This is a suit to recover income taxes.

[Cracker]

Are your guys for real?

Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the sixteenth amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber, supra, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true under section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income.

What part of “If there is no gain, there is no income.” You cannot understand?
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969149 ... p118711251

What is GAIN?

Profits; winnings; increment of value. Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 65, 21L. Ed. 45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, SO App. Div. 405, 83 N. Y. Supp. 840. https://thelawdictionary.org/gain/

What is TAXABLE INCOME?

Gross income that standard deductions and allowances are taken from.

What is GROSS INCOME?

Production costs or cost of sales amount exceed by unadjusted, total sales revenue.
https://thelawdictionary.org/gross-income/

The principles controlling in the decision of the questions stated are established. The Treasury Department cannot, by interpretative regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189, 64 L.Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570; M. E. Blatt Co. v. United States, 305 U.S. 267, 59 S.Ct. 186, 83 L. Ed. 167. But Congress, in defining gross income in the various revenue acts, manifested its intention to use to its fullest extent the power granted it by the Sixteenth Amendment. Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9, 56 S.Ct. 59, 80 L.Ed. 3, 101 A.L.R. 391; Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 341, 60 S.Ct. 554, 84 L.Ed. 788. What is or is not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment must be determined in each case "according to truth and substance, without regard to form." Eisner v. Macomber, supra [252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 193, 64 L.Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570]. The meaning of the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the acts of Congress pursuant to the Amendment is that given it in common speech and every day usage. Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U.S. 552, 52 S.Ct. 211, 76 L.Ed. 484; United States v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 310 U.S. 534, 60 S.Ct. 1059, 84 L.Ed. 1345. In the construction of the revenue acts in question here, and of the administrative regulations interpreting them, we may put aside as not controlling the meaning of income in the language of accountancy and economics. Nor can the ruling of one administrative department of the government concerning income accounting control that of another department made for an entirely different purpose under another act of Congress. Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, supra.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and other federal courts, applying the principles stated, compel the decision here that the questioned treasury regulations pursuant to the Revenue Acts of 1934 and 1936 are valid administrative interpretations applicable to taxpayer's sales of its stock in both 1935 and 1937. It is true that in Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 306 U.S. 110, 59 S.Ct. 423, 83 L.Ed. 536, where the Court had under consideration § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934 and the treasury regulation made under it which is involved here, the Court held that within the limits of permissible administrative interpretation, a department regulation interpreting an act of Congress, by repeated reenactment by Congress of the act unchanged, acquires the force of law. In that case the Court, while sustaining the power of the Treasury Department to change its interpretative regulations so as to operate prospectively, denied it the power to apply a new or amended regulation retroactively. The precise question before the Court was whether the corporate taxpayer had realized taxable income by sales of its own stock in the year 1929. The Court said that the question was governed by the treasury regulations in force in 1929, under which it was provided that a corporation realized no taxable income from sales of its own stock. It denied the power of the Treasury Department to apply to transactions completed in 1929, a regulation adopted in 1934. Here the questioned treasury regulations were made under and for the very revenue acts controlling the disputed tax liabilities, a fact which sharply distinguishes this case from the Reynolds case.

The Court in the Reynolds case expressly declined to decide whether an act of Congress was necessary to change an administrative interpretation which had acquired the force of law by repeated reenactments by Congress of the section of the act interpreted by the regulation. But in Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co., 308 U.S. 90, 100, 101, 60 S.Ct. 18, 84 L.Ed. 101, it said that the doctrine of acquired legislative approval of an administrative regulation by reenactment unchanged of the act interpreted does not apply to preclude changes in administrative interpretations through the exercise of appropriate rule-making powers, and in Helvering v. Reynolds, 313 U.S. 428, 432, 61 S.Ct. 971, 85 L.Ed. 1438, 134 A.L.R. 1155, it expressly held that an act of Congress was not necessary to the amendment or change in an interpretative departmental regulation which had acquired the force of law by repeated legislative reenactment of the acts interpreted. In Morrissey v. Commissioner, 296 U.S. 344, 355, 56 S.Ct. 289, 294, 80 L.Ed. 263, the Court said that the authority of the Treasury Department to promulgate administrative constructions of revenue acts could not be deemed to be "so restricted that the regulations, once
[133 F.2d 580]
issued, could not later be clarified or enlarged so as to meet administrative exigencies or conform to judicial decision."

Two recent decisions of circuit courts of appeals expressly deny the contention of the taxpayer here. Allen v. National Manufacture & Stores Corp., 5 Cir., 125 F.2d 239, certiorari denied 316 U.S. 679, 62 S.Ct. 1106, 86 L.Ed. 1753; Commissioner v. Air Reduction Company, 2 Cir., 130 F.2d 145, certiorari denied 63 S.Ct. 201, 87 L.Ed. ___. In the first case mentioned, the purchase of the taxpayer's own stock was made with the intention of retiring it, but later the stock was resold at a profit. In the second case, the corporation sold its own stock to certain of its officers, realizing a profit. In this case the sale was made in 1935 and the validity of the treasury regulation involved here was sustained. In the first case, the corporate taxpayer sold its own shares in the year 1937, realizing a profit on the transaction. The Court sustained the validity and the application of Article 22 (a)-16 of Treasury Regulations 94 under the Revenue Act of 1936.

We find nothing against the conclusion announced above in Morgan v. Commissioner, 309 U.S. 78, 81, 626, 60 S.Ct. 424, 84 L.Ed. 585; Helvering v. Janney, 311 U.S. 189, 194, 61 S.Ct. 241, 85 L.Ed. 118, 131 A.L.R. 980; and Helvering v. Oregon Mutual Life Ins. Co., 311 U.S. 267, 270, 61 S.Ct. 207, 85 L.Ed. 180. The holding of these cases is not, as the taxpayer claims, that an administrative regulation which through repeated reenactment by Congress of the act to which it applies has acquired the force of law, can only be amended by an act of Congress. On the contrary, each of these cases sustains the proposition that the act of Congress alone fixes rights which a governmental department, by administrative regulation, cannot take away nor destroy.

Moreover, the earlier federal cases involving earlier and different regulations, relied on by the taxpayer, must give way to the later decisions based on later regulations. Nor does it appear that the treasury regulation providing that a corporation realized neither gain nor loss from the purchase and sale of its own stock has received at the hands of the courts the uniform approval which the taxpayer claims for it. It has been held that the apparent weight of authority in income tax cases arising under the earlier revenue acts and the corresponding treasury regulations took the view that the regulation denying deductible loss or taxable gain to a corporate taxpayer on sales of its own stock was intended to "apply only to original issues or to purchases and sales which were in fact capital transactions." Investment Corp. of Philadelphia v. United States, D.C., 43 F.Supp. 64, 65; Commissioner v. S. A. Woods Co., 1 Cir., 57 P.2d 635; Commissioner v. Boca Ceiga Development Corp., 3 Cir., 66 F.2d 1004. And see First Chrold Corp. v. Commissioner, 3 Cir., 97 F.2d 22, reversed 306 U.S. 117, 59 S.Ct. 427, 82 L.Ed. 542, under authority of Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., supra.

In E. R. Squibb & Sons v. Helvering, 2 Cir., 98 F.2d 69, 70, 71, upon the reasoning of which the taxpayer places great reliance here, although distinguished if not overruled by the same Court's decision in Commissioner v. Air Reduction Co., supra, the Court decided under the reenactment doctrine that the prior regulation involved had acquired the force of law and had become so firmly embedded in the revenue acts that it could only be dislodged by an act of Congress. But the Court was careful to point out that it did not hold that the regulation then in force was on its face invalid or was not a justifiable interpretation of § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1932. It said: "We need not say that no other interpretation could have been made: it is not uncommon, when a corporation buys its own shares, to regard them as stock existing in a kind of limbo, so that when it sells them again, it does not reissue them de novo, but sells its own property. That convention may be sufficient constitutional basis for a statute which should tax as income the difference between the amount paid to buy in `treasury shares' and that received on their sale; we do not mean to suggest the opposite, for in such matters convention may be conclusive."

The Board was right in affirming the determination by the Commissioner of a deficiency in the taxpayer's income for the year 1937, and wrong in reversing his determination of a deficiency resulting from stock sales for the year 1935. With respect to stock sales in the year 1935, the Board thought it could not presume that Congress, in the passage of the Revenue Act of 1934, had knowledge of the Treasury's change in its interpretation of prior
[133 F.2d 581]
revenue acts, promulgated by the Treasury's decision one day before the passage of the Act of 1934. It thought that the doctrine of congressional approval by reenactment could not be applied in the circumstances stated. But we need not speculate upon whether Congress, in the passage of the Revenue Act of 1934, had knowledge of the amendment of the pertinent administrative interpretation promulgated by a treasury decision on the day before the passage of the Act, since congressional approval, under controlling decisions, was not necessary to a change in administrative interpretation. In Helvering v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., supra, the Court held that the language of § 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934 defining gross income, substantially the same as the corresponding section of prior revenue acts, was so general in its terms as to justify an administrative interpretation of its meaning. Since the Act itself, and not the interpretation, is the ultimate source of the rights and liabilities of the taxpayers, the Treasury Department was not precluded from correcting what it determined was error in its prior regulation and in applying its new interpretation prospectively, as is done here, in the case of taxpayer's income for the year 1935, as well as for the year 1937.

As the Board of Tax Appeals indicated in its opinion, congressional approval of the Treasury's interpretative regulation may be implied in the case of taxpayer's income for the year 1937, the interpretation having been made two years before the passage by Congress of the controlling Revenue Act of 1936. But the question is not whether the administrative regulations have received legislative approval, but whether they are permissible interpretations of the respective revenue acts to which they apply. In the light of controlling authority, the question must be answered in the affirmative.

With respect to the taxpayer's transfer of shares of its capital stock to its general counsel, the Board was of the opinion that the transaction was effective for income tax purposes as a sale of the shares involved. The question before the Board, therefore, was whether, where the taxpayer satisfied a debt owing to its general counsel for services rendered by the transfer to counsel of shares of its capital stock, it realized taxable income, the taxpayer having acquired the stock in question at a cost less than the price at which it was transferred. But it thought the gain to the taxpayer in the transaction was not taxable income because of its opinion of the invalidity of Article 22(a)-6 of Treasury Regulations 86, as applied to sales of corporate stock in the year 1935. Since we have reached the opposite conclusion, it follows that this decision of the Board must be reversed and the determination of a deficiency in taxpayer's income for the year 1935 resulting from the transaction under consideration must be sustained.

The taxpayer also contends that if the validity of the treasury regulations involved here should be sustained, nevertheless, the regulations have no application under the evidence in this case. The regulations in question provide in brief that whether a corporation realizes gain or loss in the purchase and sale of its own capital stock depends upon the real nature of the transaction, to be ascertained from all facts and circumstances; and that if a corporation deals in its own shares, as it might in the shares of another corporation, the resulting gain or loss is to be computed in the same manner as though the corporation were dealing in the shares of another. The argument of the taxpayer is that the sale of its own stock to its employees, under a plan adopted by the corporation for the purpose of creating and sustaining employee interest in the affairs of the corporation, is not dealing in its own stock by the corporation as it might deal in the shares of another corporation. The point is made that the purchase and sale of the shares in another corporation could not satisfy the essential purpose of the employee purchase plan. This, of course, is true but immaterial. The material fact is that the corporation bought and sold its own stock at a profit, dealing, in controlling aspects of the transaction, as it might have dealt with the stock of another corporation. The fact that these profitable sales were made to employees is not alone determinative of the character of the transaction viewed as a whole. We think the transaction clearly within the department's regulations.

On the petition of the Commissioner in No. 12,250, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is reversed. Upon the petition of the taxpayer for review in No 12,251, the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1943708133f2d5751514

Try reading full cases!

Class B. Under this class these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 103, 112] (1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.

(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 0/103.html

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

Taxable income is derived from gains and profits framspear.

Commissioner, Kentucky Block Coal Co. v. Lucas, and the cases decided by the Board of Tax Appeals which did involve the decision of the point now before me, it seems to me that the definition of income was extended beyond the limits laid down by the Supreme Court in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, and I am therefore unable to follow them.

Moreover framspear:
The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the taxation without apportionment of "incomes, from whatever source derived." Income has been defined as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 34 S. Ct. 136, 140, 58 L. Ed. 285, "including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital," Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. 1054; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570. The gain is, however, not taxable until it is realized. North American Oil Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 52 S. Ct. 613, 76 L. Ed. 1197. Furthermore, a gain from capital must be derived from it, not merely accruing to it. Eisner v. Macomber, supra. In the case just cited Mr. Justice Pitney, after quoting the foregoing definition, said, 252 U.S. 189, at page 207, 40 S. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570:
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 7/1943681/

I don’t know what you are talking about in any of your post.

Section 22(a) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C.A. § 22(a), provides that: "`Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from * * * dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or 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." Article 22(a) 13 of Regulations 86 adopted under the Revenue Act provides in part as follows:

Framspear what is confusing you? Is it the “Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from * * * ” ?

It must be the word includes. Take it out and you get Gross income' gains, profits, and income derived from * * *

Framspear stay on the topic of gains and profits are taxable income. Only gains and profits are taxable.....

[Judge Roy Bean]

Yawn.

Blather, rinse, repeat.

[HardyW]

Dear Jamie0331: We've already been through this kind of posting a gazillion times, from hundreds of tax protesters who falsely believe they have found some sort of "truth."

Instead of copying and pasting this kind of gibberish, write out a clear, short statement of what you are trying to say, and then cite one or two court cases that you believe support you.

and eventually

Jamie0331 is now moderated.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtop ... 40#p268515

[notorial dissent]

Yawn!!!

Is there some point here other than to prove that you cannot read?

[Cracker]

So no rebuttal? Just the same thing? Topic is income is taxable only if it is derived from gains and profits! No? You are dead on this ground of facts! Please go have a burger and a cocktail and think about what you can not defend!

[Cracker]

Plainly, the amendment was not a grant of power to Congress to tax incomes, for such a power is one which Congress always had. It was adopted to meet the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional on the ground that it was an unapportioned direct tax. See Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886 (1926).

This is about a fire? Really? It is about the income tax..... Why do I think that? Well! Because it is what it is! which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional on the ground that it was an unapportioned direct tax. What? They are wrong?

[Cracker]

Step up and defend on go away crying!

[Cracker]

notorial dissent!

I can’t read? Read what? This for an example?
Income has been the subject of federal taxation since as long ago as the Civil War and continuously since 1913. Rapp, Some Recent Developments in the Concept of Taxable Income, 11 Tax.L.Rev. 329 (1956). In that year, the sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution was proclaimed as having been ratified. It provided then, as now, that:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Read what? Show me what you want me to read!

[Burnaby49]

Cracker has made four posts in a row taunting us to respond. He's clearly just trolling since everything he's arguing has already been extensively discussed and rebutted on Quatloos. No doubt he has tens of thousands of words in hundreds of totally irrelevant court decisions to dump on us as soon as he gets a response. It will be the same old game of moving goalposts.

[Famspear]

Dear Cracker: You are reluctant to come out and state your position. The reason for this is that you cannot find anything that supports your position. Instead, you're copying and pasting off-topic stuff.

Let me help you out. I'll help you by stating a general rule that applies to you today, for the tax year 2018:

The General Rule:

Generally, the gross amount you receive in 2018 as compensation for a service you provide to someone is includible in your 2018 gross income for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, except to the extent that a portion of that amount is excluded -- typically, under sections 101 through 140 of the Internal Revenue Code (or various other Code provisions).

Now, if you can find a statute or case law that you think makes that general rule be incorrect, give it a try. I don't mean "look for an exception." For example, there is a drafting error related to the taxation of alimony. That is an exception. Exceptions don't count. There are typically exceptions to a general rule. Instead, look for a statute or case law that makes that statement of the general rule be incorrect.

It would be a fool's errand. You won't find any such thing.

[Cracker]

Law!

What is TAXABLE INCOME?

Gross income that standard deductions and allowances are taken from.

https://thelawdictionary.org/taxable-income/

What is GROSS INCOME?

Production costs or cost of sales amount exceed by unadjusted, total sales revenue.

https://thelawdictionary.org/gross-income/

Moreover:

Case law:

Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue
98, Pg. 226. "[2] Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became
effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, it was true under
section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is true under section 61(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income."

Read the Case....

This is a suit to recover income taxes. The Internal Revenue Service determined that George and Dorothy Conner, plaintiffs in this case, had understated their taxable income for the years 1965 and 1966. Plaintiffs paid the amount in controversy, $22,359.04, timely claimed a refund from the Internal Revenue Service, and timely filed this suit.

“Understand their taxable income.”

IRS code:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, 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) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Gross income means what?

Plainly, the amendment was not a grant of power to Congress to tax incomes, for such a power is one which Congress always had. It was adopted to meet the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional on the ground that it was an unapportioned direct tax. See Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886 (1926).

“Was not a grant of power”

The case is about taxable income that was derived from gains from the fire insurance....

What wrong with you?

[Cracker]

Let’s Discuss this cited in the case.
The opinion in Glenshaw Glass Company, supra, regardless of what it said about Eisner v. McComber, supra, did not repudiate the concept that there must be gain before there is income within the meaning of the sixteenth amendment. 1 Mertens, section 5.02, p. 4. This is verified by the fact that in Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Lo Bue, 351 U.S. 243, 76 S.Ct. 800, 100 L.Ed. 1142 (1956), a year after the decisions in Glenshaw Glass Company, supra, and General American Investors v. Commissioner, supra, it was said:

re·pu·di·ate
[rəˈpyo͞odēˌāt]
VERB
refuse to accept or be associated with.
"she has repudiated policies associated with previous party leaders"
synonyms:
reject · renounce · abandon · forswear · give up · [more]
deny the truth or validity of.
"the minister repudiated allegations of human rights abuses"
synonyms:
deny · refute · contradict · rebut · dispute · [more]
law
refuse to fulfill or discharge (an agreement, obligation, or debt).
"breach of a condition gives the other party the right to repudiate a contract"

Read the case and then comment on the facts of the case. Facts about the income tax laws are in the case. Facts are there must be a gain before there is income. Proven fact of law....

[Famspear]

No, Cracker.

You're engaging in attempts at evasion.

The General Rule:

Generally, the gross amount you receive in 2018 as compensation for a service you provide to someone is includible in your 2018 gross income for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, except to the extent that a portion of that amount is excluded -- typically, under sections 101 through 140 of the Internal Revenue Code (or various other Code provisions).

Look for a statute or case law that you think makes that general rule be incorrect.

If you can't do that, then give up.

[wserra]

Facts are there must be a gain before there is income.

OK. Let's assume that you put in a day's work someplace. Unlikely, I know, but humor me. Your employer pays you $100. You previously had $200. Now you have $300.

Explain how that isn't a gain.

[Burnaby49]

Come on Wes, even I know the answer to that one. It's been tried any number of times at the Tax Court of Canada. Cracker spent $100 worth of time and labour in doing the work that got him the $100. Therefore he's made an equal exchange by selling something worth $100 (his valuable time, effort) but he got paid only $100 for it. Poor guy didn't make a profit or gain, he spent an entire day huffing and puffing and just broke even.

[wserra]

Burnaby . . . troll-killing 101. Get him to commit to a position - something that Fracker has so far studiously avoided doing - then post the law that outright rejects that position.

Thanks, buddy.

[Burnaby49]

You think I've stopped him? I'd like to think that Cracker is made of sterner stuff than that. At best I've got him to skip a step so that he'll start moving the goalposts to something like how I didn't define income and you can't tax income unless the IRS specifically defines exactly what he's doing down to the last detail. He wasn't digging a ditch, he was transporting dirt. Next up a totally irrelevant citation about a case involving dairy farming in Kansas from 1886 and forty pages from the congressional record of 1915 regarding German submarine activity.

[notorial dissent]

Cracker sweetums, I said YOU CAN'T READ!!!!!! and well comprehend. I stand by that, as you continue to so gloriously prove.

The case you so grandly posted concerns the IRS misconstruing an insurance loss payment that went towards the taxpayer's housing while his house was being replaced/rebuilt, a very usual part of a good comprehensive homeowner's policy.

The IRS for whatever reasons misconstrued a reimbursement, which is what it essentially was, as covered under the policy, as income, it wasn't. The people involved sued to get their over payment back. Simple, clear, and concise. NOT INCOME, and was what the court said. Clear, concise and to the point. This is a difficult concept for you to grasp??? Why???

Two things,

• income as applies to an individual/person/you is generally defined and treated differently that "income" and "profit" for a business. Another difficult concept apparently, but there it is in all its simple glory.
  
  and attaching copypasta that is irrelevant to the case at hand is just that irrelevant.

[NYGman]

Law!

What is TAXABLE INCOME?

Gross income that standard deductions and allowances are taken from.

https://thelawdictionary.org/taxable-income/

What is GROSS INCOME?

Production costs or cost of sales amount exceed by unadjusted, total sales revenue.

https://thelawdictionary.org/gross-income/

Moreover:

First, an online site, called "TheLawDictionary.com" is not a legal authority of any kind. From a quick review, it is clear it is intended to simplify things for laypeople, and is not meant to be used as a legal source. So why don't you do as asked, and find a statute on point, that defines what you are after, and post it here. Further, I just had to throw this in, I love it when non legal folks use words like Moreover to sound more legal. It always looks misplaced to me. Anyway, on with the reply...

Case law:

Conner v. United States. 303 F. Supp. 1187 (1969) pg. 1191: 47 C.J.S. Internal Revenue
98, Pg. 226. "[2] Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential
feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th amendment became
effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. Macomber, it was true under
section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is true under section 61(a) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income."

Read the Case....

I did, and here is the link. Did you read the case. First, you are taking the quote out of context, a typical rookie error. Next, you took part of the analysis, or a specific pattern of facts, to be the holding, another common mistake. This case is simply one where an insurance company reimburses a family rent payments, while they were still paying their mortgage, on their fire damaged home. SInce they were not profiting from the reimbursement, it was ruled not to be income. Moreover, has the family stopped paying the mortgage, of if the rent compensation exceeded the rent they were paying, I would expect an alternative answer. This cas does nothing to support your position. Go have a read.

This is a suit to recover income taxes. The Internal Revenue Service determined that George and Dorothy Conner, plaintiffs in this case, had understated their taxable income for the years 1965 and 1966. Plaintiffs paid the amount in controversy, $22,359.04, timely claimed a refund from the Internal Revenue Service, and timely filed this suit.

“Understand their taxable income.”

IRS code:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, 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) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; (9) Annuities; (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; (11) Pensions; (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Gross income means what?

Not what you think it does.

Plainly, the amendment was not a grant of power to Congress to tax incomes, for such a power is one which Congress always had. It was adopted to meet the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 15 S.Ct. 673, 39 L.Ed. 759 (1895) which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional on the ground that it was an unapportioned direct tax. See Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174, 46 S.Ct. 449, 70 L.Ed. 886 (1926).

Really, see above, Another not what you think it means.

“Was not a grant of power”

The case is about taxable income that was derived from gains from the fire insurance....

What wrong with you?

Nothing, why are you conorting cases, and taking items out of context, and using unreliable sources to base your argument on? As before, please use statutes, and valid case law holding, not dicta, not out of context quotes, not cut and paste internet babble. Also, please include links to the cases, and read them in their entirety before you quote them.

[Cracker]

About The Law Dictionary
Blacks Law Dictionary 2nd EditionThe Law Dictionary features Black's Law Dictionary, the trusted legal dictionary of law definitions and terms for over 100 years. The 2nd edition has over 15K legal terms for your business and research use.

Moreover:

Whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the sixteenth amendment became effective, it was true at the time of the decision in Eisner v. McComber, supra, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and it is likewise true under section 61 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. If there is no gain, there is no income.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969149 ... p118711251
taxable income noun

Legal Definition of taxable income
: income that is subject to taxation and is characterized by the accrual of some gain or benefit to the taxpayer
specifically : the total amount of income remaining as the basis of taxation for a given period after all allowable deductions have been applied to gross income

https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/taxable%20income

Moreover:
We have repeatedly held that in defining `gross income' as broadly as it did in § 22(a) Congress intended to `tax all gains except those specifically exempted.' 351 U.S. 246, 76 S.Ct. 803 (Emphasis Added.)

Read the full case before you comment on this. Provide supporting documents for your nonsense.