Court Decisions on Income Tax


S

shrubkiller

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)
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

rudy-canoza

Abbot said:
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.
 
A

Abbot

Abbot) Ho hum. . .all this is refuted here:
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.
 
R

rudy-canoza

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


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
 
A

Abbot

rudy-can...@excite.com said:
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".

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

cptbanjo

shrubkiller said:

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.
 
R

rudy-canoza

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


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


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.

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


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


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.


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.
 
A

Abbot

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.
 
B

bunghole-jonnie

Abbot said:
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.
 
A

Abbot

bunghole-jon...@lycos.com said:
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
 
T

Tim

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

Why the Citizens of the Several States
Are Not Generally Liable for the
Federal Income Tax
http://www.nontaxpayer.net/Notliablebook.html
 
D

default

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.

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)
 
D

default

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

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.
 
N

Nobody

Abbot said:
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".

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.
 
N

Nobody

Abbot said:
bunghole-jon...@lycos.com said:
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
LOL Good one.
 
V

Vicegerent

Abbot said:
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
 
C

cpt banjo

Vicegerent said:
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.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cpt banjo

Vicegerent said:
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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top