IRS Gag Order

Details of the illegal deprivation of a citizens right to free speech by the IRS and the courts. This could happen to you.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• constitution
• IRS

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

Congress agrees with the courts on what the definition of 'income' is.

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).

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

“[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: ‘WAGES ARE INCOME.’ ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous....”

Hill v. United States

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

Sorry, income is is defined just as I posted.

Income is "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined"

EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

[RetSquid]

How about you come up with a new argument that takes me some time to find the rebuttal to?

[RetSquid]

“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]

@YesWeTan

The 16th was ratified by 38 of the States, after it was approved by their representatives in Congress, no State denies that this is true.

If you can't post the proof here, PM it to me.

Your arguments have never succeeded in a court of law, not once.

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

Yes, the 1954 code was superceded, made invalid, replaced, however you want to name that action.

Withholding has nothing to do with an individual's liability for income tax.

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

The1954 Code has been superceded by the 18986 Code: Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085. The word 'income' does not NEED to be defined, copious examples are given in Section 61. Your paycheck, i.e. 'compensation for services", is specifically included.

Any argument based on Citizenship is moot, the income tax is imposed on individuals.

[RetSquid]

@YesWeTan

No, I just cited a Supreme Court case, making it the highest case law there is. Even at the time there were no problems cited with the 16th Amendment, it's all a fairly recent invention.

[RetSquid]

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was passed by both houses of Congress as House Resolution 8300, and was signed by President Eisenhower on August 16, 1954, at about 9:45 a.m., becoming Public Law 83-591, 68A Stat. 3. The Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) is now known as the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” as a result of changes made by Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (10/22/1986).