Show Me Where Congress Passed a Law Regarding Income Tax


A

Abbot

from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com
Sure!. It's a whole easier telling you how they're not.

I can't tell you how they are not, can you?

We are all ears.
Abbot 5) Jimmy, did I say all IRS agents act within the limits and
protections of Constitution law?

The fact is you, again, can't back up what you say and now want a way
out of the corner you have painted yourself into.

Only a hypocrite like you can contradict detax theory and claim that
the sworn affidavit of a victim of Warman's violent threats must be
accompanied by iron clad proof and then turn around and claim your mere
utterances are true until refuted.

This reminds one of the week you spent embarrassing yourself by
claiming I was a Jesuit but offering so such proof.
 
Ad

Advertisements

C

cpt banjo

Tim said:
The Federal income tax is not pursuant to article 1, section 8. It is pursuant to
article 4, section 3, clause 2. That clause gives Congress plenary authority over its
territory and other property. The only time the Supreme Court could exercise jurisdiction
is if there is some constitutional question or right involved. Otherwise, Congress'
authority over its territory and other property is absolute. Congress can do anything there
that the Constitution does not forbid.
Please cite any case that holds the federal income tax derives from
Article IV instead of Article I (we won't be holding our breath).

And while you're doing that, deal with this:

"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and
embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned,
or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render
it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been
questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine
under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be
classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in
the whole, to lay and collect income taxes." Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)
 
A

Abbot

cpt said:
Please cite any case that holds the federal income tax derives from
Article IV instead of Article I (we won't be holding our breath).

And while you're doing that, deal with this:

"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and
embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned,
or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render
it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been
questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine
under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be
classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in
the whole, to lay and collect income taxes." Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)
Abbot) Once again our subject simply refuses to accept the concept of
concurrent jurisdiction.
 
J

Jimmy_For_Freedom

Abbot said:
Abbot 5) Jimmy, did I say all IRS agents act within the limits and
protections of Constitution law?

The fact is you, again, can't back up what you say and now want a way
out of the corner you have painted yourself into.

Only a hypocrite like you can contradict detax theory and claim that
the sworn affidavit of a victim of Warman's violent threats must be
accompanied by iron clad proof and then turn around and claim your mere
utterances are true until refuted.
Yea, you've brought that point up a few times now. What's the reason
for the fixation you have with being a Jesuit? Are you a wannabe or
maybe they rejected you for playing "Bad Jokes"?
 
T

Tim

cpt said:
Please cite any case that holds the federal income tax derives from
Article IV instead of Article I (we won't be holding our breath).

This was a 1920s case. Notice that the court still recognizes the need
for uniformity and apportionment.
Cite omitted:
[1] The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for
the collection thereof in the possessions of the United States, is not
restricted by constitutional provision (section 8, article 1), which
may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and
apportionment when legislating for the mainland or United States proper,
for it acts in the premises under the authority of clause 2, section 3,
article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with power to
make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States.

Now go read paragraph 6 of the TDO I posted. Then go to my book url and
see definitions of United States and State.
And while you're doing that, deal with this:
I don't see anything there with which I disagree. A direct tax could
have been laid upon incomes of the citizens of the several States as
long as it was apportioned. See the date on Brushaber. Did you see the
definitions of U.S. and State at my site for 1913 and 1916?
"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and
embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned,
or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render
it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been
questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine
under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be
classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in
the whole, to lay and collect income taxes." Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 12 (1916)

--
/s/ Timothy I. McCrory
mailto:timccr48-friends@yahoo.com

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
 
A

Abbot

Tim said:
You don't have a clue as to what concurrent jurisdiction means.
Abbot 2) If the federal courts don't have concurrent jurisdiction and
the federal government the authority to levy taxes in the states then
there is, in effect, no Constitution and we return to the days of the
Articles of Confederation.

I suspect that is secretly what you wish for.
 
C

cpt banjo

Tim said:
This was a 1920s case. Notice that the court still recognizes the need
for uniformity and apportionment.
Cite omitted:
Why omit the cite? Are you trying to hide something, or is the cited
material not really from a case?
[1] The power of Congress, in the imposition of taxes and providing for the collection thereof in
the possessions of the United States, is not restricted by constitutional provision (section 8,
article 1), which may limit its general power of taxation as to uniformity and apportionment
when legislating for the mainland or United States proper, for it acts in the premises under the
authority of clause 2, section 3, article 4, of the Constitution, which clothes Congress with
power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States.
This is immaterial. We're not talking about taxing in the territories
-- we're talking about Congress' power to tax within the 50 states,
which comes from Article I, as the Supreme Court stated over 180 years
ago:

"The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the 'power to lay
and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes
thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to
place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the
government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by
the subsequent words which modify the grant. These words are, 'but all
duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United
States.' It will not be contended, that the modification of the power
extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power
then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised,
and must be exercised throughout the United States. Does this term
designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire?
Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name
given to our great republic, which is composed of States and
territories." Loughborough v. U.S., 18 U.S. 317 (1820)

I don't see anything there with which I disagree. A direct tax could have been laid upon
incomes of the citizens of the several States as long as it was apportioned. See the date on
Brushaber.
Read Springer and Pollock. A tax on personal earnings has never been
held to be a direct tax.
 
R

Richard Macdonald

(See www.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/jsp/s_tools_glossary.jsp)
direct tax
A tax that cannot be shifted to others, such as the federal income tax.
"Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on
income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment
and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as
such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying
the two great classifications which have been recognized and
enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since
the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from
which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids
the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case
by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of
excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and
were placed under the other or direct class."
-- BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

Per Brushaber, probably THE case to cite, the Income Tax is
CLEARLY not a Direct Tax, no matter what the IRS may assert
on their web site.
 
M

Money

Show Me Where Congress Passed a Law Regarding Income Tax

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
bcpg@canada cited:

*WRH webmaster's comment:
WRH: Also, check the wording. The 16th amendment says Congress has the
power, but so far, nobody can find where Congress actually passed a law
which was then signed by the President that places a direct unappportioned
tax on wages and salaries. The US Supreme Court has ruled that "income" is
gain or profit from business activity, not the straight trade of payment for
labor. The problem is that the court system is itself dependent on tax
revenues, creating an conflict of interest that is as obvious as it is
unacknowledged.*

The 16th Amendment does NOT confer the power to levy a direct-unapportioned
tax.

See this thread, where my opponent agrees by silence, and accidently agrees
specifically.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/4814bc3ced
713bc6/2644a8534bf590a5?tvc=1&hl=en#2644a8534bf590a5>
Here is the synopsis post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/81bc1c20dba0185a?hl=en&>
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
(e-mail address removed) stated:

*The job of an IRS is to understand tax code, not Constitutional law.
Although the 16th Amendment refers to taxes, it is not realistic to expect
an accountant such as an IRS auditor to be fluent in Constitutional law.*

(e-mail address removed) replied:
*Would he then still be required to act within the constitution by not
violating the constitutional rights of others or does he have an
ignorant right to ignore it?*

What follows is jimmy and abbott bickering. Jimmy, ignore him and stick to
the facts. You will present your case much better if you do. If you fall to
their level, your message doesn't carry the proper weight.... Otherwise, I
think you are one of them pretending to be one of us, just to raise the
noise level to drown out the truth.

At the end of that thread of bickering, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his
$1.25 in.

*This is a bit of a silly debate. As inferior officers of the federal
government, revenue agents are duty-bound to follow the Constitution. It
follows, then, that a revenue officer does not have the power or the right
to ignore the Constitution.*

Can I quote you on that Shyster1040? Nevermind, I am quoting you on that.
The question to be answered is, "Will you stick to that position when it
works to your disadvantage?" That's rhetorical, your other answers will
supply the answer to that question.

*However, the precise dictates of the Constitution are not always crystal
clear, see, e.g., Marbury v. Madison. Thus, it is always possible that a
revenue agent, acting in good-faith, may nonetheless transgress the
Constitution. That is why we have the courts and the doctrine of judicial
review; the courts exist, in part, to provide a means to peacefully correct
any inadvertent transgression of the Constitution.*

The Constitution, and the government it embodies exist for three reasons,
and three reasons ONLY.
1. Protect Life.
2. Protect Liberty.
3. Protect Property.

I do not need a court, or a doctrine of judicial review to understand when
any of those three rights of a NATURAL PERSON, (a Citizen) are transgressed.
The manufactured reality of TVLAND has robbed the good Citizens of America
of their common sense on those three issues. The Supreme Court was WRONG on
the Kelo decision. They VIOLATED the rights of Liberty and Property of Kelo.
Since this is a side note, I'm done with it.

*Inadvertant transgression of the Constitution*. It's no longer
*inadvertant* if I inform you, Mr. IRS Agent, that if you continue to
attempt to collect a tax the law does not say I owe, you are violating my
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

And I AM INFORMING YOU, MR. IRS AGENT, the 16th Amendment does NOT ALLOW A
DIRECT-UNAPPORTIONED TAX on anything. (But then Shyster1040 knows this
because he chose to ignore me and my reply to his reply to my post.)

*However, an officer of the federal government is, in general, presumed to
have acted within the dictates of the Constitution unless an aggrieved
person demonstrates otherwise.*

That demonstration can be shown if need be.

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his $0.15 in.

*Umm... United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A,
Part I, Section 1, to wit: "(a) There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of -- (1) [every married individual], and (2) [every surviving
spouse], a tax determined in accordance with the following table: ...."
It continues, ad nauseam, so I won't quote you the entire thing.

That enough?*

No.
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

(e-mail address removed) says:

*The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, Part II.*

Minor point, it's "Section II".

Page header:
*166 SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 16. 1913

Section II.:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising of accruing from all sources in
the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether
residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon
such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be
assesed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income
from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried
on in the United States by PERSONS RESIDING ELSEWHERE.*

It is interesting that the margin notes of the above paragraph state: *One
per cent levied on net incomes of citizens*, *Alien residents*,
*Nonresidents*
As of the date of this law, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning
of income.


*Of course it did not place an unapportioned direct tax as the Income Tax is
clearly an indirect tax since the XVI Amendment seperated income from
sources. *

Which "indirect" tax would that be? A duty? An impost? An excise?

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

(e-mail address removed) is correct on this issue but not if one only looks at
the Supreme Court cases of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911);
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); and; Doyle v.
Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), all of which deal with the 1909 tax
act, in which the income tax was ONLY UPON CORPORATE PROFIT.

This is proven with an excerpt of Page 2580 House Congressional Record March
27, 1943:

*That investment income may be included as a part of the basis for measuring
an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909. This
act provided, "That every corporation --- shall be subject to pay annually a
special excise tax with respect to the carrying on of doing business by such
corporation, --- equivalent to a 1 percent upon the entire net income over
and above $5,000 received by it from all sources during such year, exclusive
of amounts received by it as dividends upon stock and other corporations ---
subject to the tax hereby imposed; ---." Certain corporations, such as
religious, charitable, and educational organizations, etc., were
specifically exempted from the tax.

The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax in that it was based
upon net income, but was given the correct designation of "excise tax". It
was imposed with respect to carrying on or doing business; and it should be
noted that the basis was net income from all sources, except dividends from
other corporations subject to the tax. Such dividends were excepted not
because they constituted investment income but because they represented
income which had already been taxed. The sole test of taxability under this
act was whether a corporation was engaged in business. If it was so
engaged, then all the income (except dividends), including investment
income, was used in measuring the tax.*

(e-mail address removed) needs to publicly admit that in the cases of Flint v.
Stone Tracy; Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert; and; Doyle v.
Mitchell Bros. Co. the "income" tax WAS SOLELY UPON CORPORATE PROFITS.

(e-mail address removed) states:
*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

Then (e-mail address removed) cites the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA
case.

*The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found in
recent decisions of this Court.

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was
not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert*

(e-mail address removed) fails to cite the rest of the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST
CO. v. SMIETANKA case.

*It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the
word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had
in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of
meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where it was
assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its
meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There
can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in
the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913.

When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under
the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of
'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v.
Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with
the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or
conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that
the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of
Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that
what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this
Court.*

[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be
given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was
given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], and that what that
meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., Eisner v.
Macomber. *

From the above paragraphs cited of Merchants', the definition of income
arises from the *Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax
corporate profit solely.


Yet (e-mail address removed) is correct in regard to the meaning of income not
being solely corporate profits. This leaves an appearance of a paradox, (A
seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true). There is
ONLY ONE WAY for both statements to be true.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
*'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various
revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe; Merchants'
L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka.*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth
Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and
without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith
against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913.*

This case raises an issue of just what is the meaning of income in the
Sixteenth Amendment.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the
amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes
essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the
term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according
to truth and substance, without regard to form.*

Parse for clarity:
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution* (direct taxes must be apportioned) *may have proper force and
effect, save only as modified by the amendment* (power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment) *it
becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,'
as the term is there used...*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term
'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the
amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a
stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.;
Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the
succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax
Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.
Co.), 'Income may be defined as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor,
or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include PROFIT gained
through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in
the Doyle Case.

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute
of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The
government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted,
placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include a
variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was
either overlooked or misconceived. 'DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL'; 'the
GAIN-DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL,' etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a
growth or increment of value in the investment; but a GAIN, a PROFIT,
something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, SEVERED FROM
THE CAPITAL, HOWEVER INVESTED OR EMPLOYED, and coming in, being
'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his
separate use, benefit and disposal- THAT IS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY.
NOTHING ELSE ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION.*

The "description" itself can only be described as "Return on Investment".

Returning to MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA to tie up some loose
ends:
*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.*

*Income
3. That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of
any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of
professional business, the PROFITS of commerce or of occupation, or THE
INTEREST OF MONEY OR STOCK IN FUNDS, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary;
ESPECIALLY, THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF A PRIVATE PERSON, OR A CORPORATION, FROM
PROPERTY, AS, A LARGE INCOME.
Webster's Dictionary 1913 edition (Page: 745)*

*Income
6. That which comes in to a person as payment for labor or services rendered
in some office, or as a GAIN FROM LANDS, BUSINESS, THE INVESTMENT OF
CAPITAL, etc.; receipts or emoluments regularly accruing, either in a given
time, or, when unqualified, annually; the annual receipts of a person or a
corporation; revenue: as, an income of five thousand dollars; his income has
been reduced the income from the business is small.
Synonym. Income, Revenue, Value, PROFIT. Revenue is the income of a
government or state, without reverence to expenditures; PROFIT IS THE GAIN
MADE UPON ANY BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT WHEN BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Property may have value and yield neither income nor
profit.
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

In the back of my mind is the thought that somewhere on the internet, I read
something about how the tax and the amendment was promoted as a "soak the
rich" scheme. The rich would be those who lived off of the "return" from
their "investments" either as interest payments, or dividend payments not
having to lift a finger to do manual labor. If true, this decidedly tips
the balance of what is meant by "income" to "Return on Investment" also
called "profit".

*profit
"Specifically, the advantage or GAIN RESULTING TO THE OWNER OF CAPITAL FROM
ITS EMPLOYMENT in any undertaking"; "As used in political economy, profit
means what is left of the product of industry after deducting the wages, the
price of raw materials, and the rent paid in the production, and is
considered as being composed of three parts-- interest, risk or insurance,
and wages of superintendence."
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

The Century Dictionary Online under the definition of "profit" (shown above)
has these examples:

*profit
"THE REVENUE derived from labour is called wages; that DERIVED FROM STOCK,
BY THE PERSON WHO manages or EMPLOYES IT, IS CALLED PROFIT. Adam Smith,
Wealth of Nations, 1.7.";
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

*prof·it n. 2. THE RETURN RECEIVED ON A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING after all
operating expenses have been met. 3. Often profits. a. THE RETURN RECEIVED
ON AN INVESTMENT after all charges have been paid. b. The rate of increase
in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period. c.
Income received from investments or property. d. The amount received for a
commodity or service in excess of the original cost.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary*

(e-mail address removed) asserts:
*The entire Court syatem has always ruled that wages and salaries are
taxable by an Income Tax as an indirect tax, see Pollack where it says that
if only the tax on income from property was struck down, it would leave the
burden to be carried by trades and employments. *

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail:
*The only taxes that were considered direct taxes for
purposes of the Constitution were ad-valorem taxes on the value of
property (property taxes), and head, or poll, taxes on persons (taxes
imposed on a person solely for being a person); Pollock, Brushaber, et
cetera.*

*Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such
purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that IT WAS DRAWN WITH THE
OBJECT OF MAINTAINING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION and harmonizing
their operation.

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the
Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had
come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were
confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership,
THE AMENDMENT CONTAINS NOTHING REPUDIATION (rupudiating) OR CHALLENGING THE
RULING IN THE POLLOCK CASE THAT THE WORD 'DIRECT' HAD A BROADER
SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE IT EMBRACED ALSO TAXES LEVIED ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
BECAUSE OF ITS OWNERSHIP, AND THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT AT LEAST IMPLIEDLY
MAKES SUCH WIDER SIGNIFICANCE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, --- *

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Well? Show us the document, rmacdonald@verizon.
Well? Show us the document, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Shyster1040@nospamhotmail
*Try reading Code Section 7803, specifically Code Section 7803(a)(2), which
provides for the duties of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Code
Section 7803(a)(1) provides that "[t]here shall be in the Department of
the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue ....").

Code Section 7803(a)(2) provides that the Commissioner shall have such
duties as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, including the power
to "administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and
application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax
conventions to which the United States is a party...." Code Section
7803(a)(2)(A).

Most importantly, the flush language of Code Section 7803(a)(2) following
Code Section 7803(a)(2)(B) provides that "f the Secretary determines
not to delegate a power specified in subparagraph (A) or (B), such
determination may not take effect until 30 days after the Secretary
notifies the Committees on Ways and Means, Government Reform and
Oversight, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Finance, Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the
Senate." The Committee report concerning Code Section 7803 provides that
the Commissioner "has such duties and powers as prescribed by the
Secretary. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary, such duties and
powers include the power to administer, manage, conduct, direct, and
supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or
related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a
party, to exercise the IRS' final authority concerning the substantive
interpretation of the tax laws, ...."*

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders,
records, and proceedings

-STATUTE-
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as
follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in
the Federal Register for the guidance of the public -
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as
authorized by law, and statements of general policy or
interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted
by the agency; ---

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 551. Definitions

-STATUTE-
For the purpose of this subchapter -
(1) ''agency'' means each authority of the Government of the
United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review
by another agency, but does not include -
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the
United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia; ---

(4) ''rule'' means the whole or a part of an agency statement
of general or particular applicability and future effect designed
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy ---

http://www.atgpress.com/atgpress/tax/tax007.htm
*One of the curious authorities in paragraph 6, which is the chief authority
IRS hangs its hat on, is T.O. 150-10, which in 1982 succeeded 150-37.
Neither of these basic delegations of authority were ever published in the
Federal Register in compliance with requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a).
Therefore, application is limited to government under authority of 5 U.S.C.
§ 301 and territorial jurisdiction in insular possessions, maritime and
treaty jurisdictions, the latter three exempt from Federal Register Act
publishing requirements.*

TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

-HEAD-
Sec. 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

-STATUTE-
(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General
Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published
by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register -
(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except
those not having general applicability and legal effect or
effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their
capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
(2) documents or classes of documents that the President may
determine from time to time have general applicability and legal
effect; and
(3) documents or classes of documents that may be required so
to be published by Act of Congress.
For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which
prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 3 - POWERS

-HEAD-
Sec. 301. Departmental regulations

-STATUTE-
The head of an Executive department or military department may
prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the
conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its
business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records,
papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding
information from the public or limiting the availability of records
to the public.


That Delegation of Authority from the Secretary of Treasury to the
Commissioner of the IRS is published on what page of the Federal Register?

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
 
S

Shyster1040

You clearly need to get a more productive hobby - you obviously cannot seem
to make a lick of sense out of the Constitution, the Code, the
Regulations, or any case-law. Tell you what, why don't you try turning
the books around and reading the text right-side up, you might get a
little more out of it.
 
A

Abbot

Money said:
Show Me Where Congress Passed a Law Regarding Income Tax

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
bcpg@canada cited:

*WRH webmaster's comment:
WRH: Also, check the wording. The 16th amendment says Congress has the
power, but so far, nobody can find where Congress actually passed a law
which was then signed by the President that places a direct unappportioned
tax on wages and salaries. The US Supreme Court has ruled that "income" is
gain or profit from business activity, not the straight trade of payment for
labor. The problem is that the court system is itself dependent on tax
revenues, creating an conflict of interest that is as obvious as it is
unacknowledged.*

The 16th Amendment does NOT confer the power to levy a direct-unapportioned
tax.

See this thread, where my opponent agrees by silence, and accidently agrees
specifically.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/4814bc3ced
713bc6/2644a8534bf590a5?tvc=1&hl=en#2644a8534bf590a5>
Here is the synopsis post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/81bc1c20dba0185a?hl=en&>
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
(e-mail address removed) stated:

*The job of an IRS is to understand tax code, not Constitutional law.
Although the 16th Amendment refers to taxes, it is not realistic to expect
an accountant such as an IRS auditor to be fluent in Constitutional law.*

(e-mail address removed) replied:
*Would he then still be required to act within the constitution by not
violating the constitutional rights of others or does he have an
ignorant right to ignore it?*

What follows is jimmy and abbott bickering. Jimmy, ignore him and stick to
the facts. You will present your case much better if you do. If you fall to
their level, your message doesn't carry the proper weight.... Otherwise,I
think you are one of them pretending to be one of us, just to raise the
noise level to drown out the truth.
Abbot) Jimmy *has* no argument.

MoRon's veiled claim that U.S. income tax may not be applied to wages,
salary, compensation for labor or whatever he is calling "it" today is
a long age refuted point with no basis in law.
At the end of that thread of bickering, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his
$1.25 in.

*This is a bit of a silly debate. As inferior officers of the federal
government, revenue agents are duty-bound to follow the Constitution. It
follows, then, that a revenue officer does not have the power or the right
to ignore the Constitution.*

Can I quote you on that Shyster1040? Nevermind, I am quoting you on that.
The question to be answered is, "Will you stick to that position when it
works to your disadvantage?" That's rhetorical, your other answers will
supply the answer to that question.

*However, the precise dictates of the Constitution are not always crystal
clear, see, e.g., Marbury v. Madison. Thus, it is always possible that a
revenue agent, acting in good-faith, may nonetheless transgress the
Constitution. That is why we have the courts and the doctrine of judicial
review; the courts exist, in part, to provide a means to peacefully correct
any inadvertent transgression of the Constitution.*

The Constitution, and the government it embodies exist for three reasons,
and three reasons ONLY.
1. Protect Life.
2. Protect Liberty.
3. Protect Property.

I do not need a court, or a doctrine of judicial review to understand when
any of those three rights of a NATURAL PERSON, (a Citizen) are transgressed.
The manufactured reality of TVLAND has robbed the good Citizens of America
of their common sense on those three issues. The Supreme Court was WRONGon
the Kelo decision. They VIOLATED the rights of Liberty and Property of Kelo.
Since this is a side note, I'm done with it.

*Inadvertant transgression of the Constitution*. It's no longer
*inadvertant* if I inform you, Mr. IRS Agent, that if you continue to
attempt to collect a tax the law does not say I owe, you are violating my
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

And I AM INFORMING YOU, MR. IRS AGENT, the 16th Amendment does NOT ALLOW A
DIRECT-UNAPPORTIONED TAX on anything. (But then Shyster1040 knows this
because he chose to ignore me and my reply to his reply to my post.)

*However, an officer of the federal government is, in general, presumed to
have acted within the dictates of the Constitution unless an aggrieved
person demonstrates otherwise.*

That demonstration can be shown if need be.

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his $0.15 in.

*Umm... United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A,
Part I, Section 1, to wit: "(a) There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of -- (1) [every married individual], and (2) [every surviving
spouse], a tax determined in accordance with the following table: ...."
It continues, ad nauseam, so I won't quote you the entire thing.

That enough?*

No.
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

(e-mail address removed) says:

*The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, Part II.*

Minor point, it's "Section II".

Page header:
*166 SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 16. 1913

Section II.:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising of accruing from all sources in
the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether
residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon
such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be
assesed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income
from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried
on in the United States by PERSONS RESIDING ELSEWHERE.*

It is interesting that the margin notes of the above paragraph state: *One
per cent levied on net incomes of citizens*, *Alien residents*,
*Nonresidents*
As of the date of this law, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning
of income.


*Of course it did not place an unapportioned direct tax as the Income Taxis
clearly an indirect tax since the XVI Amendment seperated income from
sources. *

Which "indirect" tax would that be? A duty? An impost? An excise?

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

(e-mail address removed) is correct on this issue but not if one only looks at
the Supreme Court cases of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911);
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); and; Doylev.
Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), all of which deal with the 1909 tax
act, in which the income tax was ONLY UPON CORPORATE PROFIT.

This is proven with an excerpt of Page 2580 House Congressional Record March
27, 1943:

*That investment income may be included as a part of the basis for measuring
an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909. This
act provided, "That every corporation --- shall be subject to pay annually a
special excise tax with respect to the carrying on of doing business by such
corporation, --- equivalent to a 1 percent upon the entire net income over
and above $5,000 received by it from all sources during such year, exclusive
of amounts received by it as dividends upon stock and other corporations ---
subject to the tax hereby imposed; ---." Certain corporations, such as
religious, charitable, and educational organizations, etc., were
specifically exempted from the tax.

The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax in that it was based
upon net income, but was given the correct designation of "excise tax". It
was imposed with respect to carrying on or doing business; and it should be
noted that the basis was net income from all sources, except dividends from
other corporations subject to the tax. Such dividends were excepted not
because they constituted investment income but because they represented
income which had already been taxed. The sole test of taxability under this
act was whether a corporation was engaged in business. If it was so
engaged, then all the income (except dividends), including investment
income, was used in measuring the tax.*

(e-mail address removed) needs to publicly admit that in the cases of Flint v.
Stone Tracy; Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert; and; Doyle v.
Mitchell Bros. Co. the "income" tax WAS SOLELY UPON CORPORATE PROFITS.

(e-mail address removed) states:
*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

Then (e-mail address removed) cites the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA
case.

*The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found in
recent decisions of this Court.

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was
not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert*

(e-mail address removed) fails to cite the rest of the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST
CO. v. SMIETANKA case.

*It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the
word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had
in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scopeof
meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where it was
assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its
meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There
can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in
the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913.

When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under
the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of
'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v.
Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with
the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or
conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that
the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of
Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that
what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this
Court.*

[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be
given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was
given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], and that what that
meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., Eisner v.
Macomber. *

From the above paragraphs cited of Merchants', the definition of income
arises from the *Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax
corporate profit solely.


Yet (e-mail address removed) is correct in regard to the meaning of income not
being solely corporate profits. This leaves an appearance of a paradox, (A
seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true). There is
ONLY ONE WAY for both statements to be true.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
*'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various
revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe; Merchants'
L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka.*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth
Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and
without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith
against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913.*

This case raises an issue of just what is the meaning of income in the
Sixteenth Amendment.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the
amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes
essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the
term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according
to truth and substance, without regard to form.*

Parse for clarity:
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution* (direct taxes must be apportioned) *may have proper force and
effect, save only as modified by the amendment* (power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment) *it
becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,'
as the term is there used...*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term
'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the
amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature ofa
stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.;
Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the
succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax
Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.
Co.), 'Income may be defined as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor,
or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include PROFIT gained
through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in
the Doyle Case.

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute
of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The
government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted,
placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to includea
variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was
either overlooked or misconceived. 'DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL'; 'the
GAIN-DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL,' etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a
growth or increment of value in the investment; but a GAIN, a PROFIT,
something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, SEVERED FROM
THE CAPITAL, HOWEVER INVESTED OR EMPLOYED, and coming in, being
'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his
separate use, benefit and disposal- THAT IS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY.
NOTHING ELSE ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION.*

The "description" itself can only be described as "Return on Investment".

Returning to MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA to tie up some loose
ends:
*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.*

*Income
3. That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of
any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of
professional business, the PROFITS of commerce or of occupation, or THE
INTEREST OF MONEY OR STOCK IN FUNDS, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary;
ESPECIALLY, THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF A PRIVATE PERSON, OR A CORPORATION, FROM
PROPERTY, AS, A LARGE INCOME.
Webster's Dictionary 1913 edition (Page: 745)*

*Income
6. That which comes in to a person as payment for labor or services rendered
in some office, or as a GAIN FROM LANDS, BUSINESS, THE INVESTMENT OF
CAPITAL, etc.; receipts or emoluments regularly accruing, either in a given
time, or, when unqualified, annually; the annual receipts of a person or a
corporation; revenue: as, an income of five thousand dollars; his income has
been reduced the income from the business is small.
Synonym. Income, Revenue, Value, PROFIT. Revenue is the income of a
government or state, without reverence to expenditures; PROFIT IS THE GAIN
MADE UPON ANY BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT WHEN BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Property may have value and yield neither income nor
profit.
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

In the back of my mind is the thought that somewhere on the internet, I read
something about how the tax and the amendment was promoted as a "soak the
rich" scheme. The rich would be those who lived off of the "return" from
their "investments" either as interest payments, or dividend payments not
having to lift a finger to do manual labor. If true, this decidedly tips
the balance of what is meant by "income" to "Return on Investment" also
called "profit".

*profit
"Specifically, the advantage or GAIN RESULTING TO THE OWNER OF CAPITAL FROM
ITS EMPLOYMENT in any undertaking"; "As used in political economy, profit
means what is left of the product of industry after deducting the wages, the
price of raw materials, and the rent paid in the production, and is
considered as being composed of three parts-- interest, risk or insurance,
and wages of superintendence."
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

The Century Dictionary Online under the definition of "profit" (shown above)
has these examples:

*profit
"THE REVENUE derived from labour is called wages; that DERIVED FROM STOCK,
BY THE PERSON WHO manages or EMPLOYES IT, IS CALLED PROFIT. Adam Smith,
Wealth of Nations, 1.7.";
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

*prof·it n. 2. THE RETURN RECEIVED ON A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING after all
operating expenses have been met. 3. Often profits. a. THE RETURN RECEIVED
ON AN INVESTMENT after all charges have been paid. b. The rate of increase
in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period. c.
Income received from investments or property. d. The amount received for a
commodity or service in excess of the original cost.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary*

(e-mail address removed) asserts:
*The entire Court syatem has always ruled that wages and salaries are
taxable by an Income Tax as an indirect tax, see Pollack where it says that
if only the tax on income from property was struck down, it would leave the
burden to be carried by trades and employments. *

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail:
*The only taxes that were considered direct taxes for
purposes of the Constitution were ad-valorem taxes on the value of
property (property taxes), and head, or poll, taxes on persons (taxes
imposed on a person solely for being a person); Pollock, Brushaber, et
cetera.*

*Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such
purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that IT WAS DRAWN WITH THE
OBJECT OF MAINTAINING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION and harmonizing
their operation.

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of the
Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it had
come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were
confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership,
THE AMENDMENT CONTAINS NOTHING REPUDIATION (rupudiating) OR CHALLENGING THE
RULING IN THE POLLOCK CASE THAT THE WORD 'DIRECT' HAD A BROADER
SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE IT EMBRACED ALSO TAXES LEVIED ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
BECAUSE OF ITS OWNERSHIP, AND THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT AT LEAST IMPLIEDLY
MAKES SUCH WIDER SIGNIFICANCE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, --- *

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Well? Show us the document, rmacdonald@verizon.
Well? Show us the document, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Shyster1040@nospamhotmail
*Try reading Code Section 7803, specifically Code Section 7803(a)(2), which
provides for the duties of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Code
Section 7803(a)(1) provides that "[t]here shall be in the Department of
the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue ....").

Code Section 7803(a)(2) provides that the Commissioner shall have such
duties as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, including the power
to "administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and
application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax
conventions to which the United States is a party...." Code Section
7803(a)(2)(A).

Most importantly, the flush language of Code Section 7803(a)(2) following
Code Section 7803(a)(2)(B) provides that "f the Secretary determines
not to delegate a power specified in subparagraph (A) or (B), such
determination may not take effect until 30 days after the Secretary
notifies the Committees on Ways and Means, Government Reform and
Oversight, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Finance, Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the
Senate." The Committee report concerning Code Section 7803 provides that
the Commissioner "has such duties and powers as prescribed by the
Secretary. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary, such duties and
powers include the power to administer, manage, conduct, direct, and
supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or
related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a
party, to exercise the IRS' final authority concerning the substantive
interpretation of the tax laws, ...."*

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders,
records, and proceedings

-STATUTE-
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as
follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in
the Federal Register for the guidance of the public -
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as
authorized by law, and statements of general policy or
interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted
by the agency; ---

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 551. Definitions

-STATUTE-
For the purpose of this subchapter -
(1) ''agency'' means each authority of the Government of the
United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review
by another agency, but does not include -
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the
United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia; ---

(4) ''rule'' means the whole or a part of an agency statement
of general or particular applicability and future effect designed
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy ---

http://www.atgpress.com/atgpress/tax/tax007.htm
*One of the curious authorities in paragraph 6, which is the chief authority
IRS hangs its hat on, is T.O. 150-10, which in 1982 succeeded 150-37.
Neither of these basic delegations of authority were ever published in the
Federal Register in compliance with requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a).
Therefore, application is limited to government under authority of 5 U.S.C.
§ 301 and territorial jurisdiction in insular possessions, maritime and
treaty jurisdictions, the latter three exempt from Federal Register Act
publishing requirements.*

TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

-HEAD-
Sec. 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

-STATUTE-
(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General
Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published
by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register -
(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except
those not having general applicability and legal effect or
effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their
capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
(2) documents or classes of documents that the President may
determine from time to time have general applicability and legal
effect; and
(3) documents or classes of documents that may be required so
to be published by Act of Congress.
For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which
prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 3 - POWERS

-HEAD-
Sec. 301. Departmental regulations

-STATUTE-
The head of an Executive department or military department may
prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the
conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its
business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records,
papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding
information from the public or limiting the availability of records
to the public.


That Delegation of Authority from the Secretary of Treasury to the
Commissioner of the IRS is published on what page of the Federal Register?

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
 
C

cpt banjo

Money said:
Which "indirect" tax would that be? A duty? An impost? An excise?
The Springer case, upholding the nation's first income tax, referred to
it as in the nature of an excise or a duty.
From the above paragraphs cited of Merchants', the definition of income arises from the *Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax corporate profit solely.
Another clueless yahoo who doesn't realize that the taxpayer whose tax
liability was upheld in Smietanka was a trust, not a corporation, and
that a trust (unlike a corporation) enjoys no "privilege".

*Income
3. That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of
any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of
professional business, the PROFITS of commerce or of occupation, or THE
INTEREST OF MONEY OR STOCK IN FUNDS, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary;
ESPECIALLY, THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF A PRIVATE PERSON, OR A CORPORATION, FROM
PROPERTY, AS, A LARGE INCOME.
Webster's Dictionary 1913 edition (Page: 745)*
Note especially the word "salary". Q.E.D.
 
D

default

And so we finally see where all your inane game playing was heading. And it
is EXACTLY what I said it was way back when, you are a moronic tax
protestor.

Sorry, idiot, Congress first passed a legal, Constitutional income tax law
that applied to all US citizens in 1862; and then off and on until the
Pollack decision threw a monkey wrench into the works when it decided (and
most legal scholars agree, incorrectly) that an income tax levied on rents
and other income derived from property were direct taxes requiring
apportionment (and that same courts said clearly, in the same decision, that
income taxes levied on all other forms of income were indirect and did not
require apportionment and therefore legal and Constitutional.)

Congress then proposed and approved the XVI Amendment with the specific
purpose of overturning the Court's reasoning in Pollack. A minimum of
three-quarters of the States agreed so the XVI became part of the
Constitution in 1913. And starting in 1913, with subsequent revisions and
complete updates, the latest being the 1986 law (referred to by Shyster (who
is a real lawyer and knows the law, unlike you who are just a moron) and
subsequent minor revisions since, the Congress has indeed passed laws
regarding income taxes that apply to all US citizens and residents as well
as anyone else with US sourced income. All currently codified in the US Code
Chapter 26, completely contrary to the moronic assertion in your first
sentence below.

As I first said, crawl back under the rock you crawled out from, and don't
waste everyone's time (including and especially your own) with your inane
and moronic gibberish.

You are not a lawyer, neither do you know or understand law, or what the
Court's have said. And you have no more concept on how to conduct an
argument, or debate than you do about law.

Just repeat over and over to yourself until it sinks in, "I, the idiot using
the moniker "Money" am a moron without a clue." You can even ask any 3rd
grader to help you understand your idiocy since any one of them is smarter
than you, but then so is a rock.


Money said:
Show Me Where Congress Passed a Law Regarding Income Tax

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
bcpg@canada cited:

*WRH webmaster's comment:
WRH: Also, check the wording. The 16th amendment says Congress has the
power, but so far, nobody can find where Congress actually passed a law
which was then signed by the President that places a direct unappportioned
tax on wages and salaries. The US Supreme Court has ruled that "income" is
gain or profit from business activity, not the straight trade of payment
for
labor. The problem is that the court system is itself dependent on tax
revenues, creating an conflict of interest that is as obvious as it is
unacknowledged.*

The 16th Amendment does NOT confer the power to levy a
direct-unapportioned
tax.

See this thread, where my opponent agrees by silence, and accidently
agrees
specifically.
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/4814bc3ced
713bc6/2644a8534bf590a5?tvc=1&hl=en#2644a8534bf590a5>
Here is the synopsis post:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/msg/81bc1c20dba0185a?hl=en&>
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
(e-mail address removed) stated:

*The job of an IRS is to understand tax code, not Constitutional law.
Although the 16th Amendment refers to taxes, it is not realistic to expect
an accountant such as an IRS auditor to be fluent in Constitutional law.*

(e-mail address removed) replied:
*Would he then still be required to act within the constitution by not
violating the constitutional rights of others or does he have an
ignorant right to ignore it?*

What follows is jimmy and abbott bickering. Jimmy, ignore him and stick
to
the facts. You will present your case much better if you do. If you fall
to
their level, your message doesn't carry the proper weight.... Otherwise,
I
think you are one of them pretending to be one of us, just to raise the
noise level to drown out the truth.

At the end of that thread of bickering, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his
$1.25 in.

*This is a bit of a silly debate. As inferior officers of the federal
government, revenue agents are duty-bound to follow the Constitution. It
follows, then, that a revenue officer does not have the power or the right
to ignore the Constitution.*

Can I quote you on that Shyster1040? Nevermind, I am quoting you on that.
The question to be answered is, "Will you stick to that position when it
works to your disadvantage?" That's rhetorical, your other answers will
supply the answer to that question.

*However, the precise dictates of the Constitution are not always crystal
clear, see, e.g., Marbury v. Madison. Thus, it is always possible that a
revenue agent, acting in good-faith, may nonetheless transgress the
Constitution. That is why we have the courts and the doctrine of judicial
review; the courts exist, in part, to provide a means to peacefully
correct
any inadvertent transgression of the Constitution.*

The Constitution, and the government it embodies exist for three reasons,
and three reasons ONLY.
1. Protect Life.
2. Protect Liberty.
3. Protect Property.

I do not need a court, or a doctrine of judicial review to understand when
any of those three rights of a NATURAL PERSON, (a Citizen) are
transgressed.
The manufactured reality of TVLAND has robbed the good Citizens of America
of their common sense on those three issues. The Supreme Court was WRONG
on
the Kelo decision. They VIOLATED the rights of Liberty and Property of
Kelo.
Since this is a side note, I'm done with it.

*Inadvertant transgression of the Constitution*. It's no longer
*inadvertant* if I inform you, Mr. IRS Agent, that if you continue to
attempt to collect a tax the law does not say I owe, you are violating my
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

And I AM INFORMING YOU, MR. IRS AGENT, the 16th Amendment does NOT ALLOW A
DIRECT-UNAPPORTIONED TAX on anything. (But then Shyster1040 knows this
because he chose to ignore me and my reply to his reply to my post.)

*However, an officer of the federal government is, in general, presumed to
have acted within the dictates of the Constitution unless an aggrieved
person demonstrates otherwise.*

That demonstration can be shown if need be.

2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222

3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail puts his $0.15 in.

*Umm... United States Code, Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A,
Part I, Section 1, to wit: "(a) There is hereby imposed on the taxable
income of -- (1) [every married individual], and (2) [every surviving
spouse], a tax determined in accordance with the following table: ...."
It continues, ad nauseam, so I won't quote you the entire thing.

That enough?*

No.
3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

(e-mail address removed) says:

*The Underwood Tariff Act of 1913, Part II.*

Minor point, it's "Section II".

Page header:
*166 SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 16. 1913

Section II.:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising of accruing from all sources
in
the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether
residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon
such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be
assesed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income
from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession
carried
on in the United States by PERSONS RESIDING ELSEWHERE.*

It is interesting that the margin notes of the above paragraph state: *One
per cent levied on net incomes of citizens*, *Alien residents*,
*Nonresidents*
As of the date of this law, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning
of income.


*Of course it did not place an unapportioned direct tax as the Income Tax
is
clearly an indirect tax since the XVI Amendment seperated income from
sources. *

Which "indirect" tax would that be? A duty? An impost? An excise?

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are
often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular
profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in
the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

(e-mail address removed) is correct on this issue but not if one only looks at
the Supreme Court cases of Flint v. Stone Tracy, 220 U.S. 107 (1911);
Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913); and; Doyle
v.
Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918), all of which deal with the 1909
tax
act, in which the income tax was ONLY UPON CORPORATE PROFIT.

This is proven with an excerpt of Page 2580 House Congressional Record
March
27, 1943:

*That investment income may be included as a part of the basis for
measuring
an excise tax was recognized by Congress in the act of August 5, 1909.
This
act provided, "That every corporation --- shall be subject to pay annually
a
special excise tax with respect to the carrying on of doing business by
such
corporation, --- equivalent to a 1 percent upon the entire net income
over
and above $5,000 received by it from all sources during such year,
exclusive
of amounts received by it as dividends upon stock and other
corporations ---
subject to the tax hereby imposed; ---." Certain corporations, such as
religious, charitable, and educational organizations, etc., were
specifically exempted from the tax.

The tax imposed by this act was really an income tax in that it was based
upon net income, but was given the correct designation of "excise tax".
It
was imposed with respect to carrying on or doing business; and it should
be
noted that the basis was net income from all sources, except dividends
from
other corporations subject to the tax. Such dividends were excepted not
because they constituted investment income but because they represented
income which had already been taxed. The sole test of taxability under
this
act was whether a corporation was engaged in business. If it was so
engaged, then all the income (except dividends), including investment
income, was used in measuring the tax.*

(e-mail address removed) needs to publicly admit that in the cases of Flint v.
Stone Tracy; Stratton's Independence, LTD. v. Howbert; and; Doyle v.
Mitchell Bros. Co. the "income" tax WAS SOLELY UPON CORPORATE PROFITS.

(e-mail address removed) states:
*Another error, there is no business activity in the Supreme Court
definition:*

Then (e-mail address removed) cites the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v.
SMIETANKA
case.

*The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found in
recent decisions of this Court.

The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was
not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert*

(e-mail address removed) fails to cite the rest of the MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST
CO. v. SMIETANKA case.

*It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if
the
word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it
had
in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope
of
meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where it
was
assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its
meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913.
There
can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content
in
the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913.

When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising
under
the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of
'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v.
Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with
the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or
conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt
that
the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of
Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that
what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of
this
Court.*

[T]here would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be
given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was
given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act [of 1909], and that what
that
meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.

*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., Eisner v.
Macomber. *

From the above paragraphs cited of Merchants', the definition of income
arises from the *Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax
corporate profit solely.


Yet (e-mail address removed) is correct in regard to the meaning of income not
being solely corporate profits. This leaves an appearance of a paradox,
(A
seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true). There is
ONLY ONE WAY for both statements to be true.

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
*'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various
revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe; Merchants'
L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka.*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*This case presents the question whether, by virtue of the Sixteenth
Amendment, Congress has the power to tax, as income of the stockholder and
without apportionment, a stock dividend made lawfully and in good faith
against profits accumulated by the corporation since March 1, 1913.*

This case raises an issue of just what is the meaning of income in the
Sixteenth Amendment.

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by
the
amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes
essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,' as the
term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise,
according
to truth and substance, without regard to form.*

Parse for clarity:
*In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from article 1 of the
Constitution* (direct taxes must be apportioned) *may have proper force
and
effect, save only as modified by the amendment* (power to lay and collect
taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment) *it
becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not 'income,'
as the term is there used...*

Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
*For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term
'income,' as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in
the
amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of
a
stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue.

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.;
Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the
succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax
Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.
Co.), 'Income may be defined as the GAIN DERIVED from capital, from labor,
or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include PROFIT gained
through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in
the Doyle Case.

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing
attribute
of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The
government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted,
placed chief emphasis upon the word 'gain,' which was extended to include
a
variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was
either overlooked or misconceived. 'DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL'; 'the
GAIN-DERIVED-FROM-CAPITAL,' etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a
growth or increment of value in the investment; but a GAIN, a PROFIT,
something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, SEVERED
FROM
THE CAPITAL, HOWEVER INVESTED OR EMPLOYED, and coming in, being
'derived'-that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for
his
separate use, benefit and disposal- THAT IS INCOME DERIVED FROM PROPERTY.
NOTHING ELSE ANSWERS THE DESCRIPTION.*

The "description" itself can only be described as "Return on Investment".

Returning to MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA to tie up some loose
ends:
*In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this
Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of
lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted,
what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which
must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth
Amendment to the Constitution.*

*Income
3. That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of
any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of
professional business, the PROFITS of commerce or of occupation, or THE
INTEREST OF MONEY OR STOCK IN FUNDS, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary;
ESPECIALLY, THE ANNUAL RECEIPTS OF A PRIVATE PERSON, OR A CORPORATION,
FROM
PROPERTY, AS, A LARGE INCOME.
Webster's Dictionary 1913 edition (Page: 745)*

*Income
6. That which comes in to a person as payment for labor or services
rendered
in some office, or as a GAIN FROM LANDS, BUSINESS, THE INVESTMENT OF
CAPITAL, etc.; receipts or emoluments regularly accruing, either in a
given
time, or, when unqualified, annually; the annual receipts of a person or a
corporation; revenue: as, an income of five thousand dollars; his income
has
been reduced the income from the business is small.
Synonym. Income, Revenue, Value, PROFIT. Revenue is the income of a
government or state, without reverence to expenditures; PROFIT IS THE GAIN
MADE UPON ANY BUSINESS OR INVESTMENT WHEN BOTH THE RECEIPTS AND
EXPENDITURES
ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. Property may have value and yield neither income
nor
profit.
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

In the back of my mind is the thought that somewhere on the internet, I
read
something about how the tax and the amendment was promoted as a "soak the
rich" scheme. The rich would be those who lived off of the "return" from
their "investments" either as interest payments, or dividend payments not
having to lift a finger to do manual labor. If true, this decidedly tips
the balance of what is meant by "income" to "Return on Investment" also
called "profit".

*profit
"Specifically, the advantage or GAIN RESULTING TO THE OWNER OF CAPITAL
FROM
ITS EMPLOYMENT in any undertaking"; "As used in political economy, profit
means what is left of the product of industry after deducting the wages,
the
price of raw materials, and the rent paid in the production, and is
considered as being composed of three parts-- interest, risk or insurance,
and wages of superintendence."
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

The Century Dictionary Online under the definition of "profit" (shown
above)
has these examples:

*profit
"THE REVENUE derived from labour is called wages; that DERIVED FROM STOCK,
BY THE PERSON WHO manages or EMPLOYES IT, IS CALLED PROFIT. Adam Smith,
Wealth of Nations, 1.7.";
Century Dictionary Online 1913? edition*

*prof·it n. 2. THE RETURN RECEIVED ON A BUSINESS UNDERTAKING after all
operating expenses have been met. 3. Often profits. a. THE RETURN RECEIVED
ON AN INVESTMENT after all charges have been paid. b. The rate of increase
in the net worth of a business enterprise in a given accounting period.
c.
Income received from investments or property. d. The amount received for a
commodity or service in excess of the original cost.
American Heritage Electronic Dictionary*

(e-mail address removed) asserts:
*The entire Court syatem has always ruled that wages and salaries are
taxable by an Income Tax as an indirect tax, see Pollack where it says
that
if only the tax on income from property was struck down, it would leave
the
burden to be carried by trades and employments. *

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
*The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are
often
used interchangeably.*

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
*In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular
profession
from which the income was derived.*

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

|\\ a tax on income from labor was always regarded as an indirect tax in
the
nature of an excise [PRIVILEGE] tax |\\

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555
Shyster1040@nospamhotmail:
*The only taxes that were considered direct taxes for
purposes of the Constitution were ad-valorem taxes on the value of
property (property taxes), and head, or poll, taxes on persons (taxes
imposed on a person solely for being a person); Pollock, Brushaber, et
cetera.*

*Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no
such
purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that IT WAS DRAWN WITH THE
OBJECT OF MAINTAINING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION and harmonizing
their operation.

We say this because it is to be observed that although from the date of
the
Hylton Case, because of statements made in the opinions in that case, it
had
come to be accepted that direct taxes in the constitutional sense were
confined to taxes levied directly on real estate because of its ownership,
THE AMENDMENT CONTAINS NOTHING REPUDIATION (rupudiating) OR CHALLENGING
THE
RULING IN THE POLLOCK CASE THAT THE WORD 'DIRECT' HAD A BROADER
SIGNIFICANCE, SINCE IT EMBRACED ALSO TAXES LEVIED ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
BECAUSE OF ITS OWNERSHIP, AND THEREFORE THE AMENDMENT AT LEAST IMPLIEDLY
MAKES SUCH WIDER SIGNIFICANCE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, --- *

5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the
world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to
administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Well? Show us the document, rmacdonald@verizon.
Well? Show us the document, Shyster1040@nospamhotmail

6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777

(e-mail address removed)
*Where is the Commissioner delegated authority to administer the Federal
income tax? Pursuant to TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986, the
Commissioner is delegated the following authority by item no. 6:
TDO 150-01 dated February 27, 1986
6. U.S. Territories and Insular Possessions. The Commissioner shall, to
the extent of authority otherwise vested in him, provide for the
administration of the United States internal revenue laws in the U.S.
territories and insular possessions and other authorized areas of the
world.

Find a document that delegates authority for the Commissioner to
administer
the internal revenue laws within the several States. *

Shyster1040@nospamhotmail
*Try reading Code Section 7803, specifically Code Section 7803(a)(2),
which
provides for the duties of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Code
Section 7803(a)(1) provides that "[t]here shall be in the Department of
the Treasury a Commissioner of Internal Revenue ....").

Code Section 7803(a)(2) provides that the Commissioner shall have such
duties as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, including the power
to "administer, manage, conduct, direct, and supervise the execution and
application of the internal revenue laws or related statutes and tax
conventions to which the United States is a party...." Code Section
7803(a)(2)(A).

Most importantly, the flush language of Code Section 7803(a)(2) following
Code Section 7803(a)(2)(B) provides that "f the Secretary determines
not to delegate a power specified in subparagraph (A) or (B), such
determination may not take effect until 30 days after the Secretary
notifies the Committees on Ways and Means, Government Reform and
Oversight, and Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Committees on Finance, Governmental Affairs, and Appropriations of the
Senate." The Committee report concerning Code Section 7803 provides that
the Commissioner "has such duties and powers as prescribed by the
Secretary. Unless otherwise specified by the Secretary, such duties and
powers include the power to administer, manage, conduct, direct, and
supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws or
related statutes and tax conventions to which the United States is a
party, to exercise the IRS' final authority concerning the substantive
interpretation of the tax laws, ...."*

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders,
records, and proceedings

-STATUTE-
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as
follows:
(1) Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in
the Federal Register for the guidance of the public -
(D) substantive rules of general applicability adopted as
authorized by law, and statements of general policy or
interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted
by the agency; ---

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
SUBCHAPTER II - ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE

-HEAD-
Sec. 551. Definitions

-STATUTE-
For the purpose of this subchapter -
(1) ''agency'' means each authority of the Government of the
United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review
by another agency, but does not include -
(A) the Congress;
(B) the courts of the United States;
(C) the governments of the territories or possessions of the
United States;
(D) the government of the District of Columbia; ---

(4) ''rule'' means the whole or a part of an agency statement
of general or particular applicability and future effect designed
to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy ---

http://www.atgpress.com/atgpress/tax/tax007.htm
*One of the curious authorities in paragraph 6, which is the chief
authority
IRS hangs its hat on, is T.O. 150-10, which in 1982 succeeded 150-37.
Neither of these basic delegations of authority were ever published in the
Federal Register in compliance with requirements of 44 U.S.C. § 1505(a).
Therefore, application is limited to government under authority of 5
U.S.C.
§ 301 and territorial jurisdiction in insular possessions, maritime and
treaty jurisdictions, the latter three exempt from Federal Register Act
publishing requirements.*

TITLE 44 - PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 15 - FEDERAL REGISTER AND CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS

-HEAD-
Sec. 1505. Documents to be published in Federal Register

-STATUTE-
(a) Proclamations and Executive Orders; Documents Having General
Applicability and Legal Effect; Documents Required To Be Published
by Congress. There shall be published in the Federal Register -
(1) Presidential proclamations and Executive orders, except
those not having general applicability and legal effect or
effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their
capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof;
(2) documents or classes of documents that the President may
determine from time to time have general applicability and legal
effect; and
(3) documents or classes of documents that may be required so
to be published by Act of Congress.
For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which
prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.

TITLE 5 - GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES
PART I - THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
CHAPTER 3 - POWERS

-HEAD-
Sec. 301. Departmental regulations

-STATUTE-
The head of an Executive department or military department may
prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the
conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its
business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records,
papers, and property. This section does not authorize withholding
information from the public or limiting the availability of records
to the public.


That Delegation of Authority from the Secretary of Treasury to the
Commissioner of the IRS is published on what page of the Federal Register?

7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777
 
S

Shyster1040

""WRH: The claim that 38 states ratified it is, like Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction, unproven and apparently unprovable.""

Someone seems to have gotten his parliamentary rules reversed - the proper
officers of a sufficient number of state legislatures certified to the
Secretary of State that the 16th Amendment had been ratified by their
respective legislatures, which fact the Secretary of State duly
certified.

Such certifications, if valid on their face, are conclusive proof that the
certifying states did, in fact, ratify the 16th Amendment, and the burden
of proof is on those claiming that the ratification failed to prove
otherwise. Thus, until such time as someone can demonstrate, by clear and
convincing evidence (at least) that those state certifications were
procured through affirmative fraud, the 16th Amendment was properly
ratified.
 
M

Money

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-

Shyster1040@nospamhotmail

*The income tax levied by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from
time to time, and currently in force, is not a "direct unappportioned tax
on wages and salaries." *

Actually you are correct. The law itself is perfectly constitutional.

It is the mis-application of the law to a non-governmental worker's payroll
that makes for a direct-unapportioned tax upon compensation for labor.

That is why the words "voluntary compliance" are used to describe the tax
system.
Only if a Citizen "voluntarily" complies, would a direct-unapportioned tax
be Constitutionally legal.

Only government "employees" are paid "wages".
See IRC section 3401(a) Statutory definition of "wages" which is defined by
the statutory definitions of "Employee" and "Employer".
See IRC section 3401(c) Statutory definition of "employee".
See IRC section 3401(d) Statutory definition of "employer".

Private workers working for private companies do NOT receive wages as
statutorily defined, therefore the withholding requirements of 3402 do NOT
apply to Citizens that do not work for the government.

*For Constitutional purposes, it is an indirect tax, in the manner of an
excise tax, insofar as it is levied on wages and salaries.*

Wages and Salaries are earned by government (privilege) employees.

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

*For Constitutional purposes, it is an indirect tax, in the manner of an
excise [PRIVILEGE] tax, insofar as it is levied on wages and salaries.*

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


*See Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co. In other words, for purposes of
the Constitution, there cannot be such a beastie*

Correct, there can NOT be a Direct-Unapportioned tax. The 16th Amendmend
did NOT confer a power to lay any such "Direct-Unapportioned" tax.

* - any tax that is imposed on a person and is MEASURED in terms of that
person's annual wages or salary, is, ipso facto, an indirect tax for
Constitutional purposes.*

Capitalization of your word is mine for emphasis. Capitalization of the
same word in this citation is mine for emphasis:

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is MEASURED by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

Name the privilege.
"______________________________________________"


1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-

2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-
whosonfirst@emailaccount

Nothing of substance.
2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-

3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-
cptbanjo@aol
Which "indirect" tax would that be? A duty? An impost? An excise?

*The Springer case, upholding the nation's first income tax, referred to it
as in the nature of an excise or a duty.*


The word "income" as used in the present tax traces back to the 1909
"corporate EXCISE tax act".
++++++
Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co. 271 U.S. 170 (1926):
'Income' has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various
revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe; Merchants'
L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka.
++++++
Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)
The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, ...
[A] definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration
....

In Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co. ... In United States v. Cleveland,
Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. ...
It is obvious that ... if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the
Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of
1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in
Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, where ... there was no difference in its
meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913.

There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and
content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of
1913.

When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under
the same Income Tax Act of 1916 ... the definition of 'income' which was
applied was adopted ... arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of
1909, ... there would seem to be no room to doubt that THE WORD MUST BE
GIVEN THE SAME MEANING IN ALL OF THE INCOME TAX ACTS OF CONGRESS THAT WAS
GIVEN TO IT IN THE CORPORATION EXCISE TAX ACT, and that what that meaning is
has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.
++++++

*The Springer case, upholding the nation's first income tax, referred to it
as in the nature of an excise or a duty.*

And what is the "nature" of an excise or a duty?

From the above paragraphs cited of Merchants', the definition of income arises from the *Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax corporate profit solely.
*Another clueless yahoo*
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.

BTW, you fail to address the fact presented that the definition of income
arises from the *Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax
corporate profit solely.


*who doesn't realize that the taxpayer whose tax liability was upheld in
Smietanka was a trust, not a corporation, and that a trust (unlike a
corporation) enjoys no "privilege".*

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921):
Payment was made under protest, and the claim to recover is based upon the
contention that the fund taxed was not 'income' within the scope of the
Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and that the
effect given by the lower court to the act of Congress cited renders it
unconstitutional and void. THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION, strenuously argued,
WHETHER THIS GAIN in four years of over $700,000 ON AN INVESTMENT of about
$500,000 IS 'INCOME' WITHING THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT to the
Constitution of the United States.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
In that way INVESTMENT INCOME of individuals as well as corporations could
doubtless have been brought under the terms of the act. And the field of
income could have been completely covered by applying the principle that
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVITY OR PRIVILEGE
WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE AN EXCISE.

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION --- WHETHER THIS GAIN --- ON AN INVESTMENT ---
$500,000 IS 'INCOME' WITHING THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT...

INVESTMENT INCOME --- OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY IS AN
ACTIVITY OR PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE AN EXCISE.

3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-

4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-
(e-mail address removed)

*And so we finally see where all your inane game playing was heading. And it
is EXACTLY what I said it was way back when, you are a moronic tax
protestor.*

Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*Sorry, idiot,*
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*Congress first passed a legal, Constitutional income tax law
that applied to all US citizens in 1862; and then off and on until the
Pollack decision threw a monkey wrench into the works when it decided (and
most legal scholars agree, incorrectly) that an income tax levied on rents
and other income derived from property were direct taxes requiring
apportionment (and that same courts said clearly, in the same decision, that
income taxes levied on all other forms of income were indirect and did not
require apportionment and therefore legal and Constitutional.)*

*Congress then proposed and approved the XVI Amendment with the specific
purpose of overturning the Court's reasoning in Pollack. A minimum of
three-quarters of the States agreed so the XVI became part of the
Constitution in 1913. And starting in 1913, with subsequent revisions and
complete updates, the latest being the 1986 law (referred to by Shyster (who
is a real lawyer and knows the law, unlike you who are just a moron) *
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.



*and
subsequent minor revisions since, the Congress has indeed passed laws
regarding income taxes that apply to all US citizens and residents as well
as anyone else with US sourced income. All currently codified in the US Code
Chapter 26, completely contrary to the moronic assertion *
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*in your first
sentence below.*

*As I first said, crawl back under the rock you crawled out from, and don't
waste everyone's time (including and especially your own) with your inane
and moronic gibberish.*
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*You are not a lawyer, neither do you know or understand law, or what the
Court's have said. And you have no more concept on how to conduct an
argument, or debate than you do about law.*

Just because you say so, don't make it so.

*Just repeat over and over to yourself until it sinks in, "I, the idiot *
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*using
the moniker "Money" am a moron without a clue." *
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.



*You can even ask any 3rd
grader to help you understand your idiocy*
Your admission that you don't have the requisite skills to debate
intelligently is noted.


*since any one of them is smarter
than you, but then so is a rock.*

Try your post again, this time sticking to facts instead of the name calling
by which you admit defeat before you even begin to debate.


4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-

5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-

Shyster1040@nospamhotmail

*1) Const. Art. I, sec. 8, "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect
taxes"

2) Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, Section 1, "(a) There is
hereby imposed on the taxable income of -- (1)every married
individual...(2)every surviving spouse...a tax determined in accordance with
the following table...(c)There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of
every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a)
or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married
individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with
the following table...."

If you're an individual, then you're subject to the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended from time to time, and currently in force.*

Nobody is "subject to" the IRC unless they are "liable" for a tax.
No taxable income, no tax.
No tax, no tax liability.

5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-

6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-
rmacdonald@verizon

*Pages 114 through 165 of this act are omitted.

The first section of this act simply imposed duties upon a wide

variety of items. These pages are omitted because they are irrelevant.



[Page 166] SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. SESS. I. CH. 16. 1913.

[last parts of Tariffs deleted]

SECTION II.



A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in
the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether
residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon
such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be
assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income
from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried
on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.*


Page header:
166 SIXTY-THIRD CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 16. 1913

Section II.:
A. Subdivision 1. That there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid
annually upon the entire net income arising of accruing from all sources in
the preceding calendar year to every citizen of the United States, whether
residing at home or abroad, and to every person residing in the United
States, though not a citizen thereof, a tax of 1 per centum per annum upon
such income, except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be
assesed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income
from all property owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried
on in the United States by PERSONS RESIDING ELSEWHERE.

It is interesting that the margin not which states: *Nonresidents* is
adjacent to the final point:
"except as hereinafter provided; and a like tax shall be assesed, levied,
collected, and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property
owned and of every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United
States by PERSONS RESIDING ELSEWHERE"


As of the date of this law, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning
of income.

6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-

7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-

esenter@comcast
The 16th amendment does NOT allow a direct-unapportioned tax.

This is either true or false. And with an adversarial debate, this has been
proven to be true.

None of the smoke and mirrors you posted in response to that fact will
change that fact. The most you can hope to do is distract the average reader
from that fact.

*That all depends on what you mean by "direct-unapportioned tax".*

I mean the assertion made by Brushaber: "the conclusion that the 16th
Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a
power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to
the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. "

I mean the assertion made by Stanton: "the tax levied --- what was deemed to
be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized
to be levied without apportionment,"


*All direct taxes must be apportioned. That is a true statement.*
Yes. We agree on this.

*But, whether or not a direct-unapportioned tax is a direct tax that must be
apportioned depends entirely upon the object which the tax directly
operates.*
But on this, you CONTRADICT YOURSELF. I need say nothing more.


*Taxes laid upon land or people are direct taxes. Taxes laid upon income
are indirect taxes.*

A tax laid on income is a DIRECT TAX that IS subject to the rule of
apportionment. The INCOME can NOT be the nexus, since direct taxes MUST BE
APPORTIONED. Therefore the ONLY way to tax "income", is to tax a privileged
nexus, MEASURED by the income. That is why an "income" tax is an "excise"
(privilege) tax.

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
The income tax is an excise tax. An excise tax is a privilege tax measured
by the income produced by the privilege or the privileged activity.
None of the smoke and mirrors you posted in response to that fact will
change that fact either. The most you can hope to do is distract the average
reader from that fact.

*If the income tax is an excise tax like you said, what does it matter what
an excise tax is? *

A fair question.

Answer: If the income tax does not have the proper traits, it is NOT an
excise tax. The properties of what an excise tax is, determines what taxes
are to be allowed inside that category. If the income tax does not have the
properties of an excise tax, then that income tax is NOT an excise tax.

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

This means an income tax MUST be a tax on privilege.

*You stated that "the income tax is an excise tax". That is your premise.*

My premise?

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

*The only logical conclusion to draw from that statement is "if the tax is
an income tax, that tax is an excise tax."*
You have it backwards.
The properties of an excise tax determine WHETHER an income tax is an excise
tax. If the properties of the income tax do not match the properties of an
excise tax, then that particular 'income' tax is NOT an excise.

If an income tax is not an excise, duty, or impost, then it is DIRECT tax.
Since Brushaber and Stanton have both ruled that the 16th amendment does not
allow a direct-unapportioned tax, if the tax is direct IT MUST BE
APPORTIONED.

The only thing the 16th amendment did, was to act upon the Supreme Court to
keep them from making the error they made in Pollock where the removed a
proper excise PRIVILEGE tax from the indirect category.

*You would examine whether or not the tax was an income tax.*
By determining if the revenue is indeed "income".

*Otherwise, your premise is not correct.*
Your assertion is not correct.


7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-
 
C

cpt banjo

Money said:
Only government "employees" are paid "wages".
False. You are misreading the definition of the term "includes".
Private workers working for private companies do NOT receive wages as
statutorily defined...
Yes, they do.
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Wrong. The gift tax, for example, is an excise tax, and in upholding
its constitutionality the Supreme Court stated, "Whatever may be the
precise line which sets off direct taxes from others, we need not now
determine. While taxes levied upon or collected from persons because of
their general ownership of property may be taken to be direct, Pollock
v. Farmers' Loan & Turst Co., 157 U.S. 429 , 15 S. Ct. 673; Id., 158
U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912, this court has consistently held, almost from
the foundation of the government, that a tax imposed upon a particular
use of property or the exercise of a single power over property
incidental to ownership, is an excise which neet not be apportioned,
and it is enough for present purposes that this tax is of the latter
class." Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929).

So unless you're prepared to argue that the exercise of a single power
over property is a privileged activity, and to explain why it is, you'd
better abandon your moronic argument about excises necessarily
involving privileges.
BTW, you fail to address the fact presented that the definition of income arises from the *Corporation
Excise Tax Act of 1909* which does indeed tax corporate profit solely.
And you fail to realize that the definition used wasn't limited to
corporate income.
Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
In that way INVESTMENT INCOME of individuals as well as corporations could
doubtless have been brought under the terms of the act. And the field of
income could have been completely covered by applying the principle that
OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY IS AN ACTIVITY OR PRIVILEGE
WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE AN EXCISE.

THERE REMAINS THE QUESTION --- WHETHER THIS GAIN --- ON AN INVESTMENT ---
$500,000 IS 'INCOME' WITHING THE MEANING OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT...

INVESTMENT INCOME --- OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF INVESTMENT PROPERTY IS AN
ACTIVITY OR PRIVILEGE WITH RESPECT TO WHICH CONGRESS MAY IMPOSE AN EXCISE.

Instead of cuting and pasting, why don't you explain why the ownership
and management of investment property involves a privilege? (Btw, the
stuff you cited said "activity OR privilege", thereby indicating that a
privilege isn't always required. Thanks for destroying your own
argument.)
A tax laid on income is a DIRECT TAX that IS subject to the rule of apportionment. The INCOME can
NOT be the nexus, since direct taxes MUST BE APPORTIONED. Therefore the ONLY way to
tax "income", is to tax a privileged nexus, MEASURED by the income. That is why an "income" tax is
an "excise" (privilege) tax.
Hopelessly wrong. A tax on personal earning has never been held to be
a direct tax, and no court has ever held that an excise tax must
involve a privilege.

And the only way you can prove me wrong is to cite a case in which
someone who wasn't involved in a privileged activity escaped having his
income taxed on that basis. In the meantime, your endless parrotting
of the dictum in the Wallace case shows how pathetically asinine your
position is.
 
Ad

Advertisements

E

esenter

Money said:
esenter@comcast





*That all depends on what you mean by "direct-unapportioned tax".*

I mean the assertion made by Brushaber: "the conclusion that the 16th
Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a
power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to
the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. "

I mean the assertion made by Stanton: "the tax levied --- what was deemed to
be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized
to be levied without apportionment,"
Well, you have a problem. What the court meant was that the 16th
Amendment did not allow an UNAPPORTIONED DIRECT TAX. That is not the
same as saying a "direct-unapportioned tax".


*All direct taxes must be apportioned. That is a true statement.*
Yes. We agree on this.

*But, whether or not a direct-unapportioned tax is a direct tax that must be
apportioned depends entirely upon the object which the tax directly
operates.*
But on this, you CONTRADICT YOURSELF. I need say nothing more.
That is again your problem. It is not a contradiction. The distinction
is whether "direct" is being used as an adverb or is being used as part
of a noun - 'direct tax'. You see, 'direct tax' is a species of tax of
constitutional purpose. 'Direct taxes' must be apportioned. Whereas,
'direct-unapportioned tax' is indicating some unapportioned tax which
directly operates upon some object.

That distinction is probably over your head and is why you are so confused.

*Taxes laid upon land or people are direct taxes. Taxes laid upon income
are indirect taxes.*

A tax laid on income is a DIRECT TAX that IS subject to the rule of
apportionment. The INCOME can NOT be the nexus, since direct taxes MUST BE
APPORTIONED. Therefore the ONLY way to tax "income", is to tax a privileged
nexus, MEASURED by the income. That is why an "income" tax is an "excise"
(privilege) tax.
Sorry, but since the 16th Amendment as explained by Brushaber, NO tax
laid on INCOME is a direct tax. ALL income taxes are hence categorized
as 'excises, duties or imposts'.

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
Did you know that EVERYTHING said in Congress is recorded in the
congressional record? That means both the winning and losing arguments.
You have just quoted the losing argument.

*If the income tax is an excise tax like you said, what does it matter what
an excise tax is? *

A fair question.

Answer: If the income tax does not have the proper traits, it is NOT an
excise tax. The properties of what an excise tax is, determines what taxes
are to be allowed inside that category. If the income tax does not have the
properties of an excise tax, then that income tax is NOT an excise tax.
Then you did not mean to say, "the income tax is an excise tax".
Logically, what you meant to say was, "IF the income tax is an excise
tax..." which indicates that you believe that SOME income taxes are
excises while OTHERS are direct taxes.

That position lies contrary to the holding in Brushaber which said the
16th Amendment-
" It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to
confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority
already possessed and never questioned, [240 U.S. 1, 18] -or to limit
and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that
the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when
imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the
income was derived."

In other words, if the source is not considered, ALL income taxes do not
require apportionment. The court made no distinction between income
taxes that were excises and income taxes that were direct taxes. In
fact, the court noted that income taxes had been upheld as indirect
taxes in the past. It was only the erroneous holding in Pollock that
any income tax was a direct tax because they considered the source.

Since the 16th Amendment created no new power of taxation-that is, an
unapportioned direct tax- and since the 16th Amendment allowed
unapportioned taxes directly on income, the only conclusion to draw is
INCOME TAXES ARE INHERENTLY INDIRECT TAXES. No apportionment was ever
required.
American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

This means an income tax MUST be a tax on privilege.

*You stated that "the income tax is an excise tax". That is your premise.*

My premise?

American Airways v. Wallace, 57 F.2d 877, 880:
The term 'excise tax' and 'privilege tax' are synonymous. The two are often
used interchangeably.

Here's the Cook's summary of Pollock:
In particular, a tax imposed on the income derived from employment is an
excise tax levied on the "privilege" of exercising the particular profession
from which the income was derived.

Page 2580 of the House Congressional Record dated March 27, 1943:
The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise
tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by
reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the
tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.

*The only logical conclusion to draw from that statement is "if the tax is
an income tax, that tax is an excise tax."*
You have it backwards.
The properties of an excise tax determine WHETHER an income tax is an excise
tax. If the properties of the income tax do not match the properties of an
excise tax, then that particular 'income' tax is NOT an excise.

If an income tax is not an excise, duty, or impost, then it is DIRECT tax.
Since Brushaber and Stanton have both ruled that the 16th amendment does not
allow a direct-unapportioned tax, if the tax is direct IT MUST BE
APPORTIONED.

The only thing the 16th amendment did, was to act upon the Supreme Court to
keep them from making the error they made in Pollock where the removed a
proper excise PRIVILEGE tax from the indirect category.

*You would examine whether or not the tax was an income tax.*
By determining if the revenue is indeed "income".

*Otherwise, your premise is not correct.*
Your assertion is not correct.
For my previously stated reasons, YOU have it backwards. Since the 16th
Amendment, NO income tax requires apportionment. There are not
different kinds of income taxes. All income taxes are in the category
of excises and thus do not require apportionment.

IF THE THING BEING TAXED IS INCOME, NO APPORTIONMENT IS REQUIRED IPSO FACTO.
 

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