income from whatever source derived (again)

[Imalawman]

Yes, and Weston has convinced himself that he is better educated in the law than the legal experts here. Wow. (I am not such legal expert, I refer to LPC, Wes, etc.) He thinks he can hold his own here. In fact, he thinks he is actually showing us something. Weston is really a sad case. I had hopes, I really did, but Westy is doomed. He'll be gone soon and arise only in the caption in a tax case - that is if he ever has any serious income.

[Nikki]

There doesn't have to be a court case using words that only you will accept. The courts are going to phrase their decision based upon the law. Besides, there is at least one court case where the court stated that "Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors." Funk v. C.I.R. 687 F.2d 264 (1982). In that case, Mr. and Mrs. Funk did not report as income wages received during two years. They are argued that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax. The court determined they were wrong. Therefore, arguments that compensation for labor are not subject to the income tax are wrong.

Doesn't count. 2nd District -- not the Supreme Court.

[Nikki]

Yes, and Weston has convinced himself that he is better educated in the law than the legal experts here. Wow. (I am not such legal expert, I refer to LPC, Wes, etc.) He thinks he can hold his own here. In fact, he thinks he is actually showing us something. Weston is really a sad case. I had hopes, I really did, but Westy is doomed. He'll be gone soon and arise only in the caption in a tax case - that is if he ever has any serious income.

If he appears in a tax court case, it will be in a CDPH appeal. He has blown away all chances he ever had regarding the underlying liability.

More likely, his name will appear BELOW the 'v.' in a levy or siezure case. With any luck, the case won't be in the civil arena at all.

[Cpt Banjo]

Illegally obtained income, if it is still income, it would really matter now would it? Illegal income, are you serious? Big WHO CARES!

I'll tell you who should care: anyone (including you) who continues to parrot the idiotic claim that only income connected with a federal privilege is taxable.

Although sure there are many other sub-classes of taxes within various classes of indirect taxes such as excises, for example: 'inheritance tax/legacy tax/succession tax or duty', 'franchise tax', 'estate tax', ‘occupation tax’, ‘license tax’, ‘privilege tax’, etc.; and of course ‘income tax’, and the one thing they all have in common, all indirect taxes. Similarly, capitations retain the sub-class of poll-taxes and personal taxes.

You're so freakin' dumb, there's nothing to compare you with (see Walter Huston to Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre). Mr. Springer made all the pathetic arguments that you have made; like you, he relied on Adam Smith for the proposition that an income tax on his earnings was a direct tax in the constitutional sense. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that the tax was in the nature of a duty or an excise. Read the case and learn something, if you can.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586

[Weston White]

There are no facts present there is only a quotation of something, it is missing all the required elements. There is nothing to set its context.

Kinda like saying that employee compensation isn't compensation for services, without saying just what it is that an employee does that is not a service for his or her boss, or what services are performed only by non-employees and can therefore have their compensation taxed as income, or where in the IRC or the constitution or anywhere else these terms are defined, and giving no examples of any of these things.

"Compensation for services" is specially defined within the Classification Act of 1923. "Service" has many definitions, the most common application of service would be used to indicate a mandatory or obligatory capacity, most always in consideration of the government, e.g. I am in the [military] service, public service, civil service, etc.

Really who says I perform services for Wal-Mart? Most people say something to the effect of: I work or labor or am employeed at or am an employee of Wal-Mart.

Nobody says I receive compensation for services that I provide at Wal-Mart. Most people say something to the effect of: I earn money by laboring or for the labor or for the work that I provide or do at Wal-Mart.

[jg]

OMG, is that ever vague, there are so many elements left out of that, that is means nothing to anybody. There are no facts present there is only a quotation of something, it is missing all the required elements. There is nothing to set its context.

You are attempting to be a magician working your art of misdirection.

No, I am just replying to your request.
You said: "You know you keep saying that but yet you can’t directly show that can you! Nothing like I have been able to show you great works that do directly support my own beliefs."
And you said: "Better yet you go read it and tell me what it says."

And now, when I repeat the quote from the case you claim it lacks context.

In the first post of the thread an extensive quote was provided and a link to the full case was provided; but you now claim what I quote from the case lacks context.

You refer to the quote as "only a quotation of something" and do not even seem to know I am referring to the case that was referenced in the first post of the thread COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955)
The full case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426

Obviously, you prefer not to examine what the SCOTUS has ruled to be income that is comprehended as gross income subject to the income tax.

A quote from the case and an explanation of what it says are only valuable to the extent that thought it applied.

You are the one attempting misdirection or avoidance of what does not fit your theories. Avoidance is not an intelligent reply.

[cynicalflyer]

Maybe because then he would have to admit that he, and Pete are full of it, and their carefully crafted tissue of nonsense would come tumbling down. Just a WAG.

That is I think 90% of it. The other 10% would be the admission that he and Pete are simply deadbeats looking for some legal(istic) cover or justification (AIG bailout was bad, so therefore I don't have to pay my taxes) for their refusal to pay what they owe.

[cynicalflyer]

Weston is falling back on one of the last refuges of the "tax honesty" movement -- Unless you can cite a Supreme Court decision (and it MUST be the Supreme Court) which specifically addresses, verbatim, his allegations, he stands unrebutted.

Last? Often I have found that is the first. But your point is well taken: even if every possible variation Pete and WW came up with was specifically rejected by the court, somehow they would contrive a way to spin it that the Court failed to address a semicolon and therefore the case is a "victory".

When you start from the premise you do not want to pay what you owe, it is amazing the mental contortions you can make.

Or, as someone else one put it, it is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

[Paul]

"Compensation for services" is specially defined within the Classification Act of 1923.

Nice of you to provide that definition, show how it excludes anything that could be considered wages of an employee, and how it ties into tax law. But, of course, connecting the dots isn't your strong suit, is it? Just tossing random nonsense out there, and hoping someone buys into it.

"Service" has many definitions, the most common application of service would be used to indicate a mandatory or obligatory capacity, most always in consideration of the government, e.g. I am in the [military] service, public service, civil service, etc.

Civil service is employment, not government officers. They earn wages, same as any other employee.

And none of those services are generally "mandatory or obligatory." Only military service is supported by drafts, and even then only in time of serious war, except during the 50's and 60's.

[Doktor Avalanche]

What on Earth is he talking about?

[Paul]

Haven't a clue.

I WAS drafted, OK? I was merely pointing out that, with the exception of the travesty against our traditions of liberty during the 50's and 60's, this nation has only resorted to the draft when things were really tough. So classifying something as "service" only when it involves some sort of coercion on the grounds that "military service" or being in "the service" is normally forced on you shows a total ignorance of our history.

[Weston White]

Weston is falling back on one of the last refuges of the "tax honesty" movement -- Unless you can cite a Supreme Court decision (and it MUST be the Supreme Court) which specifically addresses, verbatim, his allegations, he stands unrebutted.

Last? Often I have found that is the first. But your point is well taken: even if every possible variation Pete and WW came up with was specifically rejected by the court, somehow they would contrive a way to spin it that the Court failed to address a semicolon and therefore the case is a "victory".

When you start from the premise you do not want to pay what you owe, it is amazing the mental contortions you can make.

Or, as someone else one put it, it is like trying to nail Jello to a tree.

Actually, it appears that the point has never been specifically or directly addressed before, I believe even LPC stated that within another post, he stated he could not locate anything via a search.

The falsehood I see most of you embracing is that because something, a point, was not specifically stated it means that the point automatically falls in your own graces. In actuality, what that truly means it, the point, is an unknown so far as “case law” is concerned. Being that it has not been addressed, directly, positively, it could go either way. Therefore “the point” for such purposes is rendered as a nullity and cancels itself out of the equation.

[Weston White]

Obviously, you prefer not to examine what the SCOTUS has ruled to be income that is comprehended as gross income subject to the income tax.

I do not disagree with that, at this point in time I am no longer interested in what the IRC states or does not state, I have come to understand that the IRC is not the argument to be made, it is the core of the entire argument that is to be made. That has become my focus, you want to argue the IRC, go visit LH or email Hendrickson, I have his email if you need it; I am sure he would love to debate the IRC with you all, heck he needs the practice anyways.


Although if you want to quote Section 22 from the 1939 RA, you should also quote its other aspects as well:

26 U.S.C. Section 39.22(a)-1
What is included in gross income
Gross income includes in general compensation for personal and professional services, business income, profits from sales of and dealings in property, interest, rent, dividends, and gains, profits, and income derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law. See sections 22(b) and 116. In general, income is 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. Profits of citizens, residents, or domestic corporations derived from sales in foreign commerce must be included in their gross income; but special provisions are made for nonresident aliens and foreign corporations by sections 211 to 238, inclusive, and, in certain cases, by section 251, for citizens and domestic corporations, deriving income from sources within possessions of the United States. Income may be in the form of cash or of property." [items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law.

26 U.S.C. Section 39.22(b)-1
Exemptions; exclusions from gross income
Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government; (b) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any act of Congress still in effect; and (c) the income excluded under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (see particularly section 116).

26 CFR Section 29.21-1.
Meaning of net income. The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law... enter into the computation of net income as defined by section 21.

…
(b) Gross income, meaning income (in the broad sense) less income which is by statutory provision or otherwise exempt from the tax imposed by chapter 1. (See section 22.)

26 CFR Section 29.22(a)-1. What included in gross income.
Gross income includes in general [items of income listed] derived from any source whatever, unless exempt from tax by law. (See section 22(b) and 116.)
----
26 CFR Section 22(b)
No other items are exempt from gross income except[/quote] (1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government; (2) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income

under the provisions of any Act of Congress still in effect; and (3) the income exempted under the provisions of section 116.
----

[jg]

26 CFR Section 29.21-1.
Meaning of net income. The tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law... enter into the computation of net income as defined by section 21.

Why not quote the entire sentence or paragraph?
But, since you said you do not care what the SCOTUS has ruled to be included in income subject to the income tax what point of discussion about the various tax acts is there?

You are wildly inconsistent and seem to enjoy bouncing back and forth on several topics.
Saying you are no longer interest in the IRC and then in the next breadth quoting from a prior tax act is a prime example.

If you are not interested in what judicial authority says is, and is not, income for purposes of application of the income tax, then you can not possibly determine what is or is not legally correct.

You are free to imagine whatever you like in regard to the law. Please do not follow in Hendrickson's footsteps of pretending to know more than the SCOTUS; but not informing his readers of the possible, or likely, consequences of putting his theory into action (while he knew full well what the law was that would be applied to those actions and the enforcement that could occur).

[Dr. Caligari]

No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government

OK, fine (even though that language no longer appears in the Code or regulations). Just what items of income are there that are not taxable by the federal government under the Constitution? (Hint: if you can answer that question, you will know why that language has been removed from the current versions of the Code and Regulations.)

[Cpt Banjo]

White has jettisoned SCOTUS decisions because he realizes they are inconsistent with (and in some instances flatly reject) his inane theories.

Moreover, he can talk all he wants to about income that is constitutionally exempt, yet he can't cite anything in the Constitution that makes any kind of income off limits.

[Imalawman]

White has jettisoned SCOTUS decisions because he realizes they are inconsistent with (and in some instances flatly reject) his inane theories.

Moreover, he can talk all he wants to about income that is constitutionally exempt, yet he can't cite anything in the Constitution that makes any kind of income off limits.

Since when has this had anything to do with Weston citing anything authoritative? Hasn't it always been about his petulant disdain for income taxes imposed on his wages?

[Weston White]

No I do not bounce back and forth, each of you keep bringing up other side issues, I suppose because you have nothing else to fall back on, because my core argument, completely annihilates your already frail contentions. I am merely replying to the content of your off-topic posts, the shifting nature of the many subjects you address. If you do not like it, might I make the suggestion for you to stop going off topic?

If you are not interested in what judicial authority says is, and is not, income for purposes of application of the income tax, then you can not possibly determine what is or is not legally correct.

I never said that, I am very interested in reviewing SCOTUS cases. I am just not interested in reading through a vague quotation that gets posted and which contains no actual insight as to what is really being addressed within the case.

You are free to imagine whatever you like in regard to the law. Please do not follow in Hendrickson's footsteps of pretending to know more than the SCOTUS; but not informing his readers of the possible, or likely, consequences of putting his theory into action (while he knew full well what the law was that would be applied to those actions and the enforcement that could occur)

Sure, that is why I put together the CtC webpage, a virtual walkthrough of what to expect and general ideas of how to handle it. http://defendindependence.org/CtC.html

Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches, it is the lower courts that are not in compliance with the rule of law. Why do you think the IRS depends so much on quoting lower court cases to prove their points? Because they know SCOTUS shows them to be entirely wrong in the crap they dole out.

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

I never said that, I am very interested in reviewing SCOTUS cases. I am just not interested in reading through a vague quotation that gets posted and which contains no actual insight as to what is really being addressed within the case.

Then, you'd better delete about 98% of your own posts, Weston!

[Famspear]

Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches, it is the lower courts that are not in compliance with the rule of law. Why do you think the IRS depends so much on quoting lower court cases to prove their points? Because they know SCOTUS shows them to be entirely wrong in the crap they dole out.

Me want to sell you big orange bridge in San Francisco, Weston! Me know you want to buy - cheap-cheap!! You buy anything, right?