Hendrickson hearing, motion to dismiss indictment

[Famspear]

Mutter, are you going to send/have you sent a message to Hendrickson's attorney about the big boo-boo she made in not asserting that the District Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Hendrickson's criminal case? Let us know what the attorney's response is.

Nope (Sic)he doesnt listen. i am basically just an observer

Yeah, that's what I thought.

[Nikki]

Mutter:

What's your fixation with "wages?"

The tax, which Pete evaded, is imposed on taxable income.

The computation of taxable income starts with gross income

Section 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition: 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, 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) 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.

The key element in the case of most CtC filers is #1 - Compensation for services. Wages are compensation for services. Salaries are compensation for services.

You really need to get off this kick about wages to understand how Pete deliberately ignored §61 and carefully misinterpreted other sections of the code to support his evasion.

[mutter]

whats your definition of "United States"

The "United States" is the country we live in, it includes the states of Alaska and Hawaii. You would agree with that wouldn't you?

Of course [sic] I do.

[mutter]

Oh, and Mutter, while you're at it, ask yourself whether Hendrickson is going to argue in court that he was not aware of the existence of (1) the Internal Revenue Code, (2) the Treasury regulations, (3) court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, (4) rulings of the Internal Revenue Service rejecting his interpretation, (5) the contents of personal income tax return forms, e.g., Form 1040, and (4) the accompanying IRS instructions for Form 1040.

I think you know the answer.

Do you understand why Hendrickson's awareness of the existence of these things might result in a conviction?

Indeed i understand what you technically are getting at, but dont think they apply as I dont remember ever seeing a statement of what his interpretation is. he is stateing he has read the law and what he is paid doesnt count as wages as defined [Sic] If untrained (legal training) withholding agents can make this determination then its my right to rebut it is it not?

[mutter]

Mutter:

What's your fixation with "wages?"

The tax, which Pete evaded, is imposed on taxable income.

The computation of taxable income starts with gross income

Section 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition: 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, 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) 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.

The key element in the case of most CtC filers is #1 - Compensation for services. Wages are compensation for services. Salaries are compensation for services.

You really need to get off this kick about wages to understand how Pete deliberately ignored §61 and carefully misinterpreted other sections of the code to support his evasion.

i am well aware of what the tax is laid upon and that there is no definition of income etc.
Wages are a measurment of income. thats the facination. I am going to read the link the Prof posted then get back to you. However, right now it appears you all dont actually understand PH's position.

[mutter]

from Mutter:

I dont [sic] think calling you a troll constitutes a personal attack.

[ . . . ]

To the person who refered [sic] to me as crackhead[,] I believe its [sic] a violation of forum rules.

I didnt call you a troll [sic] I mean lurker on this forum so it doesnt count.

[Nikki]

Again with the fixation on "wages"

Let me state it simply for you: Wages are income.

There have been many tax evaders who have used the argument that "wages" are not income, for one argument or another. They have, without exception, lost.

Every court which has considered the question has determined that wages are income.

Pete, to come up with his warped logic in CtC, clearly had to put in a great deal of time reading the tax laws to find the area concerning withholding which he carefully misinterpreted to support his goal of evading taxes. Also, he deliberately ignored the specific definition of "includes" as stated in the law because he needed to misinterpret that, too.

Finally, in case you missed it: Wages are income

[RyanMcC]

i am well aware of what the tax is laid upon and that there is no definition of income etc.

To echo Nikki, "income" is not taxed, "taxable income" is taxed, which is defined in the tax code as "gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter" (26USC63). "Gross income" includes: "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items".

At work, did Pete perform services, and did he receive compensation? I don't care what you call the compensation he received (wages) or what you call the person who gave it to him (employer), all irrelivant. Did Pete perform services, and did he receive compensation?

If so, he atleast had "gross income" and likely "taxable income".

[mutter]

Again with the fixation on "wages"

Let me state it simply for you: Wages are income.

There have been many tax evaders who have used the argument that "wages" are not income, for one argument or another. They have, without exception, lost.

Every court which has considered the question has determined that wages are income.

Pete, to come up with his warped logic in CtC, clearly had to put in a great deal of time reading the tax laws to find the area concerning withholding which he carefully misinterpreted to support his goal of evading taxes. Also, he deliberately ignored the specific definition of "includes" as stated in the law because he needed to misinterpret that, too.

Finally, in case you missed it: Wages are income

I said wages are a measurement of income, I did not say wages are not income. that statement is a perfect example of why you need to learn that everyday words are often redefined in the law especially the IRC. As Wages are defined 4 times they must be definition be income as they are a measure of it.
Includes is one of the biggest tricks in the code.
Why would the gov need to put stuff like officers of corporations etc when the tax is laid upon taxable income not a class of worker? it matters only if you received taxable income.

[wserra]

If a claim is not stated the court never gained what? subject matter jurisdiciton.

Authority for this? No? Well, consider 18 USC 3231: "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States". And consider that, on the rare occasions when courts do dismiss indictments for lack of specificity, jurisdiction doesn't enter the picture. See, for example, the well-known Supreme Court case Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). Moreover, the usual remedy for insufficient specificity is a bill of particulars, not dismissal. E.g., United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37 (1999). A court couldn't order the govt to provide a defendant with a BP if it had no jurisdiction, could it?

You want me to cite you a JP case that was dismissed?

Y'know, I know of someone - strangely enough, also named "mutter" - who got a JP to void his mortgage and all of his debts on the ground that everyone named "mutter" deserves that much consideration. But, since all of his creditors' lawsuits were dismissed on that basis, I guess I can't cite it to you.

the indictment is insufficent for the reason i already stated. it doesnt allege a fact. it alleges that the DOJs opinion is Hendrickson beleived he did receive wages so therefore the forms are fraudulent. They have to prove fraud. How? How are they gonna demonstrate PH didnt beleive what he signed under penalties of perjury.

If you're right, a jury will walk him. But "how are they gonna ever prove it?" isn't a basis to dismiss an indictment. If you disagree with me, cite law that I'm wrong.

[RyanMcC]

Why would the gov need to put stuff like officers of corporations etc when the tax is laid upon taxable income not a class of worker? it matters only if you received taxable income.

26USC1

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of--

(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who
makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,
and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)),

a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

Do you cede that 26USC1 clearly imposes a tax upon taxable income?

[mutter]

i am well aware of what the tax is laid upon and that there is no definition of income etc.

To echo Nikki, "income" is not taxed, "taxable income" is taxed, which is defined in the tax code as "gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter" (26USC63). "Gross income" includes: "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items".

At work, did Pete perform services, and did he receive compensation? I don't care what you call the compensation he received (wages) or what you call the person who gave it to him (employer), all irrelivant. Did Pete perform services, and did he receive compensation?

If so, he atleast had "gross income" and likely "taxable income".

yes
Oh yes income is taxed. taxable income is income minus allowed excemptions. So the quetion is what constitutes income
did he receive income for working no he did not as far as I can tell. Income being connected to a federal priviledge

[RyanMcC]

Oh yes income is taxed.

Incorrect - "Taxable Income" is taxed by 26USC1 and defined in 26USC63. "Income" is not.

taxable income is income minus allowed excemptions. So the quetion is what constitutes income

Incorrect - "Taxable income" is "gross Income" minus allowed deductions, not "income" minus allowed deductions. "Gross income" is defined in 26USC61.

did he receive income for working no he did not as far as I can tell. Income being connected to a federal priviledge

Incorrect - He received "Compensation for services" which meets the defintion of "gross income".

[mutter]

If a claim is not stated the court never gained what? subject matter jurisdiciton.

Authority for this? No? Well, consider 18 USC 3231: "The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States". And consider that, on the rare occasions when courts do dismiss indictments for lack of specificity, jurisdiction doesn't enter the picture. See, for example, the well-known Supreme Court case Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749 (1962). Moreover, the usual remedy for insufficient specificity is a bill of particulars, not dismissal. E.g., United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37 (1999). A court couldn't order the govt to provide a defendant with a BP if it had no jurisdiction, could it?

You want me to cite you a JP case that was dismissed?

Y'know, I know of someone - strangely enough, also named "mutter" - who got a JP to void his mortgage and all of his debts on the ground that everyone named "mutter" deserves that much consideration. But, since all of his creditors' lawsuits were dismissed on that basis, I guess I can't cite it to you.
no sounds like BS to me as a JP doesnt hear such cases. IE not within a JPs venue or subject matter jurisdiction. In Delaware the JPs do traffic and landlord tenant cases. I cant see a mortgage holder filing in a JP court versus superior court. Thats a crazy argument. everyone with my name deserves to have their debt cancelled?

the indictment is insufficent for the reason i already stated. it doesnt allege a fact. it alleges that the DOJs opinion is Hendrickson beleived he did receive wages so therefore the forms are fraudulent. They have to prove fraud. How? How are they gonna demonstrate PH didnt beleive what he signed under penalties of perjury.

If you're right, a jury will walk him. But "how are they gonna ever prove it?" isn't a basis to dismiss an indictment. If you disagree with me, cite law that I'm wrong.

A maxium of law states that the law cant force an impossiblility, but youre right that is not a basis for dismissal. Agreed.

[mutter]

Oh yes income is taxed.

Incorrect - "Taxable Income" is taxed and defined in 26USC63. "Income" is not.

taxable income is income minus allowed excemptions. So the quetion is what constitutes income

Incorrect - "Taxable income" is "gross Income" minus allowed exemptions, not "income" minus allowed exemptions. "Gross income" is defined in 26USC61.

did he receive income for working no he did not as far as I can tell. Income being connected to a federal priviledge

Incorrect - He received "Compensation for services" which meets the defintion of "gross income".

and gross income is defined as?
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and
charging for them."
- [Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 111 (1916)] -
"... 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 Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true
under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is
not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income
not compensation."
- [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or
a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot
be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word
`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any
business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
- [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)] -

[mutter]

Oh yes income is taxed.

Incorrect - "Taxable Income" is taxed by 26USC1 and defined in 26USC63. "Income" is not.

taxable income is income minus allowed excemptions. So the quetion is what constitutes income

Incorrect - "Taxable income" is "gross Income" minus allowed deductions, not "income" minus allowed deductions. "Gross income" is defined in 26USC61.

did he receive income for working no he did not as far as I can tell. Income being connected to a federal priviledge

Incorrect - He received "Compensation for services" which meets the defintion of "gross income".

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensations for personal
services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be
returned by the individual who has performed the services which
produce the gain is without support, either in the language of
the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not
only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act
and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which
either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal
services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the
individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by
the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services that are to be included in
gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services."
- [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)] -

[grixit]

Suggested title for Mutter: Hendrikson's Paladin.

[Demosthenes]

"... one does not derive income by rendering services and
charging for them."
- [Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 111 (1916)] -

Don't you think you should read the cases you cite, Mr. Mutter?

[RyanMcC]

and gross income is defined as?
"... one does not derive income by rendering services and
charging for them."
- [Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 111 (1916)]

What was the previous sentence in that opinion? Find it and read it.

Go to Dan's "Tax Protester FAQ": http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Press control+F and search for "Edwards v. Keith" on that page.

The ruling said, if you perform a service, charge for it, and don't get paid it's not income. Simply "charging" someone for a service does not mean you derived income, you have to actually get paid first which is what this case was about.

"... 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 Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true
under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is
not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income
not compensation."
- [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

Dan's Tax Protester FAQ addresses this one too:

The issue in that case was whether insurance proceeds received by the taxpayer after the destruction of his home should be considered taxable income. That case has nothing to do with wages or compensation for labor.

In other words, if your house burns down, and you are compensated for it by an insurance policy, it isn't a gain, and isn't taxable income.

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or
a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot
be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word
`profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any
business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
- [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)] -

Dan's Tax Protester FAQ also addresses this court case, read his response to it under the section entitled "Tax Protester 'Evidence'".

[grixit]

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensations for personal
services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be
returned by the individual who has performed the services which
produce the gain is without support, either in the language of
the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not
only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act
and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which
either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal
services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the
individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by
the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services that are to be included in
gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal services."
- [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)] -

Sorry, Indy, you just jumped into the Pit of Knives.