The Federal Govt is ruling America with the end of a gun barrel of it's own citizens ... they will murder you if you refuse to be arrested and imprison you and treat you worse than the treatment of a child mollester!
The Federal Govt is poison to the average American!
In December, 1996, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of O'Gilvie vs. US. In a six to three decision, the court held that punitive damages received as part of a wrongful death award were not excluded from taxable income by IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2), which excludes "any damages received on account of personal injuries."
@RetSquid Yes I agree that the court system in the USA is Saturnalian, a.k.a. Satanic selfish stupid myopic slaver rapist torturer, and that's to put it lightly. How about we take everyone that works for the courts and make them pay our taxes you nazi cunt?
@RetSquid So when internal revenue cannot site where their references come from it does not matter what that section says either???? That information was straight from Justia, so, Justia does not know what they are doing either? Well, it sounds like you are the only one with pertinent information. You have refuted Supreme court rulings that explicitly define income,and still deny the proper definition of income. Hmmmmmmmm
No, I have posted SCOTUS rulings that define income and you read only the part that you think agrees with your ideas. Your claims about 'compensation' are wrong, wages and salaries are income and compensation, therefore they are taxable income. Section 1.414 itself says that it does not apply unless another section references it directly.
§ 1.414(s)-1 Definition of compensation.-from Justia
(a) Introduction—(1) In general. Section 414(s) and this section provide rules for defining compensation for purposes of applying any provision that specifically refers to section 414(s) or this section. For example, section 414(s) is referred to in many of the nondiscrimination provisions applicable to pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans qualified under section 401(a).
§ 1.414 (a) (2) Limitations on scope of Section 414(s) and this section do not apply unless a provision specifically refers to section 414(s) or this section.
Try reading it from h t t p : / / w w w . law . cornell . e d u /uscode/26/
Employee: from the Internal revenue code book heading at top of page Wage Withholding "3401 (c) For the purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision there of, of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation." QUOTE
Blake v. National Bank, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 307 307 (1874)
Page 90 U. S. 316-"Whatever degree of liberality, therefore, may be allowable in the construction of statutes relating to the revenue of the government, there is neither reason nor justice in expanding them by a strain upon the ordinary import of their words to give effect to a hypothetical legislative intention."
1 of 5 The court ruling you used below Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) This court ruling is about fraud of gross income received as CORPORATE PROFIT that
Face it the law defines income as 'compensation for services'. Wages and salary are both 'compensation for services'. Now, if you can find one tax case that says wages are NOT income, I'll be sure to check it out.
@RetSquid The law defines Income as corporate profit in these Supreme court cases, and I will face nothing but the truth! Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U S. 165-Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:-Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
"Respondents' premise that the common usage of "income" as involving gain excludes personal injury awards because of their purely compensatory nature is false, since such awards often compensate for the loss of gain in the form of lost wages, and, to that extent at least, must be considered income."
Correct income is defined as “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
You have complete control over your wages after you get them, so they are 'income'.
2 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-was under reported. Stating in 61 definition based on 16th Amendment. And we all know now that income has been defined as corporate profit in these Supreme court cases INCOME as used in its constitutional sense.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U.
“Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that “income” is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines “gross income”, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages.”
4 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-or as the punitive two-thirds portion of a treble damage antitrust recovery must be reported by a taxpayer as "gross income" under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Pp. 348 U. S. 427-433.
(a) In determining what constitutes "gross income" as defined in § 22(a), effect must be given to the catch-all language "gains or profits and
“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”
5 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-income derived from any source whatever."
Footnote 11
"Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes 'all income from whatever source derived.' This definition is based upon the 16th AMENDMENT, and the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense."
The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect.
3 of 4 Doyle The act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital, and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
Page 247 U. S. 183
An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative
4 of 4 Doyle purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 145, the tax was imposed
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax, conveying, rather, the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence , 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."
The United States Supreme Court and Congress define income as: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."--Stratton's
Exactly you get paid for your labor and it's income.
@RetSquid A CORPORATION can have gain or profit on the labor of its employees...two different labors here...where as a persons personal labor in which there is an exchange for wages which has been ruled as a specialized type of property has not had any gain, nor profit made on that persons personal sweat for their labor.
When you are paid for your labor THAT is your gain...you did not have that money before you sold your labor.
The Supreme Court has defined income as: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
2 OF 2 respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 165, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise
1 of 2 RetSquid This Supreme Court ruling decision was one where one who earns a SALARY could be taxed on it. I am going to assume that this person in this court ruling was a public official because the constitutional definition of SALARY belongs to public officials. They are specifically talking about SALARY here, not wage, which in previous court rulings posted here, are a special kind of property.
Yes, a 'salary' or 'compensation for services' is the very first thing defined in the law as 'income'. A 'salary' is defined as :"Fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis". It has nothing to do with where it comes from.
“[P]laintiff’s claim that only public officials can be taxed is completely frivolous and without merit.”
“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).
Constitutional definition SALARY. A reward or recompense for services performed.
2. It is usually applied to the reward paid to a public officer for the performance of his official duties.
2 of 2 LUCUS v EARL
The Supreme Court found that the law is clear that the one who earns the SALARY should be taxed on it. Contracts and other arrangements should not allow someone to avoid this income tax.
No, it is not. Here is the actual quote from Title 26:
"....(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)."
That is the end of that section, your 'gross income' bit is not in the law.
@RetSquid 1 of 4 This court ruling United States of America v Jack Ballard explicitly states that “INCOME IS NOT DEFINED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE” but gross income is.
United States of America, Appellee, v. Jack Ballard, Appellant., 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976) 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918), the Court said:
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it
@MsLawman7 2 of 4 imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."
@MsLawman7 3 of 4 The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, defines "gross income" to mean all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (5) Rents.
@MsLawman7 4 of 4 Treasury Regulation § 1.61-3 (1976) explains "Gross income derived from business" and reads in part: 6 Otherwise, the court appropriately defined gross income as
all income from whatever source derived, including, but not limited to the following items: 1 Gross income derived from business 2 Rents 3 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items
@RetSquid United States of America, Appellee, v. Jack Ballard, does not say wages or salary! You are importing your own words here and does not support your claim!
@RetSquid The definition income has been defined by these court cases and more. The language you have posted is NOT a definition of Income. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U S. 165-Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:-Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
And Ballard defines “gross income derived from business”
1 OF 4 I personally have an internal revenue code book, the heading at the top of the page that the definition of gross income is under is found under Environmental Tax, then it lists the definition of gross income “NOT INCOME!” AND for your additional statement saying that gross income is also known as wages or salary, is A SEVERE MISQUOTE and is SERIOUSLY misleading of how the title actually reads. So, who is putting out
2 OF 4 misinformation???????????? A CITIZEN does not have gross income because a citizen generally does not have gain like #3 suggests or has their own business and is a corporation §61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition-Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from
3 OF 4whatever 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
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 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.....[this is also know as WAGES or SALARY]
United States v. Koliboski--this case is unpublished, and holds no basis in law. I gave you the constitutional definition of wage. Income has been defined by the Supreme Court. Show me in the Internal Revenue Code where income is defined!! I will tell you right now it is not defined in the internal revenue code.
That's funny, a lot of other courts use that case as a reference...maybe you should write them and tell them they are wrong..Oh and here is the case for you to read:
h t t p : / / w w w DOT famguardian DOT o r g /TaxFreedom /Forms /Discovery /Deposition /Evidence/ Q07.081c-83c DOT h t m
1 of 2 INCOME. Constitutional definition not DEFACTO definition. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
“the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. [he was wrong]...as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable.”
2 of 2 Remember corporations have gain from their property ( property can be stock etc.) holdings, labor and business. The individuals talked about here are those who have such gain and profit. Citizens do not have gain or profit from their wage. The Supreme Court has further defined income as corporate profit--as I have stated before
"The United States, however, is correct that “income” is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines “gross income”, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., WAGES.”
1 of 9 The right to contract by which labor is exchanged for money or other forms of property
Retsquid! It is a right to contract or not. The W-4 is an internal revenue CONTRACT! Your signature is needed to hold you accountable to the rules of that contract. Everything set up concerning the government to hold you accountable for anything, is by
@RetSquid Contracts making you liable for whatever is signed for. To be held accountable for all the rules and or laws or regulations stated in that contract whether explicitly written or implied. And on top of it, if you read the W-4 contract you will note that you sign it under penalty of perjury! A legal binding contract.
2 of 9 “CONTRACT!” Where as in this court ruling “COPPAGE” is talking about your employment contract, however the W-4 contract is separate from the employment contract. The right of private property they are talking about here…is your wage, which in reading the other court rulings I have posted are a specialized type of property. If I remember correctly, RIGHTS
3 of 9 CANNOT BE TAXED! Unless you volunteer, if a person has not been given full disclosure of the contracts they have signed, it is FRAUD! And for an employer to fill out a W-4 form for an employee is FRAUD, it is a FORCED contract! And because the employer has gotten away with it for so many years, they continue to do so because people do not know how to
4 of 9 protect themselves against this fraudulent action. How many people would volunteer to pay something that is voluntary? The government needs people like you to put out disinformation. But court rulings do not lie. Regardless of what the court ruling is about if a specific line has ruled on a subject and that subject has not been overruled it stands as fact about that
5 of 9 subject regardless of what the court matter is about! So I reposted footnote 2, reiterating the W-4 form is an internal revenue form (it is a CONTRACT!). People need to learn how to combat their employer, because at this point the employer has become the policing entity for the IRS.
Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each. is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief
among which is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are
7 of 9 exchanged for money or other forms of property.
Page 236 U. S. 13 Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of
8 of 9 property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established const. sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money. 956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
1 of 6 To clarify your comment one would need to refer to yet other court rulings, these talking about the 16th amendment which is properly known as the corporation tax act of 1909 having been ratified before the 16th amendment and only applies to corporations. NOT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN unless you have voluntarily signed under penalty of perjury a W-4 giving the government jurisdiction over your wage, which by contract is implied income.
"16th amendment which is properly known as the corporation tax act of 1909"
Well I must say, THAT is a new argument, how do you figure a Constitutional Amendment changes itself into a coporation tax act?
And again the W-4 does not volunteer you for anything except changing your withholding rate, it has nothing to do with your liability for the income tax itself.
@RetSquid Did you read Stratton's? They are talking about the CORPORATION TAX ACT OF 1909 which later became the 16th amendment in this court ruling because it was ratified in 1913 as the 16th amendment.
2 of 6 14 Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913);
Page 231 U. S. 400
The Corporation Tax Law of 1909, having been enacted before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, was not in any proper sense an income tax law; but was
3 of 6 an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity measured by the income, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself.
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”
“The Corporation Tax Law deals with corporations engaged in actual business
4 of 6 transactions and presumably conducted according to business principles.”
Page 231 U. S. 414
As has been repeatedly remarked, the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This Court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to
5 of 6 populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The Act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107; McCoach v. Minehill Co., 228 U. S. 295;
United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, ante, p. 231 U. S. 144).
and, secondly, because the act specifies those classes of corporations that are to be exempt from its operation, and mining corporations are not among them. Those exempted are labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, fraternal beneficiary societies, orders or associations operating under the lodge system, domestic building and loan associations, corporations and associations organized and operated for religious, charitable, or educat purposes, etc.
1 of 3 Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
247 U.S. 179
Syllabus
The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect.
2 of 3 The act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital, and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 145, the tax was imposed
You must have missed the part about "Corporation Tax Act", that is the income defined here. Income is general was defined by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1920), (holding that “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.” 252 U.S. at 207).
To the extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, see, e.g.,
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Schiff
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
2010 audit rate is at about 9%. That CPA ex Special Agent won't last long. Don't get fooled people, there are legal(!) ways to minimize your taxes. What a Hoax!
Americans are finding out about the IRS scam and yet..they still pay..so whatever..those that wont pay are usually.chastized and laughed at. My extended family thinks iam a weirdo for not wanting to pay taxes..and they say "pay your taxes and shut up"
I have see the loss of our great factories ,the ponzi scheme that is the FED!!,The total corruption of our political system,corporations and financial structure .The lie that is free trade.Socialism which is all subsidies Propaganda portrayed as news,controlled by the elite.Our military used as a corporate global police force. If this is not stopped we shall be enslaved by the globalist. I ask for nothing from this system,why does it steal from me!!
Lose nothing! Get your assets OUT of the U.S. People, there are 1000,s of banks around the world. Many out of reach of the douchey Fed. I bank offshore, ALWAYS. Anononymity is not a crime.
In the past I have always paid taxes but since the IRS has seen fit to illeagaly tax me for money I did not earn I will join many others that make unreported income and aviod other taxes as well because the rules are: There are no rules!
although I like all they have to say here, Pub 17 up front tells people what will happen to them if they do not file a return...not a frivolous return. The IRS has many more lawyers at its disposal to outspend any citizen in court. The IRS will not let its employees write the words "tax evader" in its letters to these people...
ask yourself if you are free when they take every dollar you make for 3 or 4 months of the year. And if you dont? They threaten you with your property, family, jail, ill bet theres a sicko in the agency that will even kill you over it. Thats what you call freedom? You can have that shit back.
VOTE RON PAUL! The election is not next November. It is NOW! If we don't win the battle of the primaries it's over. And the primaries are being fought now. Register Republican ASAP! Go to BLUEREPUBLICAN(dot)ORG to know how to register in your state!
Here in Canada it is the law to pay what the CRA says with no appeal. If you appeal you will be fined contempt of gov't. They will find nothing in an Audit but then make up numbers and force you to pay INSTANTLY. If they owe you it can be months before you receive. If you owe you might aswell kill yourself! But even then they will sue your family for what you owe. Garnish your wages and rape you in your sleep. K that last one was made up but still feels like rape!
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere! Thumbs up!
@tuquik4u Ron Paul has been consistent for 30+ years. He's a good, honest man. You won't find him flip flopping on the issues or going against his word. He sticks to the Constitution.
@peanutblondie As I've stated before. I like Ron Paul. I really do. It's just that history has shown that many have said one thing but acted differently. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the same. I just wish he will follow through for the sake of all honest and righteous people. I am quite convinced from seeing his courage in confronting the "den of vipers". Peace. =)
@wayneo11121 wow, if your implying that ron paul wasn't criticizing bush for his foreign policy then your a moron, he's always been outspoken very strongly on bush
@wayneo11121 wow, if your implying that ron paul wasn't criticizing bush for his foreign policy then your a moron, he's always been outspoken very strongly on bush
If you agree with nothing else Ron Paul has to say (and I agree with about 90%), his call for immediate troop withdrawl is reason enough to vote for him! NO OTHER candidate has a plan to get out of the Middle East in less than a decade!We are bankrupt - our young soldiers' lives forever altered ,many disabled &utees -these are real people !They don't even know why we are STILL there - like Vietnam.Why don't people learn from history ?Reg Repub so U can vote him in the primary !
@RetSquid That is not what you said earlier. You said that Ron Pauls support is small and vocal and that is the only reason he is wining Iowa. In other words, the people of Iowa don't mean anything.
Last, you change your argument around to say that every candidate has led Iowa so assume that Ron Paul will lose the lead and with his loyal supporters you can't say why.
@eightieshbanger I would love that but the good doctor will need the help of the Congress.
And Dr. Paul has advocated he does well in building coalitions so in that regards eventually the Congress will agree with Dr. Paul to get rid of the trash that is the IRS.
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
@eightieshbanger Impossible. The only thing Dr. Paul can do when in office is bring home a majority of the troops and even then, who the hell knows if congress wont be able to make sure that doesn't happen....seeing how every congressman is pro war.
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
The Federal Govt is ruling America with the end of a gun barrel of it's own citizens ... they will murder you if you refuse to be arrested and imprison you and treat you worse than the treatment of a child mollester!
The Federal Govt is poison to the average American!
ben5017 2 days ago
In December, 1996, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of O'Gilvie vs. US. In a six to three decision, the court held that punitive damages received as part of a wrongful death award were not excluded from taxable income by IRC. Sec. 104(a)(2), which excludes "any damages received on account of personal injuries."
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
And they said that wages are taxable income, go read my post again.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You do realize that your argument that 'wages are not taxable income' has never won in any court in the U.S...ever?
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid Yes I agree that the court system in the USA is Saturnalian, a.k.a. Satanic selfish stupid myopic slaver rapist torturer, and that's to put it lightly. How about we take everyone that works for the courts and make them pay our taxes you nazi cunt?
endthedrugwarvision 1 week ago
@endthedrugwarvision
AAWWWW.. did the wittle dwuggie get mad at the smart man? Maybe when the wittle drwuggy gets sober he can have an adult conversation?
BTW, Godwin's Law. You lose.
RetSquid 1 week ago
@RetSquid Wow bro. If you say so! Rflmao!
endthedrugwarvision 1 week ago
@endthedrugwarvision
Better luck next time.
RetSquid 1 week ago
Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
I posted this court ruling and you left out some important information.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
And you left out the fact that your 'information' doesn't cover what the court said.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
So, the code as it reads is wrong?
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
No, the Code is correct, you are just wrong about the Code.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid the code is from Justia as written a direct QUOTE
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Unless you can show where Section 61 references your section 1.414 it does not matter WHAT that section says.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid So when internal revenue cannot site where their references come from it does not matter what that section says either???? That information was straight from Justia, so, Justia does not know what they are doing either? Well, it sounds like you are the only one with pertinent information. You have refuted Supreme court rulings that explicitly define income,and still deny the proper definition of income. Hmmmmmmmm
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
No, I have posted SCOTUS rulings that define income and you read only the part that you think agrees with your ideas. Your claims about 'compensation' are wrong, wages and salaries are income and compensation, therefore they are taxable income. Section 1.414 itself says that it does not apply unless another section references it directly.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Here is another one for you from SCOTUS:
"It also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say, for lost wages, ***which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.***"
O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996). (emphasis added)
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
§ 1.414(s)-1 Definition of compensation.-from Justia
(a) Introduction—(1) In general. Section 414(s) and this section provide rules for defining compensation for purposes of applying any provision that specifically refers to section 414(s) or this section. For example, section 414(s) is referred to in many of the nondiscrimination provisions applicable to pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans qualified under section 401(a).
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
§ 1.414 (a) (2) Limitations on scope of Section 414(s) and this section do not apply unless a provision specifically refers to section 414(s) or this section.
Try reading it from h t t p : / / w w w . law . cornell . e d u /uscode/26/
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
Employee: from the Internal revenue code book heading at top of page Wage Withholding "3401 (c) For the purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision there of, of the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation." QUOTE
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Exactly, every employee, including those in the Government, are liable to withholding on their wages, It is not exclusive to Governmental employees.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
Blake v. National Bank, 90 U.S. 23 Wall. 307 307 (1874)
Page 90 U. S. 316-"Whatever degree of liberality, therefore, may be allowable in the construction of statutes relating to the revenue of the government, there is neither reason nor justice in expanding them by a strain upon the ordinary import of their words to give effect to a hypothetical legislative intention."
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
1 of 5 The court ruling you used below Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) This court ruling is about fraud of gross income received as CORPORATE PROFIT that
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Face it the law defines income as 'compensation for services'. Wages and salary are both 'compensation for services'. Now, if you can find one tax case that says wages are NOT income, I'll be sure to check it out.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid The law defines Income as corporate profit in these Supreme court cases, and I will face nothing but the truth! Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U S. 165-Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:-Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
"Respondents' premise that the common usage of "income" as involving gain excludes personal injury awards because of their purely compensatory nature is false, since such awards often compensate for the loss of gain in the form of lost wages, and, to that extent at least, must be considered income."
U.S. Supreme Court
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368 (1987)
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid I don't have to define income, the Supreme court has!
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Correct income is defined as “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
You have complete control over your wages after you get them, so they are 'income'.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
2 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-was under reported. Stating in 61 definition based on 16th Amendment. And we all know now that income has been defined as corporate profit in these Supreme court cases INCOME as used in its constitutional sense.
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
“Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that “income” is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines “gross income”, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages.”
Tornichio v. United States
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"Taxpayers' argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous."
687 F.2d 264: Gerald C. Funk and Judith M. Funk, Appellants, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Appellee
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. - 687 F.2d 264
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
3 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co- the rest of Flint S. 165
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:
Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
Syllabus
Money received as exemplary damages for fraud
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
4 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-or as the punitive two-thirds portion of a treble damage antitrust recovery must be reported by a taxpayer as "gross income" under § 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Pp. 348 U. S. 427-433.
(a) In determining what constitutes "gross income" as defined in § 22(a), effect must be given to the catch-all language "gains or profits and
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”
C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
5 of 5 Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co-income derived from any source whatever."
Footnote 11
"Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes 'all income from whatever source derived.' This definition is based upon the 16th AMENDMENT, and the word 'income' is used in its constitutional sense."
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
1 of 4 Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
247 U.S. 179
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
2 of 4 Syllabus Doyle
The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"Corporation Tax Act " Nuff said.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid EXACTLY!
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
3 of 4 Doyle The act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital, and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
Page 247 U. S. 183
An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
4 of 4 Doyle purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 145, the tax was imposed
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
Doyle Page 247 U. S. 185
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax, conveying, rather, the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence , 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsLawman7
The United States Supreme Court and Congress define income as: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."--Stratton's
Exactly you get paid for your labor and it's income.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid A CORPORATION can have gain or profit on the labor of its employees...two different labors here...where as a persons personal labor in which there is an exchange for wages which has been ruled as a specialized type of property has not had any gain, nor profit made on that persons personal sweat for their labor.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
When you are paid for your labor THAT is your gain...you did not have that money before you sold your labor.
The Supreme Court has defined income as: “undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion,” with no restriction as to “source.” Commissioner v. Glenshaw GlassCo., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
1 OF 2 In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 165
Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
2 OF 2 respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 165, it was held that Congress, in exercising the right to tax a legitimate subject of taxation as a franchise
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
Constitutional definition SALARY. A reward or recompense for services performed.
2. It is usually applied to the reward paid to a public officer for the performance of his official duties.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
1 of 2 RetSquid This Supreme Court ruling decision was one where one who earns a SALARY could be taxed on it. I am going to assume that this person in this court ruling was a public official because the constitutional definition of SALARY belongs to public officials. They are specifically talking about SALARY here, not wage, which in previous court rulings posted here, are a special kind of property.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Yes, a 'salary' or 'compensation for services' is the very first thing defined in the law as 'income'. A 'salary' is defined as :"Fixed compensation for services, paid to a person on a regular basis". It has nothing to do with where it comes from.
“[P]laintiff’s claim that only public officials can be taxed is completely frivolous and without merit.”
McAffee v. United States
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid you want to send me this court ruling so I can review it? I cannot find it in any of my sources.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
Try this case:
“Similarly, Latham’s instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of ‘employee’ does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word ‘includes’ is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others.”
United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7th Cir. 1985).
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
Constitutional definition SALARY. A reward or recompense for services performed.
2. It is usually applied to the reward paid to a public officer for the performance of his official duties.
2 of 2 LUCUS v EARL
The Supreme Court found that the law is clear that the one who earns the SALARY should be taxed on it. Contracts and other arrangements should not allow someone to avoid this income tax.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
I tried your link and it will not let me access the information
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Really? Maybe your 'lawyer boss' blocked so you can get back to work? Maybe you could just Google it like the average 'paralegal' would?
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
My Posting is word for word an exact QUOTE from the INTERNAL REVENUE CODE BOOK!!!
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
No, it is not. Here is the actual quote from Title 26:
"....(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)."
That is the end of that section, your 'gross income' bit is not in the law.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid 1 of 4 This court ruling United States of America v Jack Ballard explicitly states that “INCOME IS NOT DEFINED IN THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE” but gross income is.
United States of America, Appellee, v. Jack Ballard, Appellant., 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976) 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054 (1918), the Court said:
Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of "income," it
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 2 of 4 imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 3 of 4 The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code. Section 61 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61, defines "gross income" to mean all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items; (2) Gross income derived from business; (5) Rents.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 4 of 4 Treasury Regulation § 1.61-3 (1976) explains "Gross income derived from business" and reads in part: 6 Otherwise, the court appropriately defined gross income as
all income from whatever source derived, including, but not limited to the following items: 1 Gross income derived from business 2 Rents 3 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"Compensation for services" = wages, salary, etc.
United States of America v. Jack Ballard supports my claims.
RetSquid 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid United States of America, Appellee, v. Jack Ballard, does not say wages or salary! You are importing your own words here and does not support your claim!
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 the purpose was to define "Gross Income" NOT INCOME
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7 did you read Ballard?
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@RetSquid The definition income has been defined by these court cases and more. The language you have posted is NOT a definition of Income. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U S. 165-Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 58 L.Ed. 285:-Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
And Ballard defines “gross income derived from business”
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You want me to link that also so you can find it?
h t t p : / / w w w DOT law DOT cornell DOT edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26 DOT h t m l
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
1 OF 4 I personally have an internal revenue code book, the heading at the top of the page that the definition of gross income is under is found under Environmental Tax, then it lists the definition of gross income “NOT INCOME!” AND for your additional statement saying that gross income is also known as wages or salary, is A SEVERE MISQUOTE and is SERIOUSLY misleading of how the title actually reads. So, who is putting out
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Sorry, you either have the wrong book or can't read the one you have. I posted EXACTLY where to find the definition of 'gross income'.
“Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income.”
Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986)
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 OF 4 misinformation???????????? A CITIZEN does not have gross income because a citizen generally does not have gain like #3 suggests or has their own business and is a corporation §61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition-Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 OF 4whatever 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
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 OF 4 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.
GROSS INCOME business definition not defacto
The amount by which sales revenue exceeds production costs (cost of sales).
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsLawman7
"GROSS INCOME business definition not defacto
The amount by which sales revenue exceeds production costs (cost of sales)."
Now your are lying, THAT phrase is NOT part of the definition of 'Gross income" in Title 26.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Tornichio v. United States is an unpublished case and holds no basis in law. The business definition of Gross Income is as follows.
GROSS INCOME
The amount by which sales revenue exceeds production costs (cost of sales).
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
The LEGAL definition of Gross income is:
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 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.....[this is also know as WAGES or SALARY]
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
United States v. Koliboski--this case is unpublished, and holds no basis in law. I gave you the constitutional definition of wage. Income has been defined by the Supreme Court. Show me in the Internal Revenue Code where income is defined!! I will tell you right now it is not defined in the internal revenue code.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Since you couldn't find it with a simple Google search (it is the first item returned), here is the full citation:
732 F.2d 1328: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Thomas J. Koliboski, Defendant-appellant
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. - 732 F.2d 1328
Argued March 29, 1984.Decided April 24, 1984
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@MsLawman7
That's funny, a lot of other courts use that case as a reference...maybe you should write them and tell them they are wrong..Oh and here is the case for you to read:
h t t p : / / w w w DOT famguardian DOT o r g /TaxFreedom /Forms /Discovery /Deposition /Evidence/ Q07.081c-83c DOT h t m
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
1 of 2 INCOME. Constitutional definition not DEFACTO definition. The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Show where in the Constitution income is defined other than how I have defined it.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
“the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. [he was wrong]...as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable.”
United States v. Koliboski
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
2 of 2 Remember corporations have gain from their property ( property can be stock etc.) holdings, labor and business. The individuals talked about here are those who have such gain and profit. Citizens do not have gain or profit from their wage. The Supreme Court has further defined income as corporate profit--as I have stated before
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"The United States, however, is correct that “income” is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines “gross income”, from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., WAGES.”
Tornichio v. United States
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
1 of 9 The right to contract by which labor is exchanged for money or other forms of property
Retsquid! It is a right to contract or not. The W-4 is an internal revenue CONTRACT! Your signature is needed to hold you accountable to the rules of that contract. Everything set up concerning the government to hold you accountable for anything, is by
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
Still wrong, the W-4 is only for withholding taxes, not the initial liability for those taxes..
RetSquid 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid Contracts making you liable for whatever is signed for. To be held accountable for all the rules and or laws or regulations stated in that contract whether explicitly written or implied. And on top of it, if you read the W-4 contract you will note that you sign it under penalty of perjury! A legal binding contract.
MsLawman7 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
2 of 9 “CONTRACT!” Where as in this court ruling “COPPAGE” is talking about your employment contract, however the W-4 contract is separate from the employment contract. The right of private property they are talking about here…is your wage, which in reading the other court rulings I have posted are a specialized type of property. If I remember correctly, RIGHTS
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3 of 9 CANNOT BE TAXED! Unless you volunteer, if a person has not been given full disclosure of the contracts they have signed, it is FRAUD! And for an employer to fill out a W-4 form for an employee is FRAUD, it is a FORCED contract! And because the employer has gotten away with it for so many years, they continue to do so because people do not know how to
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
4 of 9 protect themselves against this fraudulent action. How many people would volunteer to pay something that is voluntary? The government needs people like you to put out disinformation. But court rulings do not lie. Regardless of what the court ruling is about if a specific line has ruled on a subject and that subject has not been overruled it stands as fact about that
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5 of 9 subject regardless of what the court matter is about! So I reposted footnote 2, reiterating the W-4 form is an internal revenue form (it is a CONTRACT!). People need to learn how to combat their employer, because at this point the employer has become the policing entity for the IRS.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
6 of 9 Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)
Page 236 U. S. 2
Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each. is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property, chief
among which is that of personal employment by which labor and other services are
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
7 of 9 exchanged for money or other forms of property.
Page 236 U. S. 13 Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property, partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
8 of 9 property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established const. sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money. 956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
1 of 6 To clarify your comment one would need to refer to yet other court rulings, these talking about the 16th amendment which is properly known as the corporation tax act of 1909 having been ratified before the 16th amendment and only applies to corporations. NOT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN unless you have voluntarily signed under penalty of perjury a W-4 giving the government jurisdiction over your wage, which by contract is implied income.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
"16th amendment which is properly known as the corporation tax act of 1909"
Well I must say, THAT is a new argument, how do you figure a Constitutional Amendment changes itself into a coporation tax act?
And again the W-4 does not volunteer you for anything except changing your withholding rate, it has nothing to do with your liability for the income tax itself.
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid Did you read Stratton's? They are talking about the CORPORATION TAX ACT OF 1909 which later became the 16th amendment in this court ruling because it was ratified in 1913 as the 16th amendment.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
2 of 6 14 Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913);
Page 231 U. S. 400
The Corporation Tax Law of 1909, having been enacted before the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, was not in any proper sense an income tax law; but was
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 6 an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity measured by the income, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself.
“Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”
“The Corporation Tax Law deals with corporations engaged in actual business
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
4 of 6 transactions and presumably conducted according to business principles.”
Page 231 U. S. 414
As has been repeatedly remarked, the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This Court had decided in the Pollock case that the income tax law of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
5 of 6 populations, as prescribed by the Constitution. The Act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself. Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U. S. 107; McCoach v. Minehill Co., 228 U. S. 295;
United States v. Whitridge (decided at this term, ante, p. 231 U. S. 144).
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
6 of 6 Page 231 U. S. 416
States,"
and, secondly, because the act specifies those classes of corporations that are to be exempt from its operation, and mining corporations are not among them. Those exempted are labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, fraternal beneficiary societies, orders or associations operating under the lodge system, domestic building and loan associations, corporations and associations organized and operated for religious, charitable, or educat purposes, etc.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
1 of 3 Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918).
247 U.S. 179
Syllabus
The purpose of the Corporation Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112, 38, is not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
2 of 3 The act employs the term "income" in its natural and obvious sense, as importing something distinct from principal or capital, and conveying the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities.
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
3 of 3 Page 247 U. S. 183
An examination of these and other provisions of the act makes it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit by a measure based upon the gainful returns from their business operations and property from the time the act took effect. As was pointed out in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U. S. 107, 220 U. S. 145, the tax was imposed
MsLawman7 3 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
You must have missed the part about "Corporation Tax Act", that is the income defined here. Income is general was defined by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1920), (holding that “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.” 252 U.S. at 207).
RetSquid 3 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
CONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL
VOLUNTARY
Willingly; done with one's consent; negligently. Wolff, §5.
COMPLIANCE
accedence, acceptance, accommodation, accord, accordance, acquiescence, adaptability, adherence, agreeability, agreement, assent, bowing, concession, concord, concurrence, conformability, conformance, conformity, consent, consonance, cooperation, dutifulness, harmony, keeping, obedience, obsequium, observance, pliancy, submission, tractability, tractableness, willingness to comply, yielding
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
@MsLawman7
To the extent that income taxes are said to be "voluntary," however, they are only voluntary in that one files the returns and pays the taxes without the IRS first telling each individual the amount due and then forcing payment of that amount. The payment of income taxes is not optional, however, see, e.g.,
Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Schiff
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
This has been flagged as spam show
956 F.2d 73: United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Emmett Donald Doyle, Defendant-appellant
FOOTNOTE 2
A W-4 form is an Internal Revenue Service form prepared by the taxpayer and submitted to the employer. From the information provided by the taxpayer, the employer determines how much of the taxpayer's income should be withheld for taxes.
MsLawman7 4 weeks ago
How does the IRS have standing against someone in a court of law? Anyone?
chrishufstetler 4 weeks ago
@chrishufstetler
The IRS has standing as the "United States" in court, OR the IRS Comissioner has standing to be sued.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
2010 audit rate is at about 9%. That CPA ex Special Agent won't last long. Don't get fooled people, there are legal(!) ways to minimize your taxes. What a Hoax!
lapa0121 1 month ago
@lapa0121
She was already busted and got out of prison last March after serving time on a four year sentence.
RetSquid 4 weeks ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
Comment removed
dude58677 1 month ago
SEVEN YEARS AGO! And it's basically saying the same thing to this day, that's consistency.
SpraxIAKS 1 month ago 2
Americans are finding out about the IRS scam and yet..they still pay..so whatever..those that wont pay are usually.chastized and laughed at. My extended family thinks iam a weirdo for not wanting to pay taxes..and they say "pay your taxes and shut up"
MotorCityPlayer 1 month ago
@MotorCityPlayer
What "IRS scam"?
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
I have see the loss of our great factories ,the ponzi scheme that is the FED!!,The total corruption of our political system,corporations and financial structure .The lie that is free trade.Socialism which is all subsidies Propaganda portrayed as news,controlled by the elite.Our military used as a corporate global police force. If this is not stopped we shall be enslaved by the globalist. I ask for nothing from this system,why does it steal from me!!
Conanraaka 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lose nothing! Get your assets OUT of the U.S. People, there are 1000,s of banks around the world. Many out of reach of the douchey Fed. I bank offshore, ALWAYS. Anononymity is not a crime.
FreeBlago1 2 months ago
In the past I have always paid taxes but since the IRS has seen fit to illeagaly tax me for money I did not earn I will join many others that make unreported income and aviod other taxes as well because the rules are: There are no rules!
packrat541 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
brianmenendez 2 months ago
P-L-E-A-S-E vote for RON PAUL......he our last and best hope before the communist jews take over this country completely.
IsraeliteMessenger 2 months ago 5
@IsraeliteMessenger
Take your bigotry and leave my country.
RetSquid 2 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
although I like all they have to say here, Pub 17 up front tells people what will happen to them if they do not file a return...not a frivolous return. The IRS has many more lawyers at its disposal to outspend any citizen in court. The IRS will not let its employees write the words "tax evader" in its letters to these people...
taxcat1 2 months ago
ask yourself if you are free when they take every dollar you make for 3 or 4 months of the year. And if you dont? They threaten you with your property, family, jail, ill bet theres a sicko in the agency that will even kill you over it. Thats what you call freedom? You can have that shit back.
grimm61111 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
END THE FED! END IRS!
VOTE RON PAUL! The election is not next November. It is NOW! If we don't win the battle of the primaries it's over. And the primaries are being fought now. Register Republican ASAP! Go to BLUEREPUBLICAN(dot)ORG to know how to register in your state!
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
anyelina1111 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One voice doubled only 25 times is 16,777,216 that's the power of one voice.
I dare you to look into RON PAUL with an opened mind. GOOGLE Ron Paul
DEBO82420 3 months ago
I like this Ron Paul guy. He seems to have some good ideas. Heh.
Ghost9909 3 months ago
Here in Canada it is the law to pay what the CRA says with no appeal. If you appeal you will be fined contempt of gov't. They will find nothing in an Audit but then make up numbers and force you to pay INSTANTLY. If they owe you it can be months before you receive. If you owe you might aswell kill yourself! But even then they will sue your family for what you owe. Garnish your wages and rape you in your sleep. K that last one was made up but still feels like rape!
RavenMad101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
End the IRS tyranny! Vote for Ron Paul in 2012!
peanutblondie 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere! Thumbs up!
akshatkhanna88 3 months ago
Comment removed
watchersx 3 months ago
Comment removed
watchersx 3 months ago
I like R. Paul but I sure hope he doesn't disappoint like the previous guy the people had their hopes on.
tuquik4u 4 months ago
@tuquik4u Ron Paul has been consistent for 30+ years. He's a good, honest man. You won't find him flip flopping on the issues or going against his word. He sticks to the Constitution.
peanutblondie 3 months ago 2
@peanutblondie
He may think he's honest but he is factually wrong about the income tax and the 16th Amendment.
RetSquid 3 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@peanutblondie As I've stated before. I like Ron Paul. I really do. It's just that history has shown that many have said one thing but acted differently. I'm not saying Ron Paul is the same. I just wish he will follow through for the sake of all honest and righteous people. I am quite convinced from seeing his courage in confronting the "den of vipers". Peace. =)
tuquik4u 3 months ago
@tuquik4u I agree with you here's hopeing.
RavenMad101 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** Black THIS Out Moneybomb – October 19th ***
Inspired by the mainstream media's biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut[dot]com
Please spread the word!
NJensenI 4 months ago
this is awesome, thank you for posting. If you haven't seen Aaron Russo's FREEDOM TO FASCISM then do urself a favor and go watch it asap.
PS
vote Ron Paul 2012 and lets take our country back
HollywoodSheen 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen - if you're stupid enough to believe aaron russo's bs, you deserve what you get
google: "Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in America"
and read how 'freedom to fascism' is just political propaganda and misinformation
no wonder ron paul gets called a nut case when he supports these lunatics
sfiorare 4 months ago
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Vote for Ron Paul 2012.
doogleandalix 4 months ago
where was ron paul when george bush was spending money on wars no one could afford
wayneo11121 4 months ago
@wayneo11121 wow, if your implying that ron paul wasn't criticizing bush for his foreign policy then your a moron, he's always been outspoken very strongly on bush
somuch4freedom 4 months ago
@wayneo11121 wow, if your implying that ron paul wasn't criticizing bush for his foreign policy then your a moron, he's always been outspoken very strongly on bush
somuch4freedom 4 months ago
@wayneo11121
Did you not watch the fucking video? Especially around 3:30 ?
megadethmonk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you agree with nothing else Ron Paul has to say (and I agree with about 90%), his call for immediate troop withdrawl is reason enough to vote for him! NO OTHER candidate has a plan to get out of the Middle East in less than a decade!We are bankrupt - our young soldiers' lives forever altered ,many disabled &utees -these are real people !They don't even know why we are STILL there - like Vietnam.Why don't people learn from history ?Reg Repub so U can vote him in the primary !
doogleandalix 4 months ago
Audit the federal reserve cartel so the American people see they are crooks and demand to put them in jail!!!!!!!!
raiden241 5 months ago 20
@raiden241 the audit already happened if you didn't know. they got caught shipping 16 trillion to foreign banks i believe ..with zero justice..
92reshaun 4 months ago
I hope Ron Paul gets elected and abolishes the IRS for good.
eightieshbanger 5 months ago 33
@eightieshbanger
You do know that, even IF he was elected, he would not have the power to do that, right?
RetSquid 5 months ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
@RetSquid
Well, Ron Paul is leading Iowa!
dude58677 1 month ago
@dude58677
So what? His followers are few but vocal.
RetSquid 1 month ago
@RetSquid
Hey, don't be a sore loser!
dude58677 1 month ago
@dude58677
What have I lost?
RetSquid 1 month ago
Comment removed
dude58677 1 month ago
Comment removed
dude58677 1 month ago
@RetSquid
LOL, now your pretending to be stupid! In your face!
dude58677 1 month ago
@dude58677
Well, you claim I lost something, I'm not missing anything, so what did I lose? Every nominee has lead in Iowa at sometime in the last year or so.
RetSquid 1 month ago
Comment removed
dude58677 1 month ago
Comment removed
dude58677 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid That is not what you said earlier. You said that Ron Pauls support is small and vocal and that is the only reason he is wining Iowa. In other words, the people of Iowa don't mean anything.
Last, you change your argument around to say that every candidate has led Iowa so assume that Ron Paul will lose the lead and with his loyal supporters you can't say why.
LOL, you're pathetic!
dude58677 1 month ago
@eightieshbanger I would love that but the good doctor will need the help of the Congress.
And Dr. Paul has advocated he does well in building coalitions so in that regards eventually the Congress will agree with Dr. Paul to get rid of the trash that is the IRS.
kantoriX1 5 months ago
@kantoriX1 correction! He needs the support of the people. the congress and government is defunct.
steadyone1957 5 months ago
@eightieshbanger Amen!
steadyone1957 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 2 months ago
@eightieshbanger Impossible. The only thing Dr. Paul can do when in office is bring home a majority of the troops and even then, who the hell knows if congress wont be able to make sure that doesn't happen....seeing how every congressman is pro war.
theUSER101 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." ~ Declaration of Independence
OooHesGood 5 months ago