IRS violating its own law

This is a video about the IRS through District Court violating its own law section 7214 which is a felony

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• IRS
• 7214
• Foreclosure
• summary judgment
• government gone wild
• Law

[Michaelbenoit7]

He seems like an agent of the IRS. Income is gain and there is no gain from exchange of labor for dollars. The IRS does not impose any tax on our labor nor on any exchange of dollars for labor.

[asicit2b]

@Michaelbenoit7 What are your thoughts on Retsquid ?

[RetSquid]

@Michaelbenoit7

“[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of **gain**, e. g., lost **wages**. (Citation omitted.) Since the **gain** would have been **income**, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”

Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987) (emphasis added)

[RetSquid]

@Michaelbenoit7

And the definition of income stays the same, you can get income from capital (investments), from labor (being paid for your work) or from both. As in Stratton's "[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand..."

[Michaelbenoit7]

@RetSquid you take this quote out of context. "that business; for 'income' may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, and here we have combined operations of capital and labor. As to the alleged inequality of operation between mining corporations and others, it is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital" your quote is in this context "business tax"

[Michaelbenoit7]

@RetSquid Income were not the subject of the tax but where the measure of the tax. A taxable activity is named and then the revenues "Incomes" are the measure of the tax. Income as property has not been the subject of any income tax.

[RetSquid]

@Michaelbenoit7

"retsquid labor for $ is?"

Income, (income derived from your labor, a gain, because you received money that you didn't have before) just like those cases say.

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

[Michaelbenoit7]

@RetSquid 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, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58

L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 'Income may be

defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both

combined,’ retsquid labor for $ is?

[RetSquid]

"Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”

Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co.

[Michaelbenoit7]

@RetSquid

Stanton v. Baltic Mining (240 U.S. 103), 1916

“. . . by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of

the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation

but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary

power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the

beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect

taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in

the category of direct taxation.”