>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
What a great video!! They intentionally wrote the 1040 or income tax laws vague --a devious way to rob americans. The inexplicit words are there in the 1040 etc. which tells the tax filer "oh, I have fill out this line...federal income tax..." simply because it's there on the form.
It was easier for the Government to just coerce people into compliance, but now we are a people with enough time on our hands to get hung up on the interpretations of words.
It is now illegal to create, abolish or enforce laws!
Abolishing the IRS will take some time but it will happen within the next 10 years you will see. People spread the word to your immediate family and friends. Also do your homework. Between the former agents and we the people we will put a stop to the IRS. This is a promise!!
Great Vid & Great Information. FREE SHERRY PEEL JACKSON & THE REST OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS! Karma is a bitoich for those 13 or more families over looking this paper machine.
Great Vid & Great Information. FREE SHERRY PEEL JACKSON & THE REST OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS! Karma is a bitoich for those 13 or families over looking this paper machine.
The payments referred to in paragraph (4) are payments which would be unlawful under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 if the payor were a United States person. For purposes of paragraph (5), the income described therein shall be reduced, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, so as to take into account deductions (including taxes) properly allocable to such income.
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART III > Subpart F >
§ 952. Subpart F income defined
(4) the sum of the amounts of any illegal bribes, kickbacks, or other payments (within the meaning of section 162 (c)) paid by or on behalf of the corporation during the taxable year of the corporation directly or indirectly to an official, employee, or agent in fact of a government, and
“plaintiff...argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >
§ 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >
§ 61. Gross income defined
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:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…
“...everything that comes in—are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.”
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table...
The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage. The IRS operates on the publics perception that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
@Tealy855 A privilege isn't required. If you really think it is, explain how income from illegal activities is taxable, as the Supreme Court has held on numerous ocasions.
@Tealy855 You're changing the subject. You claimed that "The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage [sic]". OK, what's the privilege involved in embezzlement, blackmail, and other illegal activities the income from which is taxable?
@Tealy855 You should also note the following: "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right." Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
“All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
“We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. because working and making a living is a natural or enalible right not a mear privlage. Such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly struck down by the Supream Court .
@Tealy855 The courts don't misapply the Code, but uninformed tax protesters do. By the way, you never answered my question about why illegally-obtained income is taxable if (as you say) the income tax only applies to a privilege.
"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is ***EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED***, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine." Brushaber v. UPRR Company
Glenshaw Glass co. where demands for exemplary damages for fraud and "treble damages" for injury to its business by reason of Hartford's violation of the"federal" antitrust laws.
Another Corporation example involving the federal system.Still proving the point Retsquid.
"Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.....We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income."
COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
Sorry Squid your comments are lacking intelligence and have been responded to over and over. You do not understand the way law in these countries, United States of America, work. If you would like to continue explain please how laws are created, where they originate from and how they are guaranteed legal. Of course I am meaning in this case federal law.
@xtaxplayer I think that your comment is what every judge, 99.99% of the lawyers, 98% of the People say about the crap you spout about your wages not being taxable.
It is just about Independence Day, and I wish all my brothers and sisters that serve and served in the defense of our Country as well as all my fellow Americans a knowledgeable Independence Day! Take the time during this weekend to read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with your family. think about what they mean and stand for. Our Freedom is not what we do as a community, but what we of our own freewill do as individuals in that community. Long may FREEDOM RING ! !
Except for those who continually deny that our Country's law mean what they say and try and get others to break the law with their lies. (Liars like you and inmate #15406-039).
@RetSquid Remuneration TITLE 45 > CHAPTER 11 > § 351
§ 351. Definitions (j) The term “remuneration” means pay for services for hire, including pay for time lost, and tips, but pay for time lost shall be deemed earned on the day on which such time is lost. The term “remuneration” includes also earned income other than for services for hire if the accrual thereof in whole or in part is ascertainable with respect to a particular day or particular days.
@RetSquid The term “remuneration” DOES NOT include any money payments received pursuant to any nongovernmental plan for unemployment insurance, maternity insurance, or sickness insurance.And learn how to spell
@RetSquid You explain the law means what it says but you do not agree that Article 1 sec 8 is real or that taxing ones direct labor is not covered under the statutes of law concerning fed income tax. Funny how the IRS knows this and try's to hide it from the average American but excepts the information from knowledgeable Americans like myself. Seems like one of us is right and one of us is incorrect. Wonder who? The correct one in the eye's of the IRS is me!!
You are still confused. Taxing your labor directly is covered under the statutes. It plainly says that 'compensation for services'. The IRS thinks you are NUTS.
@RetSquid Squid tell me where is the IRS that thinks I'm NUTS? Can you point them out to me. They haven't shown themselves to me. I look forward to your shining the line on them for me.
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
@RetSquid Eisner vs. Macomber 252 US 189 "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Stndrd Dict.; Web Inter. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corp Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Indep v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co, 247 U.S. 179, 185)
@RetSquid (CONT) "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185)
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
@RetSquid "You are a GOOF" and that is a direct quote
-More on law below-
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)]
This is not a federal decision, but a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court. It is also not a tax decision, but a decision interpreting Virginia’s nonprofit corporation law.
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]
“...profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal....”
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739.
The decision related to the issue of whether a landlord realized income when a tenant makes improvements to the leased property, and had nothing to do with wages or other compensation for labor.
“Some people {LIKE YOU} believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
@RetSquid -even more on the law- "The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it.
@RetSquid (CONT)- Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services.
@RetSquid - CONT 2- It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."
- [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)]
I know you and your ilk will divide the responses up in order to cloud them but they are still there . . .
@xtaxplayer You have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. What you have quoted is NOT from the Supreme Court's opinion, but rather from the brief of the losing party. The Court rejected Mr. Earl's argument and held that 100% of his salary was taxable to him. It's not good form to use phony quotes, son.
@xtaxplayer Labor isn't taxed. You can labor all day for free and not owe a cent in tax. But if you receive income, it's taxable. Incidentally, the income tax was held to be constitutional decades before the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has stated that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes under Art. I, Sec. 8/
@prof5string Correct Labor isn't taxed, only profit can be taxed, without profit there is no way to tax. This is why fed income tax is legal on Stock dividends, investments that earn money "income", or selling product for profit. This blog is about the value you exchange through personal labor which cannot be "profit" and is not federally viable income. This has been proven and it is still unconstitutional to tax. Also you are correct about the "income" tax, properly read it was legal from 1791.
@xtaxplayer No court in the history of the country has ever held that compensation for labor isn't income and can't be constitutionally taxed by Congress. Every court that has ever dealt with the issue has consistently held that it is income and can be taxed, period.
@prof5string You are wrong the courts have always held that with out profit there is no income. do a search read the cases. Every case you have been shown to cite shows profit. But ones personal exchange of labor for value has always been and equal exchange. An equal exchange is by definition without profit.
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
@xtaxplayer Lucas v. Earl, in which 100% of Mr. Earl's wages were held to be taxable to him, never discussed whether he made a profit. In fact, no case has ever analyzed wages-as-income in terms of profit. In any event, you misunderstand how profit is calculated. It's not the difference between value realized and value given up, but the difference between value received and the COST of what was given up. You paid nothing for your labor, so all of what you receive is income. (More to follow)
@xtaxplayer Taxable income doesn't have to mean a profit was realized -- a business can have an accounting loss but still have taxable income if some of its expenses aren't deductible. The same is true for individual workers, since Section 262 of the Code makes their personal living expenses nondeductible. You can't cite a single case where wages were held not to be subject to the federal income tax, and you can't explain away any of the cases that held that they are. That's ignoring the law.
@RetSquid To not understand the law is to be a slave to it. To understand the laws of the United States of America is to be free. I understand the law of the federal government, the country I reside in, as well as several other countries that make up this great union. sadly the blind will never see, and you are blind to the rules that govern this great union! Long live the United States... Long live the U.S. Constitution
To let all know, Pete decided to go to jail instead of being force to follow unlawful rules while his appeal his being moved forward. to inform all: In most appeal's any charges brought against you, except in murder or extreme violence, there is a "stay of execution", this is the term used to explain that the penalties are held until after the appeal is decided upon. You will see that Pete is being unlawfully found guilty in this matter. The TRUTH will be seen if it is spoken.
Really? Who is he going to appeal to? The Supreme Court denied an appeal from him before and they are not going to hear a case like this with his idiotic claims that have been settled law for decades.
@RetSquid Before? So what you are saying is that if you attempt to bring a case to the Supreme Court for say aborting a Baby and they denied it. You cannot bring a case to the Supreme Court for aborting another baby? Yes I used an extreme example to show your misjudgment of the appeals process. An appeal for a black dog bite in one case does not mean you cannot bring an appeal in a white dog bite case. Each case would be different. But I am sure you know that
His case would not be different, it's the same stupid ideas that every court has denied before. You can TRY to bring another case with the same claims and it will 99.9% of the time be denied again. His has a snowball's chance in hell of getting his case before the Court.
@RetSquid Oh I see you know the Judge the court and the evidence is the same exact as the last time you speak of? I doubt that, No I know that is not correct ! RetSquid, I know you believe strongly in your knowledge of the world and everything in it, but you are not as right as your ego leads you to be. I am always willing to learn and What xtax knows is, it isn't how strongly you say it. Its how accurate your knowledge is. Your knowledge is lacking in how Statutes, Laws, and regulations work.
My knowlege is VERY accurate, your's is lacking any semblance of truth. SCOTUS has not had an entire turnover so, yes we know the judges. The evidence in this case is the same as the last one. There is no such thing as 'Federal income" for income tax and no 'federal zones".
“the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable 'wages' under the Internal Revenue Code.” US v. Hendrickson
All right, so it appears that the tax protest movement is now splitting hairs over the definition of the words "liable" and "income." It is pretty clear that the word 'income' refers to either monetary wages or monetary profit. [Yeah, right, now define "monetary," aye?] and 'liability' is conferred upon those with such income. Agreed, the gov't should define it more clearly, but when and if they do will that satisfy the tax protest movement? I don't think so.
@OPHIOHANNAH Really smart one and where are those definitions? Tell me this what is the meaning of "citizens of the United States" in the Civil Rights act of 1866?
Hint it is the same as in the 14th Amendment. What is the Definition of "Aliens" in the "Enforcement Act". About the government they have defined income and liability as clearly as possible and neither fit your discription.
@asicit2b No it is to show definitions and the government using different meanings for natural words. Be careful with straw man, vessel, maritime mistakes, they are not true.
@asicit2b This is one of the keys to this discussion:
Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)
Stated: "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
“One does not ‘derive’ income by rendering services and charging for them.” Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916).
The quotation is deceptive, because it omits a critical sentence appearing earlier in the same paragraph:
“But no instructions of the Treasury Department can enlarge the scope of this statute so as to impose the income tax upon unpaid charges for services rendered and which, for aught any one can tell, may never be paid.”
WOW LOL,,,,,there right about the law on income tax,,,but the minute i decide not to pay Federal Income Tax the IRS WILL SEIZE MY CAR,HOME,FURNITURE ,COMPUTER ETC...THE IRS IS THE SAME MOBS IN THE 1930'S THAT GOES AROUND COLLECTING TAXES FROM PEOPLE AND IF U STILL DONT PAY AFTER THEY TAKE UR BELONGINGS THEY WILL KILL YOU...THATS THE HONEST TRUTH.
@RetSquid Nope we know the truth. You really should really read the Constitutions and the laws as they can legally be meant. To change the meaning changes the intent and in this case makes them un-Constitutional.
@RetSquid i guess you have all the answers then the former IRS agents right that Includes the famous Cherry williams that use to work for IRS...wow your funny
Must not be too famous, nothing comes up in a Google search. Those 'former agents' are wrong and/or scam artists. I don't have all the answers but the ones I do have are more accurate then theirs.
@hebrewmatrix be careful with Squid, he has a grasp on the code but not the law and full meanings or jurisdictional issues. Most uneducated Americans fall into the same mistakes. Your personal employment is not liable until you make it so, "Voluntary".
LOL!! Your income from "personal employment" is the object of income tax, not a side effect. The payment of that tax is also not 'voluntary'. You fail to grasp the simplest of meanings in the law, even when given proof in the law and case law.
@RetSquid You are extremely wrong. What did the Pollock case decide on this issue. You should know if you read it. This case proved the meaning of personal income. In the Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller you see the cases and the framers of the Constitutions beliefs and meanings. Personal income would be a DIRECT tax and therefore un-Constitutional. This is why they found for Pollock and against the government on personal income. You lose again.
@RetSquid Justice White disagrees with his opinion in the Brushaber case: “As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived'.. ..must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, THEREFORE NO TAX COMES UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the (16th) not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the.. ..statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, CAUSING THE STATUTE AGAIN TO BE VOID in the absence of apportionment.”
"And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."..."But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another"...
@RetSquid How about we go one sentence back from ours: We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. Add here "...and the far-reaching effect..." You should finish above not enough room here
"And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption"
You keep quoting the LOSING argument, you must be getting really desperate to post blatant lies/misquotes like this.
"the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned,"
@RetSquid Do you know what the assumption is that's erroneous? It is the fact that and Amendment can directly reverse an Article or Section without repealing it. To further explain: The Articles and the Bill of Rights limit the fed's rights to the territories "it" owns. The Amendments further clarify the fed's abilities in "it's" power to effect. Therefore "it" can directly tax the labor of the people living or working in the fed territories, but not those out side of "its" jurisdiction. Got it.
WRONG!! There is only ONE amendment that specifically repeals anything, that means your idea is 'frivolous'. The Federal Government's power is not limmited to territories.
"...all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Do you ACTUALY think that "The United States" really only means 'territories'??
@xtaxplayer “The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant...."
..."These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States..."
"...Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”
Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court
When will you admit that NO court agrees with you? Can you post one case that does?
@RetSquid Pollock wasn't overturned there was a rewriting of the law: "The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States". This was the change in the law, would you call a profit on stock options in a company the same as money paid for your time and knowledge? The Stock was say $20 and went up to $30 you say that $10 is the same as the $10 paid to dig a hole? Honestly?
If you sell the stock after the price went up and gains $10, then YES, it is income which is the same as being paid $10 to dig a hole, EXACTLY as the Supreme Court said.
"the authority conferred upon Congress...is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned...there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes...were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted..."
"Plenary power" is a power...with no review of, or limitations upon, the exercise of the power.
@RetSquid You haven't a grasp of the Constitution and the laws that government the fed if you actually believe this. I am beginning to see that it is not your true belief but that you are lonely and like to play devils advocate. Tell me if I'm not on the money here.
@RetSquid answer this: In order for there to be income it must be DERIVED from, that is SEPARABLE from, that portion of gross receipts that represents the investment or property given in exchange for those gross receipts. If it cannot be separated, distinguished, from the capital and spent or used without injuring the capital portion, then THERE IS NO INCOME. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920)
“For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ‘income,’ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment....”
"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"
"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "
@xtaxplayer The Supreme Court limited this language in Eisner to the issue of stock dividends in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 (1940) , in which it also said, "It is not necessary to recognition of taxable gain that he [the taxpayer] should be able to sever the improvement begetting the gain from his original capital."
@RetSquid And this What comes in is NOT “income”, but “gross receipts”, and in order to determine if there is any income in what comes in we must first deduct from those gross receipts the value or cost of whatever was given in exchange for it because income is only the gain or profit from the conversion of capital. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)
“One’s gain, ergo his ‘income,’ from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefore without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.”
@RetSquid How do those two U.S.S.C. cases directly involving the 16th amendment answer the statement you have touted "Your personal income is the basis of the income tax law". How can it be if as shown you can't derive cost of value exchanged from income received? We will wait . . .
You still need to provide proof that YOUR idea that you can somehow deduct some personal costs is part of the law....that deduction is already covered in law by...guess what? A personal deduction.
@hebrewmatrix Its to bad you feel that way. I stood up quite a few years ago, and I admit it was hard at first but it is smooth sailing now. I get to keep more then $14,000.00 I was mistakenly giving away. But the truth as always is it is your decision to keep or give away your money.
Once again, I bring up the word "includes". I still don't think you have looked it up yet in the IRC. Do that. Then google the same word. I will bet you a million bucks that you will get two VERY different definitions of that simple yet important word.
The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
@RetSquid right, but "includes" is defined. Btw, I am in the "know" with all of this anti-income tax stuff.
As I come across the arguments, I will post them here. You can then refute them (assuming they are fallible). This seems like the most logical way to settle this entire debate. I think everyone wants the truth and it bothers me that intelligent minds are on both sides of the fence.
If you can refute each of my arguments that I bring up over time, then I will call this a closed case.
Sounds like fun, as long as you acknowlege that we will be using definitions as provided in the law and case law, not conspiracy theory site definitions.
@RetSquid Of course. All definitions, terminology, and rulings must come from institutions that cooperate with the Constitution. Most of the "anti-income tax" arguments mention nothing about Supreme Court rulings. So that will be the first place I look, regarding counter arguments.
Theres a few more arguments brewing. I will post them after I have researched them further.
"Arguing with tax protesters is like playing whack-a-mole. As soon as you have slammed down one crazy argument, another one pops its head up. As you are reading this, some crank with a defective grasp of law, history, economics, and the English language is developing a new reason why the income tax does not apply to him. Also most tax protesters are men, which suggests that feminists might be right and women really are smarter than men."
As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of includes does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of employee, so employee includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.
@RetSquid You are wrong. The Supreme court explains that the definition of a word in law must be defined and if it is defined in one way will not include anything outside that meaning. Now the regulations of title 26 can say whatever they want but the law is the law. Remember, Prima Facie is only law if it is agreed upon by both parties. If not you must go by the law and the law is as I previously explained. Tchay, make sure you read for yourself. These errors are easy for the uninformed to make
god i am sick of that song.it's in every conspirist video
nh2600 4 weeks ago
nice talk...
darcyfason 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
>>>> WARNING: Don't waste your time debating with --------> "RetSquid."
He's either a paid dis-info agent of the IRS and/or the Federal Reserve, or he's simply a jack-off cheerleader for slavery incorporated.
Scroll through the old comments from this video and MANY others like it, and you'll see he's been trolling them for up to 4 YEARS. He trolls tax protest videos only. Strange, don't you think?
BRYAN351 1 month ago
What a great video!! They intentionally wrote the 1040 or income tax laws vague --a devious way to rob americans. The inexplicit words are there in the 1040 etc. which tells the tax filer "oh, I have fill out this line...federal income tax..." simply because it's there on the form.
kiheitek100 1 month ago
@kiheitek100
Title 26, the IRC gives very specific orders on who has to file out what.
RetSquid 1 month ago in playlist Stupid tax arguments
It was easier for the Government to just coerce people into compliance, but now we are a people with enough time on our hands to get hung up on the interpretations of words.
It is now illegal to create, abolish or enforce laws!
bradchesney11 8 months ago
Abolishing the IRS will take some time but it will happen within the next 10 years you will see. People spread the word to your immediate family and friends. Also do your homework. Between the former agents and we the people we will put a stop to the IRS. This is a promise!!
Journeyride 1 year ago 2
Great Vid & Great Information. FREE SHERRY PEEL JACKSON & THE REST OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS! Karma is a bitoich for those 13 or more families over looking this paper machine.
DjMenniz 1 year ago
@DjMenniz
Jackson is just a plain old fraud.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Great Vid & Great Information. FREE SHERRY PEEL JACKSON & THE REST OF THE POLITICAL PRISONERS! Karma is a bitoich for those 13 or families over looking this paper machine.
DjMenniz 1 year ago
Great Vid & Great Information.
DjMenniz 1 year ago
this music is getting old
innHD 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RetSquid I would love for you to prove me wrong? Can you prove it? I goes to England
beckderm 1 year ago
** 1040 Form ** is for Tribute paid for Britain
(IRS Publicatio 6209)
beckderm 1 year ago
@beckderm
Obvilously you have never tried to look this up. It's a lie.
RetSquid 1 year ago
"NO TAXATION WITHOUT CLARIFICATION"
Tealy855 1 year ago
The payments referred to in paragraph (4) are payments which would be unlawful under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 if the payor were a United States person. For purposes of paragraph (5), the income described therein shall be reduced, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, so as to take into account deductions (including taxes) properly allocable to such income.
asicit2b 1 year ago
(5) the income of such corporation derived from any foreign country during any period during which section 901 (j) applies to such foreign country.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b Yes your Right - Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART II > Subpart A > § 871
§ 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Except as provided in subsection (h), there is hereby imposed for each
taxable year a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources
within the United States by a nonresident alien individual as—
This is Definitive
The above is definative
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 Look up Tax Payer in the fifty titles and see what comes up.
asicit2b 1 year ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter N > PART III > Subpart F >
§ 952. Subpart F income defined
(4) the sum of the amounts of any illegal bribes, kickbacks, or other payments (within the meaning of section 162 (c)) paid by or on behalf of the corporation during the taxable year of the corporation directly or indirectly to an official, employee, or agent in fact of a government, and
asicit2b 1 year ago
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART VI > § 162
§ 162. Trade or business expenses
(c) Illegal bribes, kickbacks, and other payments
(1) Illegal payments to government officials or employees
asicit2b 1 year ago
Title 26 Section 1. The "individual" is listed under "NORMAL" taxes and Surtaxes.
Learn what "NORMAL" taxes mean. Prof5string will not answer pointed questions.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b I do not see anything in that section that would make
the average American worker LIABLE.
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 You are correct, It is in response to Retsquid and Prof5string. The "Individual" is listed under
"NORMAL" taxes and surtaxes. You will not find personal income anywhere in the fifty
titles.
asicit2b 1 year ago
“plaintiff...argues that no provision of the IRC establishes an income tax ‘liability.’ The plain language of the IRC, however, belies this assertion, stating in section 1 that a tax is ‘hereby IMPOSED on the taxable income of every individual’ (emphasis added). Although plaintiff attempts to distinguish between ‘imposing’ a tax and creating a ‘liability’ for a tax, there is no difference. Every individual has an affirmative duty to pay taxes.”
Porcaro v. United States
RetSquid 1 year ago
Lets get this said load and clear right at the outset: IIF YOU
HAVE TAXABLE INCOME YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE
INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code-says:
" There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -....[ a tax of varying percentages ]" Pretty straightforward.of course,
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >
§ 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Ya Right- TAXABLE INCOME - if you have TAXABLE INCOME its TAXABLE for sure because its downright Taxable if it is indeed
TAXABLE - and you are liable for sure if its TAXABLE if you find out
whats TAXABLE then you are LIABLE for sure- YUP
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
Stop babbling, here is how taxable income is defined:
Taxable income= Gross income - deductions
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I >
§ 61. Gross income defined
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:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items…
RetSquid 1 year ago
it does raise the question of exactly what is is taxable "income".
We must reject......the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts -- everything that comes in---are income...".
Court, Southern Pacific V. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)
,
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
Who has ever said that "EVERYTHING that comes in is income"?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855
What the court actually said was:
“...everything that comes in—are income within the proper definition of the term ‘gross income,’ and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.”
247 U.S. at 335
RetSquid 1 year ago
The INCOME TAX CODE ITSELF IS 100 PERCENT CONSTITUTIONAL and Upheld by the SUPREAM COURT- However the code only makes a small percentage of the
population liable to pay a tax on income - The IRS is authorized to collect taxes
on about 3 % of the population but is collecting from from 80 % . You need to read the code-
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses...Heads of households...Unmarried individuals...Married individuals filing separate returns....
a tax determined in accordance with the following table...
RetSquid 1 year ago
The INCOME TAX CODE ITSELF IS 100 PERCENT CONSTITUTIONAL and Upheld by the SUPREAM COURT- However the code only makes a small percentage of the
population liable to pay a tax on income tax- The IRS is authorized to collect taxes
on about 3 % of the population but is collecting from from 80 % . You need to read the code-
Tealy855 1 year ago
The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage. The IRS operates on the publics perception that they owe taxes and are required to file in addition to fear tactics.
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 A privilege isn't required. If you really think it is, explain how income from illegal activities is taxable, as the Supreme Court has held on numerous ocasions.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Because its not a RIGHT like earning a living. You
have no RIGHT to income from illegal activities .
Show me what makes that plumber liable-
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 You're changing the subject. You claimed that "The income tax is a excise tax on a privlage [sic]". OK, what's the privilege involved in embezzlement, blackmail, and other illegal activities the income from which is taxable?
prof5string 1 year ago
@Tealy855 You should also note the following: "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right." Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
prof5string 1 year ago
@Tealy855
I post yet again for possible penetration:
TITLE 26 SECTION 1.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855 Check the posting.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@Tealy855
“All individuals, freeborn and non freeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government.
United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991)
RetSquid 1 year ago
NON-TAXPAYER
Those made liable within the several states are:
1. non resident alliens with domestic income
2. foreign corporations with domestic income
3.. withholding agents for the above
4. U.S Persons holding the income of the above.
Tealy855 1 year ago
“We hardly need comment on the patent absurdity and frivolity of such a proposition. For over 75 years, the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized the Sixteenth Amendment’s authorization of a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens residing in the United States and thus the validity of the federal income tax laws as applied to such citizens.”
In re Becraft
RetSquid 1 year ago
@Tealy855
"As a United States citizen, plaintiff is required to pay federal income tax.”
Betz v. United States
RetSquid 1 year ago
NON-TAXPAYER
The power to tax the domestic earnings of the vast majority of American citizens was never granted to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. because working and making a living is a natural or enalible right not a mear privlage. Such a broad direct tax could never pass constitional muster and would most certainly struck down by the Supream Court .
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 Sorry to burst your balloon, but the Supreme Court has upheld it, beginning in 1881.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Right -The itax code is %100 constitutional., it had
to be. Im referring to how it is being misapplied as all encompassing
by the IRS and lower courts as well as the publics mispercetion.
Tealy855 1 year ago
@Tealy855 The courts don't misapply the Code, but uninformed tax protesters do. By the way, you never answered my question about why illegally-obtained income is taxable if (as you say) the income tax only applies to a privilege.
prof5string 1 year ago
@Tealy855
"That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is ***EXHAUSTIVE AND EMBRACES EVERY CONCEIVABLE POWER OF TAXATION HAS NEVER BEEN QUESTIONED***, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine." Brushaber v. UPRR Company
RetSquid 1 year ago
@ RETSQUID...ARE U SAYING RON PAUL IS WRONG?
ISEEREDD 1 year ago
@ISEEREDD
I don't know what does he say? And why are you YELLING?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid a disinformation specialist
Tealy855 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tealy855
If you can't handle the truth, too bad.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Still a Corp. examlpe involving the Federal system, So.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
It still applies to everyone.
RetSquid 1 year ago
Glenshaw Glass co. where demands for exemplary damages for fraud and "treble damages" for injury to its business by reason of Hartford's violation of the"federal" antitrust laws.
Another Corporation example involving the federal system.Still proving the point Retsquid.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
"Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion.....We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income."
COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
RetSquid 1 year ago
Sorry Squid your comments are lacking intelligence and have been responded to over and over. You do not understand the way law in these countries, United States of America, work. If you would like to continue explain please how laws are created, where they originate from and how they are guaranteed legal. Of course I am meaning in this case federal law.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer I think that your comment is what every judge, 99.99% of the lawyers, 98% of the People say about the crap you spout about your wages not being taxable.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
These 'countries"? Sorry we are only talking about one country's laws.
How do laws come into being? watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
RetSquid 1 year ago
It is just about Independence Day, and I wish all my brothers and sisters that serve and served in the defense of our Country as well as all my fellow Americans a knowledgeable Independence Day! Take the time during this weekend to read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with your family. think about what they mean and stand for. Our Freedom is not what we do as a community, but what we of our own freewill do as individuals in that community. Long may FREEDOM RING ! !
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
"Long may FREEDOM RING ! ! "
Except for those who continually deny that our Country's law mean what they say and try and get others to break the law with their lies. (Liars like you and inmate #15406-039).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Remuneration TITLE 45 > CHAPTER 11 > § 351
§ 351. Definitions (j) The term “remuneration” means pay for services for hire, including pay for time lost, and tips, but pay for time lost shall be deemed earned on the day on which such time is lost. The term “remuneration” includes also earned income other than for services for hire if the accrual thereof in whole or in part is ascertainable with respect to a particular day or particular days.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@RetSquid The term “remuneration” DOES NOT include any money payments received pursuant to any nongovernmental plan for unemployment insurance, maternity insurance, or sickness insurance.And learn how to spell
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Thank you for yet ANOTHER meaningless post. You are still proving you owe taxes on what your neighbor paid you for mowing his lawn, liar.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid All that is proved here is REMUNERATION. Keep the facts straight.
You are STILL proving to be ridiculous. Who was sitting in as "Retsquid" the
other day ? Did they get in trouble ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
And WHY do we care about Title 45 definitions? What "trouble"?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You explain the law means what it says but you do not agree that Article 1 sec 8 is real or that taxing ones direct labor is not covered under the statutes of law concerning fed income tax. Funny how the IRS knows this and try's to hide it from the average American but excepts the information from knowledgeable Americans like myself. Seems like one of us is right and one of us is incorrect. Wonder who? The correct one in the eye's of the IRS is me!!
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
You are still confused. Taxing your labor directly is covered under the statutes. It plainly says that 'compensation for services'. The IRS thinks you are NUTS.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Squid tell me where is the IRS that thinks I'm NUTS? Can you point them out to me. They haven't shown themselves to me. I look forward to your shining the line on them for me.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Eisner vs. Macomber 252 US 189 "After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Stndrd Dict.; Web Inter. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corp Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Indep v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co, 247 U.S. 179, 185)
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@RetSquid (CONT) "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185)
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Looks like you have finally realized we are right.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtaxplayer
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtaxplayer
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtaxplayer
How about everyone who talks like you, thinks like you, and makes claims like you are "nuts"? It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof.
“..Some people believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things...‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof!!
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid "You are a GOOF" and that is a direct quote
-More on law below-
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)]
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer State court case dealing with state tax statutes have no bearing on federal income tax law.
prof5string 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
This is not a federal decision, but a decision of the Virginia Supreme Court. It is also not a tax decision, but a decision interpreting Virginia’s nonprofit corporation law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xtaxplayer
It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof!!
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It wasn't meant as a direct quote, goof!!
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid More on the LAW:
"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
“...profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal....”
Stapler v. United States, 21 F.Supp 737 at 739.
The decision related to the issue of whether a landlord realized income when a tenant makes improvements to the leased property, and had nothing to do with wages or other compensation for labor.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“Some people {LIKE YOU} believe with great fervor PREPOSTEROUS things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest. ‘Tax protesters’ have convinced themselves that wages are not income, that only gold is money, that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional, and so on. These beliefs all lead--so tax protesters think--to the elimination of their obligation to pay taxes.” Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).
i.e. You are "NUTS".
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid -even more on the law- "The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@RetSquid (CONT)- Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@RetSquid - CONT 2- It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."
- [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)]
I know you and your ilk will divide the responses up in order to cloud them but they are still there . . .
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer You have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. What you have quoted is NOT from the Supreme Court's opinion, but rather from the brief of the losing party. The Court rejected Mr. Earl's argument and held that 100% of his salary was taxable to him. It's not good form to use phony quotes, son.
prof5string 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Your arguments have degraded to the level of straw under the manure in a barn.
Once again tax protestor arguments have proven ridiculous.
RetSquid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RetSquid
Also, why did you block me from commenting on your page after you leave a comment on mine?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Labor isn't taxed. You can labor all day for free and not owe a cent in tax. But if you receive income, it's taxable. Incidentally, the income tax was held to be constitutional decades before the 16th Amendment, and the Supreme Court has stated that Congress has always had the power to tax incomes under Art. I, Sec. 8/
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string Correct Labor isn't taxed, only profit can be taxed, without profit there is no way to tax. This is why fed income tax is legal on Stock dividends, investments that earn money "income", or selling product for profit. This blog is about the value you exchange through personal labor which cannot be "profit" and is not federally viable income. This has been proven and it is still unconstitutional to tax. Also you are correct about the "income" tax, properly read it was legal from 1791.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer No court in the history of the country has ever held that compensation for labor isn't income and can't be constitutionally taxed by Congress. Every court that has ever dealt with the issue has consistently held that it is income and can be taxed, period.
prof5string 1 year ago
@prof5string You are wrong the courts have always held that with out profit there is no income. do a search read the cases. Every case you have been shown to cite shows profit. But ones personal exchange of labor for value has always been and equal exchange. An equal exchange is by definition without profit.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“In our view, petitioner’s wages are taxable as gross income...”
Beard v. Commissioner
“Wages are taxable income,” and arguments to the contrary are ‘“patently frivolous.’”
Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
“Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional.”
Coleman v. Commissioner
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Lucas v. Earl, in which 100% of Mr. Earl's wages were held to be taxable to him, never discussed whether he made a profit. In fact, no case has ever analyzed wages-as-income in terms of profit. In any event, you misunderstand how profit is calculated. It's not the difference between value realized and value given up, but the difference between value received and the COST of what was given up. You paid nothing for your labor, so all of what you receive is income. (More to follow)
prof5string 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Taxable income doesn't have to mean a profit was realized -- a business can have an accounting loss but still have taxable income if some of its expenses aren't deductible. The same is true for individual workers, since Section 262 of the Code makes their personal living expenses nondeductible. You can't cite a single case where wages were held not to be subject to the federal income tax, and you can't explain away any of the cases that held that they are. That's ignoring the law.
prof5string 1 year ago
@RetSquid To not understand the law is to be a slave to it. To understand the laws of the United States of America is to be free. I understand the law of the federal government, the country I reside in, as well as several other countries that make up this great union. sadly the blind will never see, and you are blind to the rules that govern this great union! Long live the United States... Long live the U.S. Constitution
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
All of your arguments have been thrown out of court, every single time they have been tried.
You can't even post a single case that supports ANY of your claims.
BTW, the States are Republics but are not 'Countries'...It's the "United States of America", not the "United Countries of America".
RetSquid 1 year ago
To let all know, Pete decided to go to jail instead of being force to follow unlawful rules while his appeal his being moved forward. to inform all: In most appeal's any charges brought against you, except in murder or extreme violence, there is a "stay of execution", this is the term used to explain that the penalties are held until after the appeal is decided upon. You will see that Pete is being unlawfully found guilty in this matter. The TRUTH will be seen if it is spoken.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Peter Hendrickson inmate number #15406-039, FCI Milan, P.O. Box 1000, E. Arkona Rd, Milan, MI 48160.
All of his appeals have been denied.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are wrong about the appeals, but nice try!
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Really? Who is he going to appeal to? The Supreme Court denied an appeal from him before and they are not going to hear a case like this with his idiotic claims that have been settled law for decades.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Before? So what you are saying is that if you attempt to bring a case to the Supreme Court for say aborting a Baby and they denied it. You cannot bring a case to the Supreme Court for aborting another baby? Yes I used an extreme example to show your misjudgment of the appeals process. An appeal for a black dog bite in one case does not mean you cannot bring an appeal in a white dog bite case. Each case would be different. But I am sure you know that
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
His case would not be different, it's the same stupid ideas that every court has denied before. You can TRY to bring another case with the same claims and it will 99.9% of the time be denied again. His has a snowball's chance in hell of getting his case before the Court.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Oh I see you know the Judge the court and the evidence is the same exact as the last time you speak of? I doubt that, No I know that is not correct ! RetSquid, I know you believe strongly in your knowledge of the world and everything in it, but you are not as right as your ego leads you to be. I am always willing to learn and What xtax knows is, it isn't how strongly you say it. Its how accurate your knowledge is. Your knowledge is lacking in how Statutes, Laws, and regulations work.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
My knowlege is VERY accurate, your's is lacking any semblance of truth. SCOTUS has not had an entire turnover so, yes we know the judges. The evidence in this case is the same as the last one. There is no such thing as 'Federal income" for income tax and no 'federal zones".
“the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable 'wages' under the Internal Revenue Code.” US v. Hendrickson
RetSquid 1 year ago
All right, so it appears that the tax protest movement is now splitting hairs over the definition of the words "liable" and "income." It is pretty clear that the word 'income' refers to either monetary wages or monetary profit. [Yeah, right, now define "monetary," aye?] and 'liability' is conferred upon those with such income. Agreed, the gov't should define it more clearly, but when and if they do will that satisfy the tax protest movement? I don't think so.
OPHIOHANNAH 1 year ago
@OPHIOHANNAH Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Copy search the uper line. The federalists won and gave congress the power of taxation in 1787. WE the people and OUR
Political culture (the real constitution) can demand removal of this Gov. burden. but who cares right ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
More pointless searches.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@OPHIOHANNAH Really smart one and where are those definitions? Tell me this what is the meaning of "citizens of the United States" in the Civil Rights act of 1866?
Hint it is the same as in the 14th Amendment. What is the Definition of "Aliens" in the "Enforcement Act". About the government they have defined income and liability as clearly as possible and neither fit your discription.
Don't swim in the deep end if you are not ready.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer Does a Foreign Situs Trust have anything to do with your comment to
OPHIOHANNAH ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b No it is to show definitions and the government using different meanings for natural words. Be careful with straw man, vessel, maritime mistakes, they are not true.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer I noticed the "vessel" concept. The code also in the same place had
also added Aircraft which puts it into perspective. Does a Title create a trust ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
No, everything fine with me.
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b This is one of the keys to this discussion:
Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)
Stated: "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
This is what they are hiding.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“One does not ‘derive’ income by rendering services and charging for them.” Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110, 113 (2d Cir. 1916).
The quotation is deceptive, because it omits a critical sentence appearing earlier in the same paragraph:
“But no instructions of the Treasury Department can enlarge the scope of this statute so as to impose the income tax upon unpaid charges for services rendered and which, for aught any one can tell, may never be paid.”
RetSquid 1 year ago
WOW LOL,,,,,there right about the law on income tax,,,but the minute i decide not to pay Federal Income Tax the IRS WILL SEIZE MY CAR,HOME,FURNITURE ,COMPUTER ETC...THE IRS IS THE SAME MOBS IN THE 1930'S THAT GOES AROUND COLLECTING TAXES FROM PEOPLE AND IF U STILL DONT PAY AFTER THEY TAKE UR BELONGINGS THEY WILL KILL YOU...THATS THE HONEST TRUTH.
hebrewmatrix 1 year ago
@hebrewmatrix
Look up title 26 Sectin 1.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Hey Retsquid. Hi, It is spelled Section. Still having trouble with your spellin ?
asicit2b 1 year ago
@asicit2b
Still havin trouble with the truth?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Nope we know the truth. You really should really read the Constitutions and the laws as they can legally be meant. To change the meaning changes the intent and in this case makes them un-Constitutional.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@RetSquid i guess you have all the answers then the former IRS agents right that Includes the famous Cherry williams that use to work for IRS...wow your funny
hebrewmatrix 1 year ago
@hebrewmatrix
"the famous Cherry williams"
Must not be too famous, nothing comes up in a Google search. Those 'former agents' are wrong and/or scam artists. I don't have all the answers but the ones I do have are more accurate then theirs.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@hebrewmatrix be careful with Squid, he has a grasp on the code but not the law and full meanings or jurisdictional issues. Most uneducated Americans fall into the same mistakes. Your personal employment is not liable until you make it so, "Voluntary".
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
LOL!! Your income from "personal employment" is the object of income tax, not a side effect. The payment of that tax is also not 'voluntary'. You fail to grasp the simplest of meanings in the law, even when given proof in the law and case law.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are extremely wrong. What did the Pollock case decide on this issue. You should know if you read it. This case proved the meaning of personal income. In the Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller you see the cases and the framers of the Constitutions beliefs and meanings. Personal income would be a DIRECT tax and therefore un-Constitutional. This is why they found for Pollock and against the government on personal income. You lose again.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
WOW, you REALLY need to get up to date on this stuff, Pollock was overuled by Brushaber in 1916!!!
I'm running out of adjectives to describe the level of stupidity and lack of common sense in your posts.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Justice White disagrees with his opinion in the Brushaber case: “As the right to tax 'incomes from whatever source derived'.. ..must be considered as exacting intrinsic uniformity, THEREFORE NO TAX COMES UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the (16th) not conforming to such standard, and hence all the provisions of the.. ..statute must once more be tested solely under the general and pre-existing provisions of the Constitution, CAUSING THE STATUTE AGAIN TO BE VOID in the absence of apportionment.”
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
Good quote...OF THE LOSING ARGUMENT.
Go back a few lines and you will read:
"And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it..."..."But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another"...
NEXT!!
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid How about we go one sentence back from ours: We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. Add here "...and the far-reaching effect..." You should finish above not enough room here
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
You left out the best part, moron.
"And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption"
You keep quoting the LOSING argument, you must be getting really desperate to post blatant lies/misquotes like this.
"the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned,"
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Do you know what the assumption is that's erroneous? It is the fact that and Amendment can directly reverse an Article or Section without repealing it. To further explain: The Articles and the Bill of Rights limit the fed's rights to the territories "it" owns. The Amendments further clarify the fed's abilities in "it's" power to effect. Therefore "it" can directly tax the labor of the people living or working in the fed territories, but not those out side of "its" jurisdiction. Got it.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
WRONG!! There is only ONE amendment that specifically repeals anything, that means your idea is 'frivolous'. The Federal Government's power is not limmited to territories.
"...all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". Do you ACTUALY think that "The United States" really only means 'territories'??
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer “The 8th section of the 1st article gives to Congress the ‘power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,’ for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends. If this could be doubted, the doubt is removed by the subsequent words which modify the grant...."
CONT.
RetSquid 1 year ago
..."These words are, ‘but all duties, imposts, and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ It will not be contended that the modification of the power extends to places to which the power itself does not extend. The power then to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, may be exercised, and must be exercised throughout the United States..."
CONT.
RetSquid 1 year ago
"...Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and territories.”
Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (Wheat.) 317, 318-319 (1820), (Chief Justice Marshall, writing for a unanimous court
When will you admit that NO court agrees with you? Can you post one case that does?
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Pollock wasn't overturned there was a rewriting of the law: "The right to prevent the corporation from returning and paying the tax was based upon many averments as to the repugnancy of the statute to the Constitution of the United States". This was the change in the law, would you call a profit on stock options in a company the same as money paid for your time and knowledge? The Stock was say $20 and went up to $30 you say that $10 is the same as the $10 paid to dig a hole? Honestly?
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
If you sell the stock after the price went up and gains $10, then YES, it is income which is the same as being paid $10 to dig a hole, EXACTLY as the Supreme Court said.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
You might want to read more of the case:
"the authority conferred upon Congress...is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned...there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes...were simply regulations concerning the mode in which the plenary power was to be exerted..."
"Plenary power" is a power...with no review of, or limitations upon, the exercise of the power.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You haven't a grasp of the Constitution and the laws that government the fed if you actually believe this. I am beginning to see that it is not your true belief but that you are lonely and like to play devils advocate. Tell me if I'm not on the money here.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@RetSquid answer this: In order for there to be income it must be DERIVED from, that is SEPARABLE from, that portion of gross receipts that represents the investment or property given in exchange for those gross receipts. If it cannot be separated, distinguished, from the capital and spent or used without injuring the capital portion, then THERE IS NO INCOME. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920)
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“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....”
"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"
Eisner v. Macomber
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U. S. 399, 231 U. S. 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U. S. 179, 247 U. S. 185), "
Eisner v. Macomber
RetSquid 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer The Supreme Court limited this language in Eisner to the issue of stock dividends in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 (1940) , in which it also said, "It is not necessary to recognition of taxable gain that he [the taxpayer] should be able to sever the improvement begetting the gain from his original capital."
prof5string 1 year ago
@RetSquid And this What comes in is NOT “income”, but “gross receipts”, and in order to determine if there is any income in what comes in we must first deduct from those gross receipts the value or cost of whatever was given in exchange for it because income is only the gain or profit from the conversion of capital. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918)
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
“One’s gain, ergo his ‘income,’ from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefore without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.”
Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 734 (1978), affd. 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980).
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid How do those two U.S.S.C. cases directly involving the 16th amendment answer the statement you have touted "Your personal income is the basis of the income tax law". How can it be if as shown you can't derive cost of value exchanged from income received? We will wait . . .
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@xtaxplayer
You still need to provide proof that YOUR idea that you can somehow deduct some personal costs is part of the law....that deduction is already covered in law by...guess what? A personal deduction.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@hebrewmatrix Its to bad you feel that way. I stood up quite a few years ago, and I admit it was hard at first but it is smooth sailing now. I get to keep more then $14,000.00 I was mistakenly giving away. But the truth as always is it is your decision to keep or give away your money.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
Once again, I bring up the word "includes". I still don't think you have looked it up yet in the IRC. Do that. Then google the same word. I will bet you a million bucks that you will get two VERY different definitions of that simple yet important word.
Tchay777 1 year ago
@Tchay777
7701 (c) Includes and including
The terms includes and including when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid right, but "includes" is defined. Btw, I am in the "know" with all of this anti-income tax stuff.
As I come across the arguments, I will post them here. You can then refute them (assuming they are fallible). This seems like the most logical way to settle this entire debate. I think everyone wants the truth and it bothers me that intelligent minds are on both sides of the fence.
If you can refute each of my arguments that I bring up over time, then I will call this a closed case.
Tchay777 1 year ago
@Tchay777
Sounds like fun, as long as you acknowlege that we will be using definitions as provided in the law and case law, not conspiracy theory site definitions.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid Of course. All definitions, terminology, and rulings must come from institutions that cooperate with the Constitution. Most of the "anti-income tax" arguments mention nothing about Supreme Court rulings. So that will be the first place I look, regarding counter arguments.
Theres a few more arguments brewing. I will post them after I have researched them further.
Tchay777 1 year ago
@Tchay777
I'll be here.
"Arguing with tax protesters is like playing whack-a-mole. As soon as you have slammed down one crazy argument, another one pops its head up. As you are reading this, some crank with a defective grasp of law, history, economics, and the English language is developing a new reason why the income tax does not apply to him. Also most tax protesters are men, which suggests that feminists might be right and women really are smarter than men."
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid To be honest, this paragraph confuses me. Can you explain this for me?
Tchay777 1 year ago
@Tchay777
As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of includes does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of employee, so employee includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.
RetSquid 1 year ago
@RetSquid You are wrong. The Supreme court explains that the definition of a word in law must be defined and if it is defined in one way will not include anything outside that meaning. Now the regulations of title 26 can say whatever they want but the law is the law. Remember, Prima Facie is only law if it is agreed upon by both parties. If not you must go by the law and the law is as I previously explained. Tchay, make sure you read for yourself. These errors are easy for the uninformed to make
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
SCOTUS says:
“The legislature must be presumed to use words in their known and ordinary signification.”
“[T]he words of statutes--including revenue acts--should be interpreted where possible in their ordinary, everyday senses.”
“In interpreting the meaning of the words in a revenue Act, we look to the ‘ordinary, everyday senses’ of the words.”
“Common understanding and experience are the touchstones for the inter