• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

THE HISTORY OF U.S. INCOME TAXES SINCE THE RATIFICATION OF THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT IN 1913

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#1
THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1913 (Revenue Act of 1913, Pub.L. 63–16, 38 Stat. 114). You may find this statute here at or about page 53. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/38/STATUTE-38-Pg114.pdf

This 1913 statute is significant in that it was written and passed by the same exact 1913 Congress which also wrote and passed the sixteenth amendment only days before in 1913. This 1913 statute conclusively proves that the same exact 1913 Congress which also wrote and passed the sixteenth amendment in 1913 only days before always intended, from the very beginning, to impose an income tax on all individuals and citizens and residents of the United States and that this same exact 1913 Congress also intended, from the very beginning, to tax wages, salaries and compensation for personal services as "income". Now, after more than a century later, this remains the law today.

(BEGIN QUOTE)

INCOME TAX .
SECTION II .
One per cent levied A. Subdivision 1 .


That there shall be levied, assessed, collected ON THE NET INCOMES OF CITIZENS
and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing
from all sources in the preceding calendar year TO EVERY CITIZEN OF THE
UNITED STATES,
whether residing at home or abroad, AND TO EVERY PERSON
RESIDING IN THE UNITED STATES
, though not a citizen thereof, A TAX
of 1 per centum per annum UPON THE INCOME ,
except as hereinafter
provided ; AND a Tike tax shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid
annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of
every business, trade, or profession carried on in the United States by
persons residing elsewhere .

Additional tax on Subdivision 2 .
In addition to the INCOME TAX provided under this
section (herein referred to as the NORMAL INCOME TAX) there shall be
levied, assessed, and collected
UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
AN ADDITIONAL INCOME TAX (herein referred to as the additional tax) of
1 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total net income
exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $50,000, and 2 per centum
per annum upon the amount by which the total net income exceeds
$50,000 and does not exceed $75,000, 3 per centum per annum upon
the amount by which the total net income exceeds $75,000 and does
not exceed $100,000, 4 per centum per annum upon the amount by
which the total net income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed
$250,000, 5 per centum per annum upon the amount by which the total
net income exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $500,000, and 6 per
centum per annum upon the amount by which the- total net income
exceeds $500,000 . All the provisions of this section relating to individuals
who are to be chargeable with the normal income tax, so far
as they are applicable and are not inconsistent with this subdivision of
paragraph A, shall apply to the levy, assessment, and collection of the
PERSONAL RETURNS to additional tax imposed under this section .
EVERY PERSON subject to this additional tax shall( for the purpose
of its assessment and collection, make a PERSONAL RETURN of his
TOTAL NET INCOME from all sources, corporate or otherwise, for the
preceding calendar year, under rules and regulations to be prescribed
by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.


(END QUOTE)

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1916 (39 Stat. 756 U.S. Statutes at Large).
You may find this statute here. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/39/STATUTE-39-Pg756.pdf
,
(BEGIN QUOTE)

Revenue Act, 1916.
Income tax.


TITLE I.-INCOME TAX.
ON INDIVIDUALS.

PART I.-ON INDIVIDUALS .
Two per cent levied Sec. 1 . (a) That there shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid
annually UPON THE ENTIRE NET INCOME RECEIVED in the preceding calendar
year from all sources BY EVERY INDIVIDUAL, CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
A TAX of two per centum UPON SUCH INCOME from united states
sources. And a like tax shall be levied, assessed, collected, and paid annually UPON
THE ENTIRE NET INCOME RECEIVED
in the preceding calendar year from
all sources within the United States BY EVERY INDIVIDUAL, A NON RESIDENT
ALIEN
, including interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing
obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise .


Additional Tax (b)
In addition to the INCOME TAX imposed by subdivision (a) of
this section (herein referred to as the normal tax) there shall be levied,
assessed, collected, and paid UPON THE TOTAL NET INCOME OF EVERY

INDIVIDUAL, or, in the case of a nonresident alien, THE TOTAL NET INCOME
RECEIVED FROM ALL SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
an additional
income tax (herein referred to as the additional tax) of one per
centum per annum upon the amount by which such total net income
exceeds $20,000 and does not exceed $40,000, two per centum per
annum upon the amount by which such total net income exceeds
$40,000 and does not exceed $60,000, three per centum per annum
upon the amount by which such total net income exceeds $60,000
and does not exceed $80,000, four per centum per annum upon the
amount by which such total net income exceeds not exceed $100,000,
five per centum per annum upon the amount by which such total net
income exceeds $100,000 and does not exceed
$150,000, six per centum per annum upon the amount by which such
total net income exceeds $150,000 and does not exceed $200,000,
seven per centum per annum upon the amount by which such total
net income exceeds $200,000 and does not exceed $250,000, eight per
centum per annum u on the amount by which such total net income
exceeds $250,000 and does not exceed $300,000, nine per centum per
annum upon the amount by which such total net income exceeds
$300,000 and does not exceed $500,000, ten per centum per annum
upon the amount by which such total net income exceeds $500,000,
and does not exceed $1,000,000, eleven per centum per annum upon
the amount by which such total net income exceeds $1,000,000 and
does not exceed $1,500,000, twelve per centum per annum upon the
amount by which such total net income exceeds $1,500,000 and does
not exceed $2,000,000, and thirteen per centum per annum upon the
amount by which such total net income exceeds $2,000,000 .


For the purpose of the additional tax there shall be included as
income the income derived from dividends on the capital stock or chided.
from the net earnings of any corporation, joint-stock company or
association, or insurance company except that in the case of non- Nonresident aliens .
resident aliens such income derives from sources without the United -
States shall not be included.

All the provisions of this title relating to the normal tax ON INDIVIDUALS,
so far as they are applicable and are no, inconsistent with
this subdivision and section three, shall apply to the imposition, levy,
assessment, and collection of the additional tax imposed under this
subdivision .

(c) The foregoing normal and additional tax rates shall apply to the
entire net income, except as hereinafter provided, received by
every taxable person in the calendar year nineteen hundred and
sixteen and in each calendar year thereafter.

INCOME - DEFINED.
Income defined.
SEC. 2. (a) That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as
are hereinafter allowed, THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON SHALL

INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OF WHATEVER KIND AND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, BUSINESS,
TRADE, COMMERCE OR SALES OR DEALING IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT

OR GAINS AND PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE WHATEVER:

Provided, That the term dividends as used in this title shall be held to mean any
distribution made or ordered to be made by a corporation, joint-stock
company, association, or insurance company, out of its earnings or
profits accrued since March first, nineteen hundred and thirteen, and
payable to its shareholders, whether in cash or in stock of the corporation,
joint-stock company, association, or insurance company,
which stock dividend shall be considered income, to the amount of
its cash value.

(END QUOTE)

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1921. (42 Stat. 227 U.S. Statutes at Large)
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/42/STATUTE-42-Pg227.pdf

(BEGIN QUOTE)

TITLE II.-INCOME TAX.

PART II.-INDIVIDUALS .
NORMAL TAX.


SEC . 210. That, in lieu of the tax imposed by section 210 of the
Revenue Act of 1918, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for
each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
a normal tax of 8 per centum OF THE AMOUNT OF THE NET INCOME
in excess of the credits provided in section 216 : Provided, THAT IN
THE CASE OF A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNTIED STATES

the rate upon the first $4,000 of such excess amount shall be 4 per
centum.


SURTAX.
Sec . 211. (a) That, in lieu of the tax imposed by section 211 of the Revenue Act of 1918,
but in addition to the normal tax imposed by section 210 of this Act,
there shall be levied, collected, and paid e"For calendar year
for each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL -
(1) For the calendar year 1921, a surtax equal to the sum of the
following : per centum of the amount BY WHICH THE NET INCOME exceeds
$5,000 and does not exceed $6,000 ;


[lengthy tax table omitted here]

NET INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS DEFINED.
Individual net income

SEC . 212 .
(a) That IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL the term "net Deductions from
INCOME" means the GROSS INCOME as defined in section 213, less the
deductions allowed by section 214.

(b) The NET INCOME shall be computed upon the basis of the tax-
payer's annual accounting period fiscal year or calendar year, as
the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting
regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer ; but if
no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the method
employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation shall
be made upon such basis and in such manner as in the opinion of
the Commissioner does clearly reflect the income . If the taxpayer's
annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year as defined in
section 200 or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period or
does not keep books, THE NET INCOME shall be computed on the basis
of the calendar year .

(c) If a taxpayer changes his accounting period from fiscal year
to calendar year,from calendar year to fiscal year, or-from one
fiscal year to another, the net income shall, with the approval of
the Commissioner, be computed on the basis of such new accounting
period, subject to the provisions of section 226 .

GROSS INCOME DEFINED. Gross income
SEC. 213 . That for the purposes of this title (except as otherwise
provided in section 233) THE TERM ""GROSS INCOME" -
a INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
(Including in the case of
the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and
inferior courts of the Untied States and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District
of Columbia, the compensation received as such), OF WHATEVER KIND
AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES,
BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL GROWING OUT OT THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF AN INTEREST IN
SUCH PROPERTY ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS. SECURITIES,
OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT

OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.

The amount of all such items (except as provided in subdivision (e) of section 201)
SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE GROSS INCOME for the taxable year in which
received by the taxpayer, unless, under methods of accounting permitted
under subdivision (b) of section 212, any such amounts are to
be properly accounted for as of a different period ; but

(END QUOTE)


THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT FROM THE REVENUE ACT OF 1924 (Pub. L. 68-176 U.S. Law).
You may find this statute here. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/43/STATUTE-43-Pg253b.pdf

(BEGIN QUOTE)

PART 11
INDIVIDUALS.
NORMAL TAX


SEC. 210. (a) In lieu of the tax imposed by section 210 of the
Revenue Act of 1921, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for
each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
except as provided in subdivision (b) of this section) a NORMAL TAX of 6
per centum OF THE AMOUNT OF THE NET INCOME in excess of the credits
provided in section 216, except that in the case of A CITIZEN OR
RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
the rate upon the first $4,000 of such excess
amount shall be 2 per centum, and upon the next $4,000 of such
excess amount shall be 4 per centum;

(b) In lieu of the tax imposed by subdivision (a), there shall be
levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year on the net income
of every nonresident alien individual, a resident of a contiguous country
a normal tax equal to the sum of the following
(1). 2 per centum of the amount by which this part of the net income
attributable to wages, salaries, professional fees or other amounts
received as compensation for personal services actually performed
in the United States, exceeds the credits provided in subdivisions (d)
and (e) of section 216 ; but the amount taxable at such
2 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000 ;and
(2). 4 per centum of the amount by which such part of the net income
exceeds the sum of (A) the credits provided in subdivisions
(d) and (e) of section 216, plus (B) $4,000 ; but the
amount taxable at such 4 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000; and
and
(3). 6 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess
the sum of (A) the amount taxed under paragraph s (1) and (2)
plus (B) the credits provided in 216.

[lengthy tax table omitted)

NET INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS DEFINED.
SEC. 212.
(a) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL THE TERM, "NET INCOME"
MEANS THE GROSS INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 213,
LESS DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN SECTIONS 214 AND 216.
(b) The net income shall be computed upon the basis of the tax-
payer's annual accounting period fiscal year or calendar year, as
the case may be) in accordance wit the method of accounting regularly
employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer; but if no
such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the method
employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation shall
be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion of the
Commissioner does clearly reflect the income . If the taxpayer's
annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year as defined in
section 200 or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period or
does not keep books, the net income shall be computed on the basis
of the calendar year.
(c) If a taxpayer changes his accounting period from fiscal year
to calendar year, from calendar year to fiscal year, or from one
fiscal year to another, the net income shall, with the approval of the
Commissioner, be computed on the basis of such new accounting
period, subject to the provisions of section 226.

GROSS INCOME DEFINED.
Sec.. 213

For the purposes of this title, except as otherwise provided
in section 233-
(a) THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE
(including in the case of the President of the United States, the
judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID,
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE
OR SALES OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP IN SUCH PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENTS, DIVIDENDS SECURITIES , OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS AND PROFITS

AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.

(END QUOTE)

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT FROM THE REVENUE ACT OF 1926 (44 Stat. 9 U.S. Statutes at Large).
You may find this statute here. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/44/STATUTE-44-Pg9a.pdf

(BEGIN QUOTE)

PART II.-
INDIVIDUALS
NORMAL TAX

Sec. 210. (a) In lieu of the tax imposed by section 210 of the rats, lieu of former
Revenue Act of 1924, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for Vol. 43, p . 264.
each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL (except
as provided in subdivision (b) of this section) a NORMAL TAX of 5
per centum of the amount OF THE NET INCOME excess of the credits
provided in section 216, except that in the case of A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
the rate upon the first $4,000 of such excess
amount shall be 11/2 per centum, and upon the next $4,000 of such
excess amount shall be 3 per centum;

(b) In lieu of the tax imposed by subdivision (a), there shall Aliens, residents of
be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net contiguous countries .
income of every nonresident alien individual, a resident of a contiguous
country, a normal tax equal to the sum of the following
(1) 11/2 per centum of the amount by which the part of the net on
compensation for personal services in income attributable to wages,
salaries, professional services or other united states amounts received as
compensation for personal services actually
performed in the United States, exceeds the credits provided in
subdivisions (d) and (e) of section 216 ; but the amount taxable Maximum.
at such 11/2 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000 ;
(2) 3 per centum of the amount by which such part of the net Additional if exceeding family credits and
income exceeds the sum of (A) the credits provided in subdivisions $4,00 °§
(d) and (e) of section 216, plus (B) $4,000 ; but the amount taxable
at such 3 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000 ; and
(3) 5 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of If in excess thereof.
the sum of (A) the amount taxed under paragraphs (1) and (2),
plus (B) the credits provided in section 216.

SURTAX
Sec. 211.

(a}. In lieu of the tax imposed b section 211 of the Additional to normal
Revenue Act of 1924, but .IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TAX IMPOSED ON INCOMES
exceeding $10,000

(lengthy tax table omitted here)

NET INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS DEFINED
SEC. 212 .


(a) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL THE TERM "MET INCOME"
MEANS THE GROSS INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 213,
LESS DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED IN 214 AND 216.

(b) The net income shall be computed upon the basis of the
taxpayer's annual accounting period (fiscal year or calendar year,
as the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting
regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer ; but if
no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the
method employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation
shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion
of the Commissioner does clearly reflect the income . If the taxpayer's
annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year as defined
in section 200 or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period
or does not keep books, the net income shall be computed on the
basis of the calendar year.

(c) If a taxpayer changes his accounting period from fiscal year to calendar year,
from calendar year to fiscal year, or from one fiscal year to another,
the net income shall, with the approval of the Commissioner, be computed
on the basis of such new accounting period, subject to the provisions of section 226.
(d) Under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the
Secretary, a person who regularly sells or otherwise disposes of personal
property on the installment plan may return as income therefrom in any
taxable year that proportion of the installment payments actually received
in that year which the total profit realized or to be realized when the payment
is completed, bears to the total contract price . In the case (1) of a casual
sale or Casual sales of per- sonal, or real property . other casual disposition
of personal property for a price exceeding $1,000, or (2) of a sale or other
disposition of real property, if in either case the initial payments do not
exceed one-fourth of the purchase price, the income may, under regulations
prescribed by the Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary, be returned
on the basis and in the manner above prescribed in this subdivision.
As used in this subdivision the term " initial payments " means the
payments received in cash or property other than evidences of
indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable period in which
the sale or other disposition is made .

GROSS INCOME DEFINED
Individual net income


SEC. 213 . For the purposes of this title, except as otherwise provided in section 233-
(a) THE TERM "GROSS INCOME INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND
INCOMES DERIVED FROM PERSONAL SALARIES
WAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
(including in the case of the President of the United States Federal officials in-
, eluded . the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES,
COMMERCE OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER
REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE
OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FRO RENT, DIVIDENDS,
SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER.


.(END QUOTE)

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT FROM THE REVENUE ACT OF 1928, THE REVENUE ACT UNDER WHICH FOSTER WAS DECIDED (44 Stat. 9 U.S. Statutes at Large.)
You may find this statute here. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/44/STATUTE-44-Pg9a.pdf

(BEGIN QUOTE)

PART II.
INDIVIDUALS
NORMAL TAX

SEc. 210. (a) In lieu of the tax imposed by section 210 of the rats, lieu of former
Revenue Act of 1924, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for
each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL (except
as provided in subdivision (b) of this section) a NORMAL TAX of 5
per centum of the amount OF THE NET INCOME in excess of the credits
provided in section 216, except that in the case of a CITIZEN OR RESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES
the rate upon the first $4,000 of such excess
amount shall be 11/2 per centum, and upon the next $4,000 of such
excess amount shall be 3 per centum ;
(b) In lieu of the tax imposed by subdivision (a), there shall Aliens, residents of
be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net contiguous countries .
income of every nonresident alien individual, a resident of a contiguous
country, a normal tax equal to the sum of the following (1) 11/2 per centum
of the amount by which the part of the net on compensation for
personal services in income attributable to wages, salaries, professional fees, or other
United States amounts received as compensation for personal services actually
performed in the United States, exceeds the credits provided in
subdivisions (d) and (e) of section 216 ; but the amount taxable Maximum.
at such 11/2 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000
(2) 3 per centum of the amount by which such part of the net Additional if exceed- ing family credits and
income exceeds the sum of (A) the credits provided in subdivisions $4,00 °§
(d) and (e) of section 216, plus (B) $4,000 ; but the amount taxable
at such 3 per centum rate shall not exceed $4,000 ; and
(3) 5 per centum of the amount of the net income in excess of If in excess thereof.
the sum of (A) the amount taxed under paragraphs (1) and (2),
plus (B) the credits provided in section 216.

SURTAX
Sec. 211. (a} In lieu of the tax imposed b section 211 of the
Revenue Act of 1924, but
IN ADDITION TO THE NORMAL TAX
IMPOSED ON INCOMES
exceeding $10,000

(Lengthy tax table omitted here)

NET INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS DEFINED
SEC. 212 . (a) IN THE CASE OF AN INDIVIDUAL THE TERM
"NET INCOME"MEANS THE GROSS IN COME AS DEFINED
IN SECTION 213, LESS DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY SECTIONS 214 AND 216.

(b) The net income shall be computed upon the basis of the
taxpayer's annual accounting period (fiscal year or calendar year,
as the case may be) in accordance with the method of accounting
regularly employed in keeping the books of such taxpayer ; but if
no such method of accounting has been so employed, or if the
method employed does not clearly reflect the income, the computation
shall be made in accordance with such method as in the opinion
of the Commissioner does clearly reflect the income. If the taxpayer's
annual accounting period is other than a fiscal year as defined
in section 200 or if the taxpayer has no annual accounting period
or does not keep books, the net income shall be computed on the
basis of the calendar year.
(c) If a taxpayer changes his accounting period from fiscal
year to calendar year, from calendar year to fiscal year, or from
one fiscal year to another, the net income shall, with the approval
of the Commissioner, be computed on the basis of such new
accounting period, subject to the provisions of section 226.
(d) Under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with the
approval of the Secretary, a person who regularly sells or otherwise
disposes of personal property on the installment plan may return
as income therefrom in any taxable year that proportion of the
installment payments actually received in that year which the
total profit realized or to be realized when the payment is completed,
bears to the total contract price .In the case (1) of a casual sale or
Casual sales of personal, or real property. other casual disposition
of personal property for a price exceeding $1,000, or (2) of a sale
or other disposition of real property, if in either case the initial
payments do not exceed one-fourth of the purchase price, the income
may, under regulations prescribed by the Commissioner with
the approval of the Secretary, be returned on the basis and in
the manner above prescribed in this subdivision.
As used in this subdivision the term " initial payments " means the
payments received in cash or property other than evidences of
indebtedness of the purchaser during the taxable period in which
the sale or other disposition is made .

GROSS INCOME DEFINED
Individual net income


SEC. 213 . For the purposes of this title, except as otherwise provided in section 233-
(a) THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES THE GAINS, PROFITS AND
INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION
FOR PERSONAL SERVICE (including in the case of the President of the
United States Federal officials included . the judges of the Supreme
and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS
IN PROPERTY WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO
FROM RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


(END QUOTE)

THIS IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1932 (Pub. L. 72-154 U.S. Law)
You may find this statute here. https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/legislink/pdf/stat/47/STATUTE-47-Pg169b.pdf

(BEGIN QUOTE)

SUBTITLE B-GENERAL PROVISIONS
Rates of tax.


SEC. 11. NORMAL TAX ON INDIVIDUALS.
Rates on net income.

There shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year
UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL A NORMAL TAX
equal to the sum of the following
(a) 4 per centum of the first $4,000 OF THE AMOUNT OF NET INCOME
in excess of the credits AGAINST NET INCOME provided in
section 25 ; and
(b) 8 per centum of the remainder of such excess amount.

SEC. 12. SURTAX ON INDIVIDUALS.
(a) RATES of SURTAX.-There shall be levied, collected, and paid
for each taxable year UPON THE NET INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL
a surtax as follows : . .
UPON THE NET INCOME of $6,000 there shall be no surtax ; UPON
THE NET INCOMES
in excess of $6,000 and not in excess
of $10,000, 1 per centum of such excess .
-
$40 UPON THE NET INCOMES of $10,000 ; and UPON THE NET INCOMES
in excess of $10,000 and not in excess of $12,000, 2 per centum in addition of
such excess .
$80 UPON THE NET INCOMES of $12,000 ; and UPON THE NET INCOMES in excess
of $12,000 and not in excess of $14,000, 3 per centum in addition of
such excess.
$140 UPON THE NET INCOMES of $14,000 ; and UPON NET INCOMES excess
of $14,000 and not in excess of $16,000, 4 per centum in addition of
such excess .
$220 UPON NET INCOMES of $16,000 ; and UPON NET INCOMES in excess
of $16,000 and not in excess of $18,000, 5 per centum in addition of
such excess.

Surtax on individuals.
Rates.
Part I-Rates of Tax


[lengthy tax table omitted here]
[section on tax on corporations omoitted here]

SEC. 21. NET INCOME.
"NET INCOME" MEANS THE GROSS INCOME COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 22 LESS DEDUCTIONS ALLOWED BY SECTION 23.

SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.
General definition .
(a,) GENERAL DEFINITION. "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES , WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OF WHATEVER KIND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS,
TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS, IN
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF
THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM
INTEREST RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR THE TRANSACTION
OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FRO GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS
OR PROFITS DERIVED FROM ANY COMPENSATION OR SOURCE

WHATEVER. In the case of Presidents of the United States and
Presidents, judges . judges of courts of the United States taking
office after the date of the enactment of this Act, the compensation
received as such shall be included in gross income ; and all Acts
fixing the compensation of such Presidents and judges are hereby
amended accordingly .

(END QUOTE)


CONCLUSION:

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE REVENUE ACT PASSED SINCE 1913 (WHEN THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS RATIFIED) WHICH DID NOT IMPOSE AN INCOME TAX ON THE INCOMES OF INDIVIDUALS.

INCOME HAS ALWAYS INCLUDED ALL WAGES, SALARIES AND OTHER COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES.

AN INDIVIDUAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED AS A "CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES".

SO, IF YOU LIVE WITHIN ANY STATE OR DISTRICT OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX LIABILITY, WHETHER YOU ARE A CITIZEN OR NOT AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU CALL YOURSELF.


BEWARE OF THESE OTHER FAKE LEGAL EXPERTS (all of whom have a 100% failure rate when representing themselves and when pretending to represent others).

For the hoaxes of FAKE "retired federal judge" RODNEY "DALE" ("JUDGE DALE") CLASS (who has LOST 80 consecutive cases in a row), click here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99447-Rod-Class-his-many-hoaxes.

For the hoaxes of FAKE "former deputy sheriff"EDDIE CRAIG (who has LOST every case in which he has ever been involved), click here. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?99564-Eddie-Craig-the-former-deputy-sheriff-hoax.

For the hoaxes of FAKE "Private Attorney General" and FAKE "Sovereign Peace Officer" ANTHONY WILLIAMS (who has LOST 90+ consecutive cases in a row), click here.. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?132863-The-Anthony-Williams-Hoax-(Anthony-Troy-Williams)&p=231850#post231850.

For the hoaxes of FAKE "Constitutional Scholar" and FAKE "War Hero" CARL MILLER (who has LOST 28 consecutive cases in a row), click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?131638-Carl-Miller-Richard-Champion.

For the hoaxes of FAKE "Former Real Estate Attorney" and FAKE "Former Policewoman" DEBRA JONES (who have never won or lost a single case), click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/show...uot&highlight=Debra+Jones&p=230352#post230352

For the hoaxes of FAKE "Whistle Blower" DEBORAH TAVARES (who has never won or lost a single case), click here. https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-The-hoaxes-of-deborah-tavares-.
 
Last edited:

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,891
Likes
4,173
#2
You couldn't have just posted a link to this???
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#3
HERE IS THE CURRENT LAW WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO PAY INCOME TAXES.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/NoLaw.htm

YOU CAN BE FINED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR MAKING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS.

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-ii
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-iii
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

HERE IS THE CASE LAW WHICH REBUTS DOZENS OF LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS POINT BY POINT:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

HERE, A UNIVERSITY INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS AND OTHERS, POINT BY POINT
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm



THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF INCOME TAX https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm
 
Last edited:

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated, bitches!
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
57,891
Likes
110,100
Location
Earth
#4
HERE IS THE CURRENT LAW WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO PAY INCOME TAXES.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/NoLaw.htm

YOU CAN BE FINED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR MAKING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS.
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-ii
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-iii
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

HERE IS THE CASE LAW WHICH REBUTS DOZENS OF LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS POINT BY POINT:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

HERE, A UNIVERSITY INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS AND OTHERS, POINT BY POINT
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm



THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF INCOME TAX https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm
I think it's cute that anyone thinks any US court of 'justice' will rule against the IRS in a total anti-income tax lawsuit. It's never going to happen.
 
Last edited:

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,271
Location
Northern Arizona
#5
And the Tax Code today is something like 90,000 PAGES.

(No, I'm not going to look up the exact number and get even more depressed.)
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
9,775
Likes
19,877
#6
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SNOOP WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Us slaves need to get in line and pay our taxes. His salary depends upon it.

Snoop I have already made my points on the issue and regardless of how many threads you start on the subject my understanding of what income is will not change.
You have made our points. I have made mine.
 

jimswift

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
552
Likes
900
Location
SC swamps
#8
Just as Snoop outlined above....slavery is alive and well in the US....the gov commands you to perform or they'll kill you.

Snoop and his ilk will LET you live, but demand you pay them for the privilege of doing so.

And just so there is no confusion, they outlined how this is all to be done within 90,000 pages of legalese ramblings.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#9
THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SNOOP WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
Us slaves need to get in line and pay our taxes. His salary depends upon it.

Snoop I have already made my points on the issue and regardless of how many threads you start on the subject my understanding of what income is will not change.
You have made our points. I have made mine.
Hello Cigarlover,

It is good to hear from you again.

I still say that you are, by far, the most intelligent, best educated legal scholar on GIM2.

At least you attempt to support your arguments with case law. That case law may not be applicable. That case law may be misunderstood. But, that case law is at least the law. And, whether that case law is applicable or not or understood or not, you use it in an attempt to support your arguments.

That is more than any other person has ever done here on GIM2.

You are bright enough to understand dozens and dozens of tax protester arguments supported by case law, despite that this case law is inapplicable or misunderstood. So, you are also bright enough to understand the law itself as supported by case law which actually applies and which you actually understand correctly.

So, you are on the right track.

If you have an intellectual weakness or intellectual vulnerability, it is your misplaced trust in tax protester personalities, like Dave Champion and Tommy Cryer.

Regardless, you are still the top legal scholar here on GIM2.

YOUR COMMENT: THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT SNOOP WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. You are mistaking my passion for the truth about the law as loyalty to the government. But, they are not the same thing. My work is about the truth, whether I like the truth or not. Let's face it. Nobody likes paying income taxes. Nobody.

YOUR COMMENT: Us slaves need to get in line and pay our taxes. His salary depends upon it.

MY RESPONSE: Not so. We pay taxes because it is required by law in order to offset the costs of governmental services which we all receive, like national defense. We have no right to be freeloaders or socialists.

YOUR COMMENT: Snoop I have already made my points on the issue

MY RESPONSE: OK.

YOUR COMMENT: and regardless of how many threads you start on the subject my understanding of what income is will not change.

MY RESPONSE: You misunderstand. This new thread is not for you. The single post at the very top of this thread conclusively refutes the overwhelming majority of tax protester arguments (ex: "Congress did not intend to tax the income of individuals", "Congress only intended to tax the income of corporations", "Congress only taxes the income of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations", "Congress only taxes the income of agents acting on behalf of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations", "income does not include wages, salaries and other compensation for personal services of individuals", "Only citizens are required to pay income taxes and if I call myself a non-citizen I will be exempt from income taxes as a mere resident of the U.S.", etc.).

Because the first post at the very top of this thread conclusively refutes so many tax protester arguments in a single post, I have posted links to this new thread in dozens of places elsewhere on the web in order to invite other interested people to join us here on GIM2 and to hopefully join us in our discussion on tax protester arguments and whether any of them have ever actually worked. So, this thread is for them. Hopefully, this will attract more members to GIM2.

YOUR COMMENT: You have made our points. I have made mine.

MY RESPONSE: OK.

Best regards,

Snoop
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,239
Likes
4,837
#10
HERE IS THE CURRENT LAW WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO PAY INCOME TAXES.
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/NoLaw.htm

YOU CAN BE FINED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR MAKING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS.

https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-i-d-to-e
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-ii
https://www.irs.gov/privacy-disclosure/the-truth-about-frivolous-tax-arguments-section-iii
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf

HERE IS THE CASE LAW WHICH REBUTS DOZENS OF LOSING TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENTS POINT BY POINT:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

HERE, A UNIVERSITY INCOME TAX PROFESSOR ANSWERS QUESTIONS FROM TAX PROTESTERS AND OTHERS, POINT BY POINT
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/IncomeTax.htm http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.jsiegel.net/taxes/correspondence.htm



THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF INCOME TAX https://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm
Please define “income”.
 

chieftain

Too much pawpcorn
Joined
Jan 4, 2020
Messages
2,891
Likes
4,173
#11
Snoop, have you stopped and thought about how the "laws" regarding income tax came into being? Have you considered even for a second that their origin was of a fraudulent context, both in terms of who the originators of the income tax "laws" were and how they were forced through Congress under duress...

Not so. We pay taxes because it is required by law in order to offset the costs of governmental services which we all receive, like national defense. We have no right to be freeloaders or socialists.
Oh that's cute, you think taxation pays for government...
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,271
Location
Northern Arizona
#12
We don't need no stinkin' income tax! The US did just fine before 1913.

The income tax is theft,. It is immoral. It funds wars that kill millions of people.

I'll say it again: Dr. Ron Paul is STILL right!

ronpaulendthefed-twitter2.jpg
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#14
Please define “income”.
Hello Juristic Person,

THE DEFINITION OF INCOME :

CONGRESS PROVIDED A SHORT FORMULA FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE "INCOME"

Title 26 U.S.C 63(a) reads:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FIRST:
((BEGIN QUOTE)


(a) In general
... THE TERM “TAXABLE INCOME" MEANS GROSS INCOME [SEE BELOW] MINUS THE DEDUCTIONS [SEE BELOW] ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER (other than the standard deduction).



SECOND:
Then, Title 26 U.S.C. section 61

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

((BEGIN QUOTE)

(a) General definition
... GROSS INCOME MEANS ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) the following items:


(1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES [SUCH AS WAGES AND SALARIES], including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

THIRD
THEN, CONGRESS PROVIDES A LIST OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS. CLICK HERE:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FOURTH:
THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS "TAXABLE INCOME." SEE PROOF BELOW.



65 T.C.M. 1803 (1993)T.C. Memo. 1993-29Patricia B. Farr
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 6347-91.
United States Tax Court.

Filed January 27, 1993.
Patricia B. Farr, pro se. John M. Altman, for the respondent.

..
Opinion

Issue 1. Deficiency in Income Tax

[Referring to Title 26 U.S.C.] Section 1 of subtitle A IMPOSES AN INCOME TAX ON THE TAXABLE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 1; sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. TAXABLE INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME LESS THOSE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Sec. 63(a).
...
(END QUOTE)
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,166
Likes
35,245
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#15
More legalese bullshit trying to masquarade as legitimate law .... its a rigged system operated by legal wizards, lackeys & stooges.... IOW the words of the law as written by Congress dont really mean what they say using the Chevron Deference Doctrine.... sheesh!

Chevron Deference Doctrine

https://ballotpedia.org/Chevron_deference_(doctrine)
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#19
Income Tax Quiz: http://howyoubecomeliable.com




The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes:
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AnExciseTaxIsAPrivilegeTax.pdf
Hello Viking,

The video you posted above reflects the delusional theories of Peter Eric Henderson. Even my legal scholar friend, cigarlover, doesn't buy into Hendrickson's hallucinations. And, for good reason.

Hendrickson is a. convicted DOMESTIC TERRORIST who planted a "firebomb" in the U.S. Mail which was addressed to the IRS and which prematurely exploded and seriously injured a postal worker and a postal customer. Hendrickson is also a MULTI-convicted FELON who has served YEARS in prison. Both Hendrickson and all of his customers have a 100% failure rate in the courts. Finally, Hendrickson is under PERMANENT (LIFE LONG) written court orders to stop defrauding his customers by selling them worthless books, forms and tax avoidance schemes which do no actually work.

PROOF:
PETER HENDRICKSON'S ENTIRE LITIGATION HISTORY:
http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

DOMESTIC TERROR (THE FIREBOMB INCIDENT)
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29taxes-t.html

TO GET A SENTENCE REDUCTION IN THE FIREBOMB CASE, THE HENDRICKSONS SET-UP, SECRETLY RECORDED AND THEN TESTIFIED AGAINST THE VERY TWO WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN THEIR OWN DEFENSE THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF THE CHARGES. WITH FRIENDS LIKE THE HENDRICKSONS, YOU DON'T NEED ENEMIES.
https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/043/43.F3d.1021.93-2502.html

PUBLISHED ARTICLES ABOUT THE HENDRICKSONS
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2013/10/759-peter-hendrickson.html

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Peter_Hendrickson
https://www.theoaklandpress.com/new...cle_a4653925-7e03-5dce-bfe5-4ac3e97a7624.html
https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2010/04/oakland_county_tax_rebel_who_f.html
https://danthecpa.com/anti-tax-authors-better-half-sentenced-in-criminal-contempt-case/
https://www.journalofaccountancy.co...tax-author-sentenced-to-prison-201512122.html

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/mich...al-contempt-involving-federal-tax-obligations
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterj...k-the-code-and-sometimes-the-code-cracks-you/
https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2010/04/oakland_county_tax_rebel_who_f.html


CUSTOMERS OF PETER HENDRICKSON WHO PAID A HEAVY PRICE FOR RELYING ON HIS FRAUDULENT CLAIMS IN HIS BOOK
DR. ALLEN
https://www.internationalinvestment.net/news/4009418/us-doctor-sentenced-jail-jersey-tax-cheat
DR. ALLEN https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/pennsylvania-anesthesiologist-pleads-guilty-filing-false-tax-returns
DR. BELCHER https://www.wmdt.com/2017/12/salisbury-doctor-facing-time-in-prison-after-tax-crime-conviction/
MR. NEUGER https://www.nydailynews.com/fl-xpm-2012-02-10-fl-tax-trial-guilty-20120210-story.html
MR. BACK https://www.adn.com/crime-justice/a...rker-convicted-tax-evasion-crimes/2014/10/04/
MR. GIAMBALVO https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/01/151136P.pdf
MR. HAMMOND https://pembroke.wickedlocal.com/article/20151209/NEWS/151206311
MR. KNIPP https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InternetOrders/DocumentViewer.aspx?IndexSearchableOrdersID=50827
MR. WALTNER http://www.taxabletalk.com/2014/02/27/he-cracked-the-code-but-wont-be-happy-with-the-result/
MS. EYE https://www.nydailynews.com/fl-xpm-2012-02-10-fl-tax-trial-guilty-20120210-story.html
MR. CAREY https://www.accountingtoday.com/news/tax-fraud-blotter-physician-jail-thyself
MS. KESTIN https://theonlinetaxguy.com/2019/09/06/tax-court-approves-penalty-but-does-not-allow-irs-to-pile-on/
MR. MOORING https://www.accountingweb.com/tax/irs/crime-watch-june-13-2013

CASES ONLINE
PERMANENT INJUCTION:
https://famguardian.org/PublishedAu...ution/PeteHendrickson/20070502-34-PermInj.pdf
PETER'S MOTION TO VACATE LOSS AND SENTENCE OF 33 MOS. DENIED https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20130424i32
PETER APPEALS LOSS & LOSSES AGAIN
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/10-1726/10-1726-2012-02-08.html
DOREEN GETS 18 MOS. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/mich...al-contempt-involving-federal-tax-obligations
DOREEN APPEALS LOSS & LOSES AGAIN https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1733461.html
REFUND OF THE REFUND
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...v-11753/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_06-cv-11753-2.pdf
IRS's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...v-11753/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-2_06-cv-11753-2.pdf
NEWEST CASE https://unicourt.com/case/pc-ap1-peter-hendrickson-et-al-v-cir-36306
NEWEST CASE http://www.cir-usa.org/legal_docs/hendrickson_IRS_opp_mtq.pdf

LISTS OF THE COURT CASES INVOLVING THE HENDRICKSONS AND/OR THEIR CLAIMS:
1). NOTE THAT THIS LIST OF CASES IS SEVERAL PAGES LONG. SO, SCROLL THROUGH EVERY PAGE. CLICK HERE.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q="Peter+Hendrickson"&btnG=

2). NOTE THAT THIS LIST OF CASES IS TWO PAGES LONG. CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q="Peter+E.+Hendrickson"&btnG=

3). CLICK HERE. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=40006&q="Peter+Eric+Hendrickson"&btnG=

SUFFICE IT TO SAY, DO NOT TAKE INCOME TAX ADVICE FROM PETER ERIC HENDRICKSON.



EXCISE TAX

On the subject of whether an income tax is an excise tax or not, it makes no difference. Regardless of what type of tax an income tax is or is not, the sixteenth amendment gave Congress the power to tax income, regardless of whatever type of tax income tax is or is not without regard to apportionment applicable to other direct taxes.

Indeed, that was precisely the reason for passing and ratifying he sixteenth amendment in the first place (to empower Congress to tax income, no matter what the legal objection might be).


Best Regards,

Snoop
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#20
Are you determining gross income as income derived & paid via dollar denominated FRN's and dollar denominated bank credit, i.e. commercial paper???
Hello BarnacleBob,

I do not determine what gross income is. The federal government and its agencies make that determination.

But, I will try to answer your questions as best I can understand them.

If you are asking me whether the federal government considers your receipt of FRN's "income", the answer is yes.

But, the federal government's definition of "income" is much broader than the receipt of FRN's alone.

Example: If an employee receives a salary paid in FRN's, a new car to drive while employed and a new home to live in while employed, the employee is not only taxed on his salary. The employee is also taxed on the value of the use of the new car and the value of living in the new home while employed. This "income" is called "imputed income". It means income not measured by FRN's, but measured by the value of what the employee actually receives in value in exchange for his/her personal services to the employer.

If you are asking me whether "credit" is taxable as income, that depends on what you mean by "credit".

The law is clear that receiving a loan is not "income" subject to income tax (unless and until the debt is forgiven). So, borrowing money on"credit" is not "income" subject to income tax (unless and until the debt is forgiven). Likewise, receiving an "advance" or "draw" against commissions to be earned are not "income" subject to income tax either (unless and until the debt is forgiven). Advances and draws are treated as loans and are therefore treated as debts rather than treated as income subject to income taxes.

If you are asking me whether receiving "commercial paper" like a promissory note is is income based on the face amount of the note, the answer is no (unless and until sold for value). But, payments received from the debtor in connection with paying off that promissory note may be "income" subject to income taxes. If your receipt of the promissory note was a "gift", then both the principle and the interest received from the debtor will constitute income subject to income taxes. If you bought the promissory note for its face amount, then only the interest received in excess of the principal is income subject to income taxes.

I do not know whether I answered your questions or not. If I didn't, re-word your questions and ask me again. It seemed like you were challenging the legitimacy of FRN's. but I could not tell for sure.

If it is true that the Federal Reserve is a cartel of privately-owned banks which create FRN's out of nothing and effectively loan those FRN's to the United States government at its full face amount, plus interest (even if the transaction is disguised as a "purchase" and/or "sale" of government securities), then I oppose the Federal Reserve and I oppose our nation's use of its FRN's. The central bank of the United States should not be in private hands. If it were up to me, I would abolish the Federal Reserve and issue United States notes instead.

I realize that if the Federal Reserve is as described above, then the income tax and the IRS serve to benefit the Federal Reserve. But, the Federal Reserve is not the sole beneficiary of our income taxes.. Only 7% of of what we pay in income taxes is spent paying the interest on the national debt generated in connection with the Federal Reserve.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-government-spend-its-money

So, even WITHOUT the Federal Reserve, we would still have to pay 93% of what we pay now in income taxes (or other taxes).

Best Regards,

Snoop
 

BarnacleBob

Moderator, Equal opportunity annoyer!
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
17,166
Likes
35,245
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#21
Hello BarnacleBob,

I do not determine what gross income is. The federal government and its agencies make that determination.

But, I will try to answer your questions as best I can understand them.

If you are asking me whether the federal government considers your receipt of FRN's "income", the answer is yes.

But, the federal government's definition of "income" is much broader than the receipt of FRN's alone.

Example: If an employee receives a salary paid in FRN's, a new car to drive while employed and a new home to live in while employed, the employee is not only taxed on his salary. The employee is also taxed on the value of the use of the new car and the value of living in the new home while employed. This "income" is called "imputed income". It means income not measured by FRN's, but measured by the value of what the employee actually receives in value in exchange for his/her personal services to the employer.

If you are asking me whether "credit" is taxable as income, that depends on what you mean by "credit".

The law is clear that receiving a loan is not "income" subject to income tax (unless and until the debt is forgiven). So, borrowing money on"credit" is not "income" subject to income tax (unless and until the debt is forgiven). Likewise, receiving an "advance" or "draw" against commissions to be earned are not "income" subject to income tax either (unless and until the debt is forgiven). Advances and draws are treated as loans and are therefore treated as debts rather than treated as income subject to income taxes.

If you are asking me whether receiving "commercial paper" like a promissory note is is income based on the face amount of the note, the answer is no (unless and until sold for value). But, payments received from the debtor in connection with paying off that promissory note may be "income" subject to income taxes. If your receipt of the promissory note was a "gift", then both the principle and the interest received from the debtor will constitute income subject to income taxes. If you bought the promissory note for its face amount, then only the interest received in excess of the principal is income subject to income taxes.

I do not know whether I answered your questions or not. If I didn't, re-word your questions and ask me again. It seemed like you were challenging the legitimacy of FRN's. but I could not tell for sure.

If it is true that the Federal Reserve is a cartel of privately-owned banks which create FRN's out of nothing and effectively loan those FRN's to the United States government at its full face amount, plus interest (even if the transaction is disguised as a "purchase" and/or "sale" of government securities), then I oppose the Federal Reserve and I oppose our nation's use of its FRN's. The central bank of the United States should not be in private hands. If it were up to me, I would abolish the Federal Reserve and issue United States notes instead.

I realize that if the Federal Reserve is as described above, then the income tax and the IRS serve to benefit the Federal Reserve. But, the Federal Reserve is not the sole beneficiary of our income taxes.. Only 7% of of what we pay in income taxes is spent paying the interest on the national debt generated in connection with the Federal Reserve.
https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-federal-government-spend-its-money

So, even WITHOUT the Federal Reserve, we would still have to pay 93% of what we pay now in income taxes (or other taxes).

Best Regards,

Snoop
i'm going to answer the above in several parts, but lets first begin with where the so called income tax streams flow to:

"With two thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt and by federal government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services that taxpayers expect from their government." -- The Grace Commission Report

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...e Commission Report was,year by the year 2000.
 

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,239
Likes
4,837
#22
Hello Juristic Person,

THE DEFINITION OF INCOME :

CONGRESS PROVIDED A SHORT FORMULA FOR DETERMINING TAXABLE "INCOME"

Title 26 U.S.C 63(a) reads:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FIRST:
((BEGIN QUOTE)


(a) In general
... THE TERM “TAXABLE INCOME" MEANS GROSS INCOME [SEE BELOW] MINUS THE DEDUCTIONS [SEE BELOW] ALLOWED BY THIS CHAPTER (other than the standard deduction).



SECOND:
Then, Title 26 U.S.C. section 61

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/61

((BEGIN QUOTE)

(a) General definition
... GROSS INCOME MEANS ALL INCOME FROM WHATEVER SOURCE DERIVED, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) the following items:


(1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES [SUCH AS WAGES AND SALARIES], including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;

(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Annuities;
(9) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(10) Pensions;
(11) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(12) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(13) Income in respect of a decedent; and

(14) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

THIRD
THEN, CONGRESS PROVIDES A LIST OF ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS. CLICK HERE:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/63

FOURTH:
THE REMAINING AMOUNT IS "TAXABLE INCOME." SEE PROOF BELOW.



65 T.C.M. 1803 (1993)T.C. Memo. 1993-29Patricia B. Farr
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 6347-91.
United States Tax Court.

Filed January 27, 1993.
Patricia B. Farr, pro se. John M. Altman, for the respondent.

..
Opinion

Issue 1. Deficiency in Income Tax

[Referring to Title 26 U.S.C.] Section 1 of subtitle A IMPOSES AN INCOME TAX ON THE TAXABLE INCOME OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL WHO IS A CITIZEN OR RESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Sec. 1; sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. TAXABLE INCOME MEANS GROSS INCOME LESS THOSE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE. Sec. 63(a).
...
(END QUOTE)

Hey there Snoop.

I appreciate your response but the answer you provided does not satisfy my question. I asked for a definition of “income”. Providing me with a statement what qualifies as “taxable income” still does not reveal what “income” is or how it is defined in this (or any) context.

Care to take another crack at it?

The definition of income must be clearly established before we can continue with any conversation on the legalities and establishment of an income tax.
 

jimswift

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
552
Likes
900
Location
SC swamps
#23
As a free human roaming the land, where/when does the liability come in where you have to perform to other humans demands/satisfaction or violence will be brought to your body?

You are born free, something happened to make you liable to someone's "tax code"....

They like to present "law" as this noble thing...."we are governed by laws, not men"

....tell me again, what species concocted and made up these "law's" AND then rules over what the law means?

....and why is it necessary to keep perpetually concocting all these new "law's"?

Always these thousands of pages of "legislation" written by lawyers of corporations.....that's fascism at work...

but presented as something else.
 

TRYNEIN

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
13,914
Likes
77,297
Location
third cove on the right
#24
Hey there Snoop.

I appreciate your response but the answer you provided does not satisfy my question. I asked for a definition of “income”. Providing me with a statement what qualifies as “taxable income” still does not reveal what “income” is or how it is defined in this (or any) context.

Care to take another crack at it?

The definition of income must be clearly established before we can continue with any conversation on the legalities and establishment of an income tax.

What Is Income?

Since the term “income” is not defined in the RTC or in the IRC, we are justified by the holding in Holmes v. McColgan supra to search for federal judicial pronouncements on this point. Fortunately for us, the federal courts have been unusually clear on the correct legal definition of “income”. Appendix “J” in “The Federal Zone” contains a short list of those definitions, which are repeated here as follows:

.............

Income is NOT everything that “comes in”:

We must reject ... the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are incomewithin the proper definition of "gross income" ....
[Southern Pacific Co. v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330]

..............................

Corporate profits are "income":

[Income] 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.
[Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179]

.............................


Congress CANNOT change the Constitution:

In order, therefore, that the clauses cited above from Article I of the Constitution may have proper force and effect ... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction ... according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]


...............................................


Again, "income" is a gain, a profit:

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.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]

....................

The Supreme Court has REPEATEDLY ruled that compensation for professional services is not "income":

In determining the definition of the word "income" thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers and economists and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term ....

We continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a "gain or profit" "produced by" or "derived from" that investment, and that it "proceeded," and was "severed" or rendered severable, from, by the sale for cash, and thereby became that "realized gain" which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income ....[Merchant's Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509]

......................................


"Income" has been legally and officially defined:

And the definition of "income" approved by this Court is: "The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it beunderstood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. ... It is thus very plain that the statute imposes the income tax on the proceeds of the sale of personal property to the extent only that gains are derived therefrom by the vendor ....
[Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527]

.........................................

You do NOT obtain "income" by charging for services rendered:

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.
[Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 111 (2nd Cir.)]

...............................

No gain, no income -- no income, no tax:

Income is nothing more nor less than realized gain .... It is not synonymous with receipts .... Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient .... If there is no gain, there is no income.
[Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187]

...............................................

"Income" means "gain" -- "gain" means "profit":

Income" ... means "gain" "derived" from, and not accruing to, capital or labor or from both combined, including profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital, the gain not being taxable until realized, and, in such connection, "gain" means profit or something of exchangeable value, and "derived" means proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received or drawn by taxpayer for his separate use, benefit, and disposal.
[Staples v. U.S., E.D. Penna., 21 F.Supp. 737]

.............................

Wages and profits are two DIFFERENT things:

There is a clear distinction between "profit" and "wages" or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. [Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992; 86 S.E. 2d 858]

..............................

Payment for labor is NOT profit:

Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit. [Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews] [345 Pa. 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280]

......................................

The meaning of "income" has been CONSISTENT in law:

"Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed ...
[Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 174]

...................................


Again, "income" has had the SAME MEANING in law:

... and before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated ... what it later held, that "income," as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909.
[Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103]


.....................................

"Income" is NOT the same as "gross receipts":

Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. The tax is not, never has been and could not constitutionally be upon "gross receipts" ....
[Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. v. Hofferbert, USDC Maryland] [102 F.Supp. 902]

.......................................

Try to find a principle that is better settled:

Remember that our source is not some "tax protest" group. Just about everything we are telling you comes from the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be difficult, and perhaps impossible, in our system of jurisprudence, to find a principle better settled than the one we have been citing. [Alan Stang, Tax Scam, Mt. Sinai Press, POB 1220]
[Alta Loma 91701, CALIF. 1988]
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#25
Hey there Snoop.

I appreciate your response but the answer you provided does not satisfy my question. I asked for a definition of “income”. Providing me with a statement what qualifies as “taxable income” still does not reveal what “income” is or how it is defined in this (or any) context.

Care to take another crack at it?

The definition of income must be clearly established before we can continue with any conversation on the legalities and establishment of an income tax.
MY RESPONSE: Since 1920, the Supreme Court Of The United States has defined income 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, 252 US 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521 (1920). This definition applies to both people and corporations.


Congress has defined "income" for income tax purposes to be:

1916
INCOME - DEFINED.
Income defined.
SEC. 2. (a) That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as
are hereinafter allowed, THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON SHALL
INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OF WHATEVER KIND AND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, BUSINESS,
TRADE, COMMERCE OR SALES OR DEALING IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT
OR GAINS AND PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE WHATEVER:


1921
THE TERM ""GROSS INCOME" -
a INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
(Including in the case of
the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and
inferior courts of the Untied States and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District
of Columbia, the compensation received as such), OF WHATEVER KIND
AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES,
BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL GROWING OUT OT THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF AN INTEREST IN
SUCH PROPERTY ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS. SECURITIES,
OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT
OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1924
THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE

(including in the case of the President of the United States, the
judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID,
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE
OR SALES OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP IN SUCH PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENTS, DIVIDENDS SECURITIES , OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS AND PROFITS
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1926
THE TERM "GROSS INCOME INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND
INCOMES DERIVED FROM PERSONAL SALARIES
WAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

(including in the case of the President of the United States Federal officials in-
, eluded . the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES,
COMMERCE OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER
REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE
OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FRO RENT, DIVIDENDS,
SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER.


1928
(a) THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES THE GAINS, PROFITS AND
INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION
FOR PERSONAL SERVICE
(including in the case of the President of the
United States Federal officials included . the judges of the Supreme
and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS
IN PROPERTY WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO
FROM RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1932
a,) GENERAL DEFINITION. "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES , WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OF WHATEVER KIND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS,
TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS, IN
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF
THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM
INTEREST RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR THE TRANSACTION
OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS
OR PROFITS DERIVED FROM ANY COMPENSATION OR SOURCE
WHATEVER.
In the case of Presidents of the United States and
Presidents, judges . judges of courts of the United States taking
office after the date of the enactment of this Act, the compensation
received as such shall be included in gross income ; and all Acts
fixing the compensation of such Presidents and judges are hereby
amended accordingly .

et seq.

If it makes any difference, Congress has also specified lists of items WHICH ARE NOT "INCOME" FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. These lists include the receipt of loans, refunds, reimbursements, personal injury settlements, and certain receipts from insurance companies


Best Regards,

Snoop
 

ZZZZZ

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Dec 23, 2017
Messages
6,949
Likes
15,271
Location
Northern Arizona
#26
The farkin' Federal Goobermint's definition of "income" comes straight out of Orwell's 42nd Edition of the NewSpeak Dictionary.
.
.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,851
Likes
7,938
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#27
What is taxed is gain.

What profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul? Gaining the whole world would be hypothecated credit as not enough paper/gold exist in this world but credit as in account ledger marks do. So, to boil the pot down and to burn the essentials, "you and me are being taxed on some thing that does not exist and snoopie likes to talk about things that do not exist."

Question: Does Snoopie even exist?
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#28
I too oppose the Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve notes and fractional reserve (and no reserve) lending.

But, if money as we know it really did not exist and if it really had no value, then we could not trade it in exchange for for food. clothing, shelter, transportation, property, goods and services.

If money as we know it really did not exist and if it really had no value, then we would not work all of our adult lives for it.

If money as we know it really did not exist and if it really had no value, then people without it would no be homeless, starving.and dying.

Indeed, if money as we know it really did not exist and if it really had no value, then GIM2 we not ask for it once a year to offset its costs of operation.
 
Last edited:

Juristic Person

They drew first blood
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,239
Likes
4,837
#29
MY RESPONSE: Since 1920, the Supreme Court Of The United States has defined income 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, 252 US 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521 (1920). This definition applies to both people and corporations.


Congress has defined "income" for income tax purposes to be:

1916
INCOME - DEFINED.
Income defined.
SEC. 2. (a) That, subject only to such exemptions and deductions as
are hereinafter allowed, THE NET INCOME OF A TAXABLE PERSON SHALL
INCLUDE GAINS, PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
OR COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES OF WHATEVER KIND AND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, BUSINESS,
TRADE, COMMERCE OR SALES OR DEALING IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES, OR THE
TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT
OR GAINS AND PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM WHATEVER SOURCE WHATEVER:


1921
THE TERM ""GROSS INCOME" -
a INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES
AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES
(Including in the case of
the President of the United States, the judges of the Supreme and
inferior courts of the Untied States and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District
of Columbia, the compensation received as such), OF WHATEVER KIND
AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES,
BUSINESSES, COMMERCE, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR
PERSONAL GROWING OUT OT THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF AN INTEREST IN
SUCH PROPERTY ALSO FROM INTEREST, RENT, DIVIDENDS. SECURITIES,
OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT
OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1924
THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS, PROFITS,
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE

(including in the case of the President of the United States, the
judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID,
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE
OR SALES OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL
GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP IN SUCH PROPERTY, ALSO FROM INTEREST,
RENTS, DIVIDENDS SECURITIES , OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS AND PROFITS
AND INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1926
THE TERM "GROSS INCOME INCLUDES GAINS PROFITS AND
INCOMES DERIVED FROM PERSONAL SALARIES
WAGES AND COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICES

(including in the case of the President of the United States Federal officials in-
, eluded . the judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States,
and all other officers and employees, whether elected or appointed,
of the United States, Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID
OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESSES,
COMMERCE OR SALES, OR DEALINGS IN PROPERTY, WHETHER
REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF THE OWNERSHIP OR USE
OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FRO RENT, DIVIDENDS,
SECURITIES, OR THE TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED
ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATSOEVER.


1928
(a) THE TERM "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES THE GAINS, PROFITS AND
INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES, WAGES, OR COMPENSATION
FOR PERSONAL SERVICE
(including in the case of the President of the
United States Federal officials included . the judges of the Supreme
and inferior courts of the United States, and all other officers and
employees, whether elected or appointed, of the United States,
Alaska, Hawaii, or any political subdivision
thereof, or the District of Columbia, the compensation received as
such), OF WHATEVER KIND AND IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM
PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS, TRADES, BUSINESS, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS
IN PROPERTY WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL GROWING OUT OF THE
OWNERSHIP OR USE OF OR INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO
FROM RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR TRANSACTION OF ANY BUSINESS
CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT OR GAINS OR PROFITS AND INCOME DERIVED
FROM ANY SOURCE WHATEVER.


1932
a,) GENERAL DEFINITION. "GROSS INCOME" INCLUDES GAINS,
PROFITS, AND INCOME DERIVED FROM SALARIES , WAGES, OR
COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL SERVICE OF WHATEVER KIND
IN WHATEVER FORM PAID, OR FROM PROFESSIONS, VOCATIONS,
TRADES, BUSINESS, COMMERCE, OR SALES, OR DEALINGS, IN
PROPERTY, WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL, GROWING OUT OF
THE OWNERSHIP OR USE OF SUCH PROPERTY; ALSO FROM
INTEREST RENT, DIVIDENDS, SECURITIES OR THE TRANSACTION
OF ANY BUSINESS CARRIED ON FOR GAIN OR PROFIT, OR GAINS
OR PROFITS DERIVED FROM ANY COMPENSATION OR SOURCE
WHATEVER.
In the case of Presidents of the United States and
Presidents, judges . judges of courts of the United States taking
office after the date of the enactment of this Act, the compensation
received as such shall be included in gross income ; and all Acts
fixing the compensation of such Presidents and judges are hereby
amended accordingly .

et seq.

If it makes any difference, Congress has also specified lists of items WHICH ARE NOT "INCOME" FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES. These lists include the receipt of loans, refunds, reimbursements, personal injury settlements, and certain receipts from insurance companies


Best Regards,

Snoop
Thus income may be defined as a “gain” in the exchange or conversion of items or labor.

So if I buy stock at $100/share and I sell that stock at $150/share, than my “income” can be defined as the $50 margin I made per share.

If I work a labor job and my labor is with $50 for each hour of work, that $50 payout per hour is an even exchange for labor without any “gain” and is thus not taxable as “income”...just as if you were to buy a shirt from $20 and sell it from $20...no gain means no “income” thus the $20 is not taxable as such.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#30
Thus income may be defined as a “gain” in the exchange or conversion of items or labor.

So if I buy stock at $100/share and I sell that stock at $150/share, than my “income” can be defined as the $50 margin I made per share.

If I work a labor job and my labor is with $50 for each hour of work, that $50 payout per hour is an even exchange for labor without any “gain” and is thus not taxable as “income”...just as if you were to buy a shirt from $20 and sell it from $20...no gain means no “income” thus the $20 is not taxable as such.
Hello Jurist Person,

YOUR COMMENT: Thus income may be defined as a “gain” in the exchange or conversion of items or labor.

So if I buy stock at $100/share and I sell that stock at $150/share, than my “income” can be defined as the $50 margin I made per share.

If I work a labor job and my labor is with $50 for each hour of work, that $50 payout per hour is an even exchange for labor without any “gain” and is thus not taxable as “income”...just as if you were to buy a shirt from $20 and sell it from $20...no gain means no “income” thus the $20 is not taxable as such

MY RESPONSE: GAIN is NOT the difference in the VALUE of what is exchanged. "GAIN" is the difference between the "COST" of what is given up and the VALUE of what is received.


So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate THE GAIN based on THE DIFFERENCE between WHAT I ACTUALLY PAID for my own labor (not what it is worth) AND WHAT I RECEIVED FOR IT.


BECAUSE I PAID NOTHING FOR MY OWN LABOR, EVERYTHING I RECEIVE FOR MY LABOR IS "GAIN" AND THEREFORE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE LAW.


The federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly REJECTED the claim that compensation for labor is an "equal exchange" that does not result in income. SEE PROOF BELOW!

Even if wages are, in effect, an exchange of equal value for value, THEY [WAGES] ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1121-1122 (1983); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-129. And even if we apply section 1001 to determine petitioner’s gain, his basis... IS HIS COST, NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE. Since he PAID NOTHING for his labor, his COST and thus his basis ARE ZERO. Rice v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, even under section 1001, his taxable income from his labor IS HIS TOTAL GAIN REDUCED BY NOTHING, i.e., [all of ] HIS WAGES... . Petitioner’s argument fails for the same reason that other protesters’ arguments fail; the worker’s COST for his services--and thus his basis--IS ZERO, NOT their fair market value.”
Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).
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 [WAGES] are not [INCOME} has been rejected so frequently that THE VERY RAISING OF IT [THIS TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT], JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"].
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT. This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).... Merely raising the argument that value received for labor DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME, but rather constitutes a nontaxable exchange of property, JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS [MEANS PENALTIES].

”Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986).


“According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. [According to Buras], Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).the court did not define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain AND HAND when unaided by capital’ are commonly TREATED... AS INCOME.

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).


“Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly REJECTED the argument that wages are not income AS FRIVOLOUS....”
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).
“DeMoss contends that the compensation he received from his employers is not taxable because his basis in his labor is equal to the amount of compensation he received. The tax court properly REJECTED this frivolous contention. See Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).”
DeMoss v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672, 75 A.F.T.R.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished; sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
“Appellant’s second argument is that his compensation in exchange for labor is property, NOT INCOME. ... AGAIN, HE IS WRONG. The Third Circuit unequivocally has stated that ‘WAGES ARE INCOME within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 944 (3rd Cir. 1990). The Third Circuit then warned that ‘nless subsequent Supreme Court decisions throw any doubt on this conclusion, we will view arguments to the contrary as frivolous, WHICH MAY SUBJECT THE PARTY RAISING THEM TO APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"].’ Id. Such authority is neither cited nor found, and appellant’s arguments WILL BE DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. WAGES ARE INCOME.”
Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR 2d ¸99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).​
“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. NO COURT HAS EVER ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT for the purpose of determining taxable income. INDEED, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN REJECTED. FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, WAGES ARE TAXABLE INCOME."
Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).​
“Petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service documents purporting to be 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns. The documents reported petitioner’s compensation earned in each year and then deducted the equivalent amount as ‘Property (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax).” ... The only dispute that petitioner raised with respect to the amounts of compensation is his frivolous arguments that his wages are not taxable. THESE ARGUMENTS, as petitioner was advised in the District Court order, citing United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986), HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY AND THOROUGHLY REJECTED AND MAY BE THE BASIS FOR SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"]."
Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-102, 2002 TNT 74-14, (sanctions of $10,000 imposed for frivolous arguments raised primarily for delay); aff’d 2003 TNT 108-7, No. 02-73119 (9th Cir. 5/16/2003).​
“In effect, Ms. Sumter attempts to claim that the deduction (her total salary) was a necessary expense for the production of that same salary. She provides no support or credible justification for her untenable position. Ms. Sumter tries to cite case law in support of her “even exchange” argument; however, none of the cases she cites justify her position. In fact, the cases are contrary to her .position. [Discussion of cases omitted]. THUS, THE COURTS HAVE CLEARLY REJECTED THE "EVEN EXCHANGE" ARGUMENT, WHICH ERRONEOUSLY ASSERTS THAT NO TAXES ARE OWED ON EMPLOYMENT WAGES, SINCE THE INCOME FROM THE SERVICES RENDERED WAS A FAIR MARKET VALUE AND, THEREFORE, NO PROFIT OR GAIN OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE WORK PERFORMED.
Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 518 (2004).​
“[A] review of the pleadings indicates that Mr. Ledford bases his entitlement to this relief on his view that the federal tax code does not tax compensation received for personal labor. Mr. Ledford’s view of the tax law is mistaken, AS THE TAX CODE QUITE PLAINLY DEFINES INCOME TO INCLUDE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) (2000) (“[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items . . . .”). Indeed, every court that has considered the matter has found this argument to be WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT -- so much so that merely raising it is considered sanctionable [MEANS PUNISHABLE].
”Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381, 2002 TNT 153-6, No. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002). See also, Brown v. U.S., 35 Fed. Cl. 258, 269 (1996) (explaining that Lonsdale v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981) rejected the “even exchange” argument), aff’d, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied (1997); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984).​
The claim that “[w]ages, tips, and other compensation received for the performance of personal services are not taxable income or are offset by an equivalent deduction for the personal services rendered, including an argument that a taxpayer has a “claim of right” to exclude the cost or value of the taxpayer’s labor from income or that taxpayers have a basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive,” or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004-29, 2004-12 I.R.B. 627, or Rev. Rul. 2007-19, 2007-14 I.R.B. 843, has been identified by the IRS as a “FRIVOLOUS POSITION” THAT CAN RESULT IN A PENALTY OF $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions.
Best Regards,
Snoop
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,851
Likes
7,938
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#31
Hello Jurist Person,

YOUR COMMENT: Thus income may be defined as a “gain” in the exchange or conversion of items or labor.

So if I buy stock at $100/share and I sell that stock at $150/share, than my “income” can be defined as the $50 margin I made per share.

If I work a labor job and my labor is with $50 for each hour of work, that $50 payout per hour is an even exchange for labor without any “gain” and is thus not taxable as “income”...just as if you were to buy a shirt from $20 and sell it from $20...no gain means no “income” thus the $20 is not taxable as such

MY RESPONSE: GAIN is NOT the difference in the VALUE of what is exchanged. "GAIN" is the difference between the "COST" of what is given up and the VALUE of what is received.


So, if I sell my own labor for $100, I must calculate THE GAIN based on THE DIFFERENCE between WHAT I ACTUALLY PAID for my own labor (not what it is worth) AND WHAT I RECEIVED FOR IT.


BECAUSE I PAID NOTHING FOR MY OWN LABOR, EVERYTHING I RECEIVE FOR MY LABOR IS "GAIN" AND THEREFORE TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE LAW.


The federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly REJECTED the claim that compensation for labor is an "equal exchange" that does not result in income. SEE PROOF BELOW!

Even if wages are, in effect, an exchange of equal value for value, THEY [WAGES] ARE TAXABLE AS INCOME. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1121-1122 (1983); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-129. And even if we apply section 1001 to determine petitioner’s gain, his basis... IS HIS COST, NOT FAIR MARKET VALUE. Since he PAID NOTHING for his labor, his COST and thus his basis ARE ZERO. Rice v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, even under section 1001, his taxable income from his labor IS HIS TOTAL GAIN REDUCED BY NOTHING, i.e., [all of ] HIS WAGES... . Petitioner’s argument fails for the same reason that other protesters’ arguments fail; the worker’s COST for his services--and thus his basis--IS ZERO, NOT their fair market value.”
Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).
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 [WAGES] are not [INCOME} has been rejected so frequently that THE VERY RAISING OF IT [THIS TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT], JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"].
Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income IS CLEARLY WITHOUT MERIT. This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).... Merely raising the argument that value received for labor DOES NOT CONSTITUTE TAXABLE INCOME, but rather constitutes a nontaxable exchange of property, JUSTIFIES THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS [MEANS PENALTIES].

”Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986).


“According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. [According to Buras], Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).the court did not define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain AND HAND when unaided by capital’ are commonly TREATED... AS INCOME.

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).


“Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly REJECTED the argument that wages are not income AS FRIVOLOUS....”
Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).
“DeMoss contends that the compensation he received from his employers is not taxable because his basis in his labor is equal to the amount of compensation he received. The tax court properly REJECTED this frivolous contention. See Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).”
DeMoss v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672, 75 A.F.T.R.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished; sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
“Appellant’s second argument is that his compensation in exchange for labor is property, NOT INCOME. ... AGAIN, HE IS WRONG. The Third Circuit unequivocally has stated that ‘WAGES ARE INCOME within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 944 (3rd Cir. 1990). The Third Circuit then warned that ‘nless subsequent Supreme Court decisions throw any doubt on this conclusion, we will view arguments to the contrary as frivolous, WHICH MAY SUBJECT THE PARTY RAISING THEM TO APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"].’ Id. Such authority is neither cited nor found, and appellant’s arguments WILL BE DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. WAGES ARE INCOME.”
Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR 2d ¸99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).​
“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. NO COURT HAS EVER ACCEPTED THIS ARGUMENT for the purpose of determining taxable income. INDEED, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN REJECTED. FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, WAGES ARE TAXABLE INCOME."
Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).​
“Petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service documents purporting to be 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns. The documents reported petitioner’s compensation earned in each year and then deducted the equivalent amount as ‘Property (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax).” ... The only dispute that petitioner raised with respect to the amounts of compensation is his frivolous arguments that his wages are not taxable. THESE ARGUMENTS, as petitioner was advised in the District Court order, citing United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986), HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY AND THOROUGHLY REJECTED AND MAY BE THE BASIS FOR SANCTIONS [MEANS "PENALTIES"]."
Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-102, 2002 TNT 74-14, (sanctions of $10,000 imposed for frivolous arguments raised primarily for delay); aff’d 2003 TNT 108-7, No. 02-73119 (9th Cir. 5/16/2003).​
“In effect, Ms. Sumter attempts to claim that the deduction (her total salary) was a necessary expense for the production of that same salary. She provides no support or credible justification for her untenable position. Ms. Sumter tries to cite case law in support of her “even exchange” argument; however, none of the cases she cites justify her position. In fact, the cases are contrary to her .position. [Discussion of cases omitted]. THUS, THE COURTS HAVE CLEARLY REJECTED THE "EVEN EXCHANGE" ARGUMENT, WHICH ERRONEOUSLY ASSERTS THAT NO TAXES ARE OWED ON EMPLOYMENT WAGES, SINCE THE INCOME FROM THE SERVICES RENDERED WAS A FAIR MARKET VALUE AND, THEREFORE, NO PROFIT OR GAIN OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE WORK PERFORMED.
Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 518 (2004).​
“[A] review of the pleadings indicates that Mr. Ledford bases his entitlement to this relief on his view that the federal tax code does not tax compensation received for personal labor. Mr. Ledford’s view of the tax law is mistaken, AS THE TAX CODE QUITE PLAINLY DEFINES INCOME TO INCLUDE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES RENDERED. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) (2000) (“[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items . . . .”). Indeed, every court that has considered the matter has found this argument to be WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT -- so much so that merely raising it is considered sanctionable [MEANS PUNISHABLE].
”Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381, 2002 TNT 153-6, No. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002). See also, Brown v. U.S., 35 Fed. Cl. 258, 269 (1996) (explaining that Lonsdale v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981) rejected the “even exchange” argument), aff’d, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied (1997); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984).​
The claim that “[w]ages, tips, and other compensation received for the performance of personal services are not taxable income or are offset by an equivalent deduction for the personal services rendered, including an argument that a taxpayer has a “claim of right” to exclude the cost or value of the taxpayer’s labor from income or that taxpayers have a basis in their labor equal to the fair market value of the wages they receive,” or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2004-29, 2004-12 I.R.B. 627, or Rev. Rul. 2007-19, 2007-14 I.R.B. 843, has been identified by the IRS as a “FRIVOLOUS POSITION” THAT CAN RESULT IN A PENALTY OF $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions.
Best Regards,
Snoop
U definitively do not understand barter. an amount paid for sweat/labor extended is not gain nor is it income as it is barter. One can neither get the sweat back nor can one retrieve the work but relinquishment of a shitty job for a shitty barter is called 'trade.' This is dealt with in court.
 

snoop4truth

Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
598
Likes
126
#32
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1934285916765004980&q="income+tax"+barter+"not+income"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003
85 F.2d 819 (1936)
HALE
v.
HELVERING,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
No. 6608.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Decided August 17, 1936.

(BEGIN QUOTE)
...

"The distinction between a sale and exchange of property is rather one of shadow than of substance. IN BOTH CASES the title to property is absolutely transferred; AND THE SAME RULES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTION, whether the consideration of the contract is money OR BY WAY OF BARTER. It can make NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE in the rights and obligations of parties that goods and merchandise are transferred AND PAID FOR BY OTHER GOODS AND MERCHANDISE INSTEAD OF BY MONEY which is but the representative of value of property. Com. v. Clark, 14 Gray (Mass.) 367." Black's
Law Dictionary, 3rd ed. 713.

(END QUOTE)

THUS, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, VALUE RECEIVED IN A BARTER IS TAXABLE AS INCOME.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7343237704576593625&q="income+tax"+barter+"not+income"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003
47 T.C.M. (CCH) 1176 (1984)T.C. Memo. 1984-94.
Thomas M. Dragoun
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 24139-82.
United States Tax Court.

Filed February 28, 1984.​
(BEGIN QUOTE)
Petitioner's arguments
that these amounts were paid by federal reserve notes, or that THEY REPRESENTED BARTER AND NOT INCOME ARE COMPLETELY DEVOID OF MERIT. See our opinion, for instance, in Rowlee v. Commissioner [Dec. 40,228], 80 T.C. 1111 (1983), on appeal (2d Cir., Sept. 13, 1983), as to these and other frivolous time-consuming arguments put forward by petitioner.

(END QUOTE)

THUS, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, VALUE RECEIVED IN A BARTER IS TAXABLE AS INCOME.


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16721042983602174664&q="income+tax"+barter+"not+income"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003
57 T.C.M. 975 (1989)T.C. Memo. 1989-344
Norville R. Pervier
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 4676-87.
United States Tax Court.

Filed July 19, 1989.​

FACT SUMMARY: The Petitioner operated a barter exchange service and received commissions for barter transactions in the form of barter credits (NOT FRN's). The Petitioner could use these barter credits to purchase goods and services from other members. Each barter credit was equal to one dollar for accounting purposes. The court held that the Petitioner had to pay income taxes on the VALUE of his barter credits (which were not FRN's).

(BEGIN QUOTE)
"[The barter exchange] acted as a clearing house for the barter of goods and services between members and provided its membership with a medium of exchange ("trade dollars"). According to Exchange's rules, the value of one trade dollar equaled one U.S. dollar. Exchange publicized property and services available for barter and held auctions to facilitate the barter of goods and services among its membership.

Exchange itself possessed several accounts through which it carried out barter transactions. Exchange would record each barter of goods (1) by crediting the seller's account with the agreed upon price in trade dollars less a commission of five percent in trade dollars ("commission fees"), and (2) by debiting the buyer's account with the agreed upon price in trade dollars. The buyer would also pay a fee in cash. Exchange would credit its own account with the commission fees.

"Gross income includes all income from whatever source derived WHETHER REALIZED IN THE FORM OF MONEY. PROPERTY OR SERVICES. Section 1.61-2(d)(1), Income Tax Regs. The VALUE of trade dollars [barter credits] received by a taxpayer is includable in his gross income in the taxable year in which the trade dollars [barter credits] are credited to the taxpayer's account. Similarly, the VALUE of goods and services received WITHOUT PAYMENT, except for gifts, is includable in gross income when received.

(END QUOTE)

THUS, ALL VALUE RECEIVED IN A BARTER IS TAXABLE AS INCOME.


https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14139282300456199862&q="income+tax"+barter+"not+income"&hl=en&as_sdt=40003
54 T.C.M. 417 (1987)T.C. Memo. 1987-445
Sharon S. Voss
v.
Commissioner.

Docket No. 33080-85.
United States Tax Court.

Filed September 2, 1987.
ALMOST IDENTICAL FACTS AND HOLDING TO THE CASE DIRECTLY ABOVE.
THUS, FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES, VALUE RECEIVED IN A BARTER IS TAXABLE AS INCOME.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
11,851
Likes
7,938
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#33
...
"The distinction between a sale and exchange of property is rather one of shadow than of substance. IN BOTH CASES the title to property is absolutely transferred; AND THE SAME RULES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSACTION, whether the consideration of the contract is money OR BY WAY OF BARTER. It can make NO ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE in the rights and obligations of parties that goods and merchandise are transferred AND PAID FOR BY OTHER GOODS AND MERCHANDISE INSTEAD OF BY MONEY which is but the representative of value of property. Com. v. Clark, 14 Gray (Mass.) 367." Black's
Law Dictionary, 3rd ed. 713.
And, you say nothing in this first paragraph/quote so why would this man even trouble himself as in to read the rest? look, come out with the teeth of your argument or just quit.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
56,866
Likes
112,329
Location
Rocky Mountains
#35
Seriously S4T you don't need to SHOUT by increasing the font size.

It really makes it difficult to read.

Also, consider folks who use a phone to surf the net... Your enlarged font doesn't help them....

"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."
It says right there in red... "PROVIDED it be understood to include profit..."

I take that to mean (in common language) that "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," must also include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.

1. If I understand your position it is that any income made from labor is profit, therefore the whole amount is taxable?

The 'other' position would be

2. If one were the owner of a company (an accounting firm?) who paid a worker ( $1 ) and charged a client ( $2 ) to 'use' said worker, the the 'profit' would be $1 per hour and therefore 'taxable'.

I'd agree with the 2nd position... not the 1st.


Lawyers who purposely obfuscate to confuse - the same with elections where a yes means no - should be shot for doing that.