- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,775
- Likes
- 19,877
Definition of income.. I really hate posting the case law here because that opens this up for Snoop to come in with a wall of case law trying to overturn these decisions.
And we go around and around in circles. Snoops declares we are all slaves after the 16th was passed even though slavery was outlawed.
Snoops the problem with you and the case law you provide is you claim the lower courts overturned the higher courts but in your words it is just the lower courts interpretation of the higher courts which makes it all ok. I disagree. But, since the higher courts are now in the pocket of government, we will never get clarification from them. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to provide clarification or simplification of the tax laws. They like things just as they are. 350 million slaves with income as defined in an ordinary sense of everything that comes in, as being taxable.
I read your case law snoop. I understand what you are saying with it but I still don't agree with it although to your credit, it makes your case if you understand income to be everything that comes in.
"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself." - Stratton's Independence. LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913)
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)
"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 -206 (1920).
"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
And we go around and around in circles. Snoops declares we are all slaves after the 16th was passed even though slavery was outlawed.
Snoops the problem with you and the case law you provide is you claim the lower courts overturned the higher courts but in your words it is just the lower courts interpretation of the higher courts which makes it all ok. I disagree. But, since the higher courts are now in the pocket of government, we will never get clarification from them. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to provide clarification or simplification of the tax laws. They like things just as they are. 350 million slaves with income as defined in an ordinary sense of everything that comes in, as being taxable.
I read your case law snoop. I understand what you are saying with it but I still don't agree with it although to your credit, it makes your case if you understand income to be everything that comes in.
"As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, with certain qualifications prescribed by the act itself." - Stratton's Independence. LTD. v. Howbert, 231 US 399 (1913)
“Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities." - Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918)
"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived from capital;" "the gain derived from capital," etc. Here, we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived" -- that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description." - Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 205 -206 (1920).
"...there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word [income] must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
"In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." - Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)