Could this become a Waco/Ruby Ridge? Happening RIGHT NOW!

[The Real Hawkeye]

and TRH apparently labors under the delusion that wages are not taxable.

Then simply reproduce for us the definition of income as found in the US Tax Code. Fact is, income has already been defined by the US Supreme Court, for the purposes of income taxation. It refers to corporate gain, not wages.

Having earned a Masters Degree in clinical psychology from an accredited university, I know something of delusional thinking. Opinions based on facts don't meet the DSM IV criteria.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Then simply reproduce for us the definition of income as found in the US Tax Code

I have already done that once in this thread and quoted the relevant text. You can find it in Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Fact is, income has already been defined by the US Supreme Court, for the purposes of income taxation. It refers to corporate gain, not wages.

Well, I can't really argue with that since you don't cite the Supreme Court case you are almost certainly misquoting. Since I am not intimately familiar with every Supreme Court case to a degree I can guess which one you are misrepresenting, let me just say that I find it passing strange that if the Supreme Court has ruled that income is only corporate gain, not wages (as you contend) that nobody has ever been able to successfully argue that in court.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Please, if you don't mind, cut and paste it into a post.

 

[Sindawe]

§ 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I already did that once. I'm sorry if you find it inconvenient to look through this thread and find it; but I am sure you can appreciate why I am reluctant to do the work for you that you are too lazy to do yourself.

Thanks Sindawe, that was kind of you to provide it when TRH could have found the same thing by just reading this thread or Google in about 5 seconds.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

What you have provided is a definition of "gross income." This is not relevant to our discussion, as gross income is not taxable even according to the code. Is there anywhere in the code where income is defined?

 

[nemoaz]

Wow! What a thread. Go criminals! I think I need to put aluminum foil on my head to protect my brainwaves from the CIA then read this again. Go Criminals!

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Do I hear crickets chirping?

 

[nemoaz]

What you have provided is a definition of "gross income." This is not relevant to our discussion, as gross income is not taxable even according to the code. Is there anywhere in the code where income is defined?

Don't quit your day job. Shiitehouse lawyer you're not. I could take you through it, but won't in part because I haven't spent much time looking at it since 1997. It involves several hundreds of sections. I can point you to a nutshell legal guide so that you could you. http://west.thomson.com/product/22025291/product.asp This will have cites to the code that you could use to find the correct provisions. But the summary is that taxable income= gross income less (exemptions and deductions).

Or you could just cover your head in aluminum foil, read all the crap from the insane tax protestors say, and join the movement. And lose your arguments just like they do. (Not that protesting tax rates is a bad idea, it isn't. But it's time to concede on the XVI argument. For those of you who haven't heard, the South lost the Civil War also.)

EDIT: http://www.msu.edu/~milneel1/outlines/basic-income-tax-a.pdf

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Don't quit your day job. Shiitehouse lawyer you're not. I could take you through it, but won't. It involves several hundreds of sections. I can point you to a nutshell legal guide that you could you. http://west.thomson.com/product/22025291/product.asp This will have cites to the code that you could use to find the correct provisions. But the summary is that taxable income= gross income less (exemptions and deductions).

Or you could just cover your head in aluminum foil, read all the crap from the insane tax protestors say, and join the movement. And lose your arguments just like they do. (Not that protesting tax rates is a bad idea, it isn't. But it's time to concede on the XVI argument. For those of you who haven't heard, the South lost the Civil War also.)

It's funny how hostile you people become at a simple request. I am open to real arguments on your side. I am not an ideologue on this issue. Before I accept a proposal as true, however, I like to see some facts. This is no reason to go on the attack. Don't hate me because I'm asking for evidence. The fact that I'm asking means I'm open to being persuaded. Take advantage of that fact. It may well be that the Tax Code defines income as wages earned for labor. If so, I will yield on the point. Of course, that definition would be in direct conflict with a standing Supreme Court decision, but let's take it one step at a time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What you have provided is a definition of "gross income." This is not relevant to our discussion, as gross income is not taxable even according to the code. Is there anywhere in the code where income is defined?

Why stop there? There are literally hundreds of words that aren't defined in the code. Should we now argue that because they aren't specifically defined we can ignore their plain English meaning? Or are you suggesting that "gross income" isn't sufficient to identify all income?

Here, let me help you out though...

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

Second, gross income is relevant because as others have already pointed out, your taxable income is directly derived from your gross income minus exclusions and deductions.

TRH, I have no interest in our usual banal repartee of what you think the law should be. If you find the definition of income insufficient to satisfy your desire for legal strictness, I encourage you to stand up for your beliefs in a court of law or the legislature.

Of course, that definition would be in direct conflict with a standing Supreme Court decision, but let's take it one step at a time.

Why don't you provide the name of this Supreme Court decision then? I'd like to read it for myself since I find your interpretation of the law is often lacking.

 

[Sindawe]

Thanks Sindawe, that was kind of you to provide it when TRH could have found the same thing by just reading this thread or Google in about 5 seconds.

In all fairness, you only provided a fragment of the code in your post, and did not cite the source in your posting. Finding the relevant section of code online was a quick search, but finding your citation of it was a bit more problematic as the obvious search terms did not work. I had to step through and review each post you've made in this thread.[/quote]

Sorry Sindawe, I hit "Edit" when I thought I hit "Reply", please repost this and I'll try not to screw it up this time

Is there anywhere in the code where income is defined?

Here perhaps...

§ 64. Ordinary income defined

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231 (b). Any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is treated or considered, under other provisions of this subtitle, as “ordinary income” shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231 (b).

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000064----000-.html

DISCLAIMER: The majesty of the original post as been lost to history, this but a crude reproduction.

 

[nemoaz]

That's a valid cite. Are we first supposed to teach legal research before answering here?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Why stop there? There are literally hundreds of words that aren't defined in the code. Should we now argue that because they aren't specifically defined we can ignore their plain English meaning?

But that's the point, isn't it? The plain meaning of income is what's left after "outgo." If I have a tank filled with 100 gallons of water, and I simultaneously add five gallons while removing six, what amount of water has come into the tank? What is the tank's income of water when all is said and done? Not only is that the plain meaning, it has been raised to legal meaning, for the purposes of taxation, by the US Supreme Court.

Or are you suggesting that "gross income" isn't sufficient to identify all income?

So, are you saying that all money received is taxable? Even the Code doesn't say that.

Here, let me help you out though...

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

Yes, that's gross income. But what's income? The plain meaning of income is what's left after "outgo."

Second, gross income is relevant because as others have already pointed out, your taxable income is directly derived from your gross income minus exclusions and deductions.

Before we get into deductions and exclusion, we need to settle on what income is to start with. After that, exclusions and deductions will become interesting.

TRH, I have no interest in our usual banal repartee of what you think the law should be. If you find the definition of income insufficient

Not at all, the Supreme Court has defined it according to its plain meaning, and that is just fine with me.

to satisfy your desire for legal strictness, I encourage you to stand up for your beliefs in a court of law or the legislature.

We are a nation of laws, are we not? Legal strictness becomes important when we are a nation of laws. Not important to tyrannies (blurry laws are favored in those), but very important to nations of laws.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Not at all, the Supreme Court has defined it according to its plain meaning, and that is just fine with me.

So you claim; but this is the third time I have asked you for the name of the Supreme Court case and you still have not supplied it.

 

[JAMES77257]

I know it's a moot point, but would'nt it be fair to add up the actual annual cost of running the federal government, and split it between every living American regardless of income? There are way too many lazy people that don't work, and are on welfare that get $4000+ in refunds every year just because they have a sh-load of kids. Every year I have to pay at least $2500in Fed taxes, I can see how this guy could be a little piessed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Sec. 63 - TAXABLE INCOME DEFINED

Sec. 63(a) - IN GENERAL = Except as provided in subsection (b), for the purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

So here is how it works - your taxable income is your gross income. Your gross income is "all income from whatever source derived." By applying your exclusions and deductions, we reach your "adjusted gross income."

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

no?

"I am not an ideologue on this issue."


"ideologue
One entry found for ideologue.


Main Entry: ideo·logue
Variant(s): also idea·logue /'I-dE-&-"log, -"läg/
Function: noun
Etymology: French idéologue, back-formation from idéologie
1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST
2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology "

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

So you claim; but this is the third time I have asked you for the name of the Supreme Court case and you still have not supplied it.

I have relied on the statements of experts for that assertion. I will have to do some research on it to see if I can provide you with a citation.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

In Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) the court held 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 and what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court." Merchant's Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519 (1921).

"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...." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-207 (1920).

The Court proceeded to define the term "income" for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment and income tax, as well as for purposes of the Eisner Case, as simply profit or gain.

 

[1swellguy]

IRS = rogue organization

This guy may sound like "a kook" to some of you, but I think he's a real patriot. He's fighting for what he believes in, instead of buckling to the tyrants putting the pressure on him. Shame on those of you who don't stand by this guy.

The IRS should be disbanded and its leaders arrested for actions like this.

If we really do owe taxes to our government simply for having a job (not "making income" which is increase, but simply trading our skills for a fair wage) then why won't they answer us? The We The People Foundation has petitioned our government for years now and has filed a lawsuit to get the IRS to state what law requires individuals to pay taxes on their pay. Do we own our own sweat and toil or don't we? Does the government own me? Are we all just slaves?

But they won't answer. They know they're lying. They know that there is NO such law. The IRS is committing FRAUD and COERSION, not to mention conspiracy to defraud, against every single citizen in this nation.

We should all be standing beside men like this guy. We should ALL refuse to pay the IRS any portion of our hard-earned wages.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

TRH, I think your experts have quoted selectively to you from that case. Let me quote some other relevant text from those decisions:

Section 2(a) of the act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 757), (40 Stat. 300, 307, § 212), applicable to the case, defines the income of 'a taxable person' as including 'gains, profits, and income derived from sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever...'

'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'

If you read the entirety of both of the cases you cite, it is abundantly clear that they reject the proposition that wages are not taxable and embrace a very broad definition of taxable income.

Merchants is a case where it was argued that capital gains are not income under the meaning of the 16th Amendment. The Court went on to reason that "income" has to mean the same thing in all laws and defined it as profit or gain. To read this as meaning that only capital gains or Corporate Excise Tax are defined as income, you have to ignore virtually everything the Court said in the brief four page decision, including some of the relevant parts I quoted above and other sections making it clear it applies to individuals as well as corporations.

The Court in Merchant's also quoted the section I highlighted from Eisner above making it clear that labor was contemplated in the definition of income.

Here is another Supreme Court case on the subject of income. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955). In this case SCOTUS ruled that punitive damages awarded from a lawsuit are taxable as income. The phrase they use to describe the damages has been cited in many other cases as an example of what constitutes income:

"Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion."

Under this test, you have income if:

1) It is an accession to wealth
2) It has been realized (the firearm you bought for $300 is actually worth $3,000; but you haven't realized the wealth until you sell it)
3) You have control over the wealth (you have complete control over how the money is spent)

 

[kludge]

The Court went on to reason that "income" has to mean the same thing in all laws and defined it as profit or gain.

If I trade you my pickup truck for your Camaro, and we both agree that they have the same vale, and no cash is exchanged, then which one of us had "profit" or "gain"????

Neither.

If you and I both agree that my labor is worth $25/hr, and we trade my labor for the output of that labor (which you now own) who profited?

Neither.

Now compare these two items from an above post: (this is where the constitutionality of the law comes in, and is what people are fighting)

§ 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;

"Income" is an increase as seen in (2) which is sales minus costs. This is the true definition on "income" and is what the argument is about.

In the statute the government has redefined "income" to also include "compensation for services". I don't believe that this (item 1) has been ruled on by SCOTUS, but maybe I'm wrong.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Bart, the first quote you provide merely begs the question, while the second is ambiguous to say the least, considering the caveat at the end of the sentence. But I will look further into it.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

im still puzzled by the fact that this man has his day in court and loses, and then barricades himself in his house.

how many people here can honestly say they'd do the same? barricade yourself in your home because you didn't like the outcome of the court decision?

Also there were some who asked where his supporters are.
They have been showing up. Armed friends and supporters have arrived. How many? I don't know, If I did I wouldn't say.

im sure the ones who have "shown up" since the cops arrived have been told to either leave or be arrested. i certainly don't think they are allowing people to just drop on by to say hello.

It would be nice if the stormtroopers found themselves out numbered and out gunned. It is about time that the servents were put in there place.

that would be virtually impossible. one man and a handful of his supporters against all of the city, county, and federal law enforcement agents in that state?

im surprised this thread hasn't been locked yet. advocating the killing of police in the legal performance of their duties isn't very "High Road", or is it? this place has unfortunately become a cesspool of people who think it is okay to take up a gun and threaten to use deadly force against anyone or anything you don't agree with.

of course it is the usual fellows on here who type loudly but in real life probably wouldn't have the cajones to point a gun at an armed police officer. you know who you are. internet commando....