    #12
  13. shrubkiller

    Abbot Guest

    Abbot) Trolling for suckers, Tim?

    Tim wrote:
    > http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
    >
    > 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)
    > >

    >
    >
    > --
    > /s/ Timothy I. McCrory
    >
    > www.nontaxpayer.net
    > mailto:
    >
    > Why the Citizens of the Several States
    > Are Not Generally Liable for the
    > Federal Income Tax
    > http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
     
    Abbot, Nov 17, 2006
    #13
  14. shrubkiller

    default Guest

    Unfortunately all the cases you cite do no support your MORONIC CONCLUSIONS.

    You boobs cannot just quote snippets from the cases that APPEAR to support
    your moron conclusions. YOU MUST CITE THE ENTIRE holding, everyone of which
    refutes your idiot ravings.

    "shrubkiller" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    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)
     
    default, Nov 17, 2006
    #14
  15. shrubkiller

    default Guest

    Hey DUFASS, none are needed because everyone of them refutes the
    conclusions you morons believe so fervently in.

    <> wrote in message
    news:...

    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)
     
    default, Nov 17, 2006
    #15
  16. shrubkiller

    Nobody Guest

    Abbot wrote:

    >
    > 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.


    He will run away like he always does when he is 'spanked'. Ronnie is
    very predictable on that. His biggest problem is that he tends to
    open his mouth long before he gets what little mind he has fired up.

    Strangely, he has said a couple things over time that weren't
    completely ridiculous. Too bad he spends so much time behaving like
    a moRon.
     
    Nobody, Nov 17, 2006
    #16
  17. shrubkiller

    Nobody Guest

    Abbot wrote:

    >
    > wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > Abbot 2) Ignoring that you couldn't figure out who was posting you
    > have now denied/ignored your own argument to say you were really
    > claimimg labor is not taxable.
    >
    > That's a loser too!
    >
    > See Evans again:
    >
    > "[anti-taxers claim] Wages cannot be taxed because our labor is
    > our property, and so a tax on labor would be a tax on property and
    > a "direct tax" within the meaning of the Constitution.
    >
    > It is difficult to understand how you can claim a property right
    > in something you haven't done yet. If your labor were "property"
    > like other property, you could sell it and then sit back and do
    > nothing. However, if you "sell" your labor and are paid for it,
    > you still have to work to earn it.
    >
    > Even if the major premise is correct, and labor is a form of
    > property, the conclusion is still wrong because the Internal
    > Revenue Code does not tax labor itself, but the compensation
    > received for labor (i.e., the income from labor).
    >
    > If you go into your back yard and work for a week taking clay and
    > making pots, there is no income and no tax. However, if you sell
    > your pots, you have income because you have taken in money, and
    > have more money than you had before. Similarly, if you "sell your
    > labor" by agreeing to work in someone else's factory (or farm) for
    > a week, you have sold your labor and the compensation you realize
    > is taxable.
    >
    > As a general proposition, it is correct that Congress cannot tax
    > the value of property directly (or at least not without
    > apportionment), but can only tax exchanges or transfers of
    > property. For example, the federal estate tax is clearly a tax on
    > the value of property, and yet it has been held to be
    > constitutional as an excise tax on the transfer of the property at
    > death. Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U. S. 41 (1900). Similarly, Congress
    > cannot tax the value of real property, but can tax sales or
    > transfers of real property. So the income tax is a tax on the
    > receipt of income, and the sale of labor is a transaction that
    > allows the constitutional imposition of a tax.
    >
    > Of course, every court that has been forced to rule on this issue
    > has ruled against the tax protester raising it.
    >
    > "Finally, the taxpayer argues that because wages are property, a
    > tax on them is a property tax, and because the tax the
    > Commissioner is attempting to collect is not apportioned, it is
    > unconstitutional. However, as we and innumerable other courts have
    > repeatedly explained, wages are income, and income taxes do not
    > need to be apportioned." Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20
    > (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer,
    > but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).
    > "It is clear beyond peradventure that the income tax on wages is
    > constitutional." Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F.2d 1113, 1115 (5th
    > Cir. 1985), cert. den. 106 S.Ct. 149 (1985). "
    >
    > Source: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#property
    >
    > --------------------------------
    >
    > Game, set, match to Abbot


    LOL Good one.
     
    Nobody, Nov 17, 2006
    #17
  18. shrubkiller

    Vicegerent Guest

    Abbot wrote:

    > 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".
    >

    Let's look at what is being defined here, and to whom
    is it applicable. "income may be defined as gain derived from
    capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED".

    When a painting company sends out painters to paint
    a house, they charge more for the labor than the painting
    company pays the painters in wages. That is a markup
    in the labour charged to the customer, and is 'gain or profit
    of a corporation' - the definition of income given by the US
    Supreme Court in Brushaber back in 1921. THAT is
    'income from labor'. What was referred to was NOT
    labour paid as wages to the painter, which you attempt
    to insinuate is income to to painter.

    Vicegerent
     
    Vicegerent, Nov 17, 2006
    #18
  19. shrubkiller

    cpt banjo Guest

    Vicegerent wrote:
    > That is a markup in the labour charged to the customer, and is 'gain or profit
    > of a corporation' - the definition of income given by the US Supreme Court in Brushaber back
    > in 1921. THAT is 'income from labor'. What was referred to was NOT labour paid as wages
    > to the painter, which you attempt to insinuate is income to to painter.


    Gawd, another pathetic cretin that thinks the income tax is limited to
    corporations.
     
    cpt banjo, Nov 17, 2006
    #19
  20. shrubkiller

    cpt banjo Guest

    Vicegerent wrote:
    > That is a markup in the labour charged to the customer, and is 'gain or profit
    > of a corporation' - the definition of income given by the US Supreme Court in Brushaber back
    > in 1921. THAT is 'income from labor'. What was referred to was NOT labour paid as wages
    > to the painter, which you attempt to insinuate is income to to painter.


    Gawd, another pathetic cretin that thinks the income tax is limited to
    corporations.
     
    cpt banjo, Nov 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark & Ana Jones

    Appealing to VAT Decisions

    Mark & Ana Jones, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: UK Accountancy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    321
    vatark
    Jan 17, 2005
  2. IraS1

    ERO decisions

    IraS1, Jan 14, 2005, in forum: Tax
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    310
    Helen P. OPlanick EA
    Jan 16, 2005
  3. John Smith

    At a loss over pension decisions?

    John Smith, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: UK Finance
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    224
    John-Smith
    Apr 5, 2004
  4. Tracy Ramsden
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
    Tracy Ramsden
    May 17, 2004
  5. Carveconsulting.com
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    224
    Carveconsulting.com
    Sep 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page