*snicker*Weston White wrote: 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.
Oh really. We're real easy to convince. All you have to show is one case, one single case in any court in the land that ever held that people's wages weren't subject to income tax. Just one. For all your bluster and bullcrap, when it comes down to it, you have exactly nothing but your wild imaginings.Weston White wrote: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.
-----from the dissent in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day [January of 1991], more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.
Unbelievable.Weston White wrote:Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches,
Dr. Caligari wrote: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.)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
I started this thread with a quote and a link to Glenshaw Glass to "visit Title 26 section 61 and the interpretation of the phrase " gross income means all income from whatever source derived"..." and have stayed on that topic.Weston White wrote: 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?
What was said: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.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.
So you post to this thread that says it is to "visit Title 26 section 61 and the interpretation of the phrase " gross income means all income from whatever source derived"..." but you say "at this point in time I am no longer interested in what the IRC states or does not state".Weston White wrote: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...jg wrote: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.
In case you missed it the argument of the plaintiff is found here:MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE wrote:Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled 'Carriage tax.' See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says: 'What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.' There being many carriages in some of the States, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'
The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error.
Mr. William M. Springer for the plaintiff in error.
The tax assessed against the plaintiff in error having been levied upon his income, gains, and profits, is a direct tax. 3 Smith's Wealth of Nations, 212, 213, 216, 220-228, 244-248, 271-274, 276-278; 2 Mill's Pol. Econ. 418-434; Say's Pol. Econ. 465-468, 480; Perry's Elements Pol. Econ. 443; 1 Chambers's Inf. for the People, 371; Brande's Dict. of Science, Literature, and Art, 1211; Wayland's Pol. Econ. 391, 392; Knight's Cyclopaedia (London, 1842), title 'Taxation;' Encyclopaedia Britannica, title 'Taxation;' Encyclopaedia Americana, title 'Taxes;' 4 Elliott's Debates, 433; Sir Morton Peto on Taxation, 50, 53; Goodrich's Science of Government, 251; Ricardo's Principles of Pol. Econ. 214, 221; 1 Pampletier, 557 (1816). [102 U.S. 586, 591] The tax on incomes not having been based, even professedly, upon population nor approtioned relatively among the several States, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Const. U. S., art. 1, sects. 2, 8, 9; 1 Kent, Com. 277; 2 Story, Const. 113, 143; Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317.
Sherman T. Potter had the best possible response to this hallucination: "Horse hockey!"Weston White wrote: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.
Weston, I have some oceanfront property in South Dakota that I would be willing to let go very cheaply, just because I like you. PM me and we'll work out the details.Weston White wrote: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.
Still waiting for an answer, Weston.Dr. Caligari wrote: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.)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
Sure I will get right on that. NOT.Famspear wrote: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!
WW will not answer questions that reinforce public humiliation.Dr. Caligari wrote:Still waiting for an answer, Weston.Dr. Caligari wrote: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.)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
It was removed in preparation of the up and coming Current Tax Payment Act. To obfuscate the truth from the public... and it worked like a charm.Dr. Caligari wrote:Still waiting for an answer, Weston.Dr. Caligari wrote: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.)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
Sure I will and I just did. I am not scared you any of you, most of your tactics are nothing more than juvenile anyways. Debating in forums is old news to me, I have thousands and thousands of posts racked up on various forums dedicated to many topics.WW will not answer questions that reinforce public humiliation.
Wow now that is absolutely astonishing, you have managed to summarize every single post you have ever made on this forum into a short series of single syllable noises. Somebody, quick call Guinness I think this man has just accomplished the impossible.*snicker*
*guffaw*
hehehe
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
* whew *[/qoute]
Thanks for the laugh, Weston.
See where the court said the tax falls within neither "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate."?Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs,... <snip for brevity> ...
He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate. All else must, of necessity, be considered as indirect taxes.'
The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error.
I have never laid such a claim, only that it is taxable though direct taxation only.... that to your claim that work for labor is not within the taxing power of the Congress of the United States.
Where have I argued that income taxes must be apportioned? I never said that, you must therefore be the one “dreaming”, not I.Oh, but Weston, you seemed to be dreaming that your argument that the income tax must be apportioned is something new. Or that the founding fathers even had clearly categorized income on labor as being direct versus indirect. Or that Adam Smith would provide something to convince the court that the tax on incomes not having been based, even professedly, upon population nor apportioned relatively among the several States, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
You know you keep posting that but every reference to income taxes is just as I understand them to be. Income taxes are not capitation taxes!Read the Springer case and find more evidence that you are very far from the correct legal categorization of the income tax (at least according to the Supreme Court.)
This case is concerning 'direct taxes', not 'capitations' and not 'incomes' per se:5. The duty which the internal revenue acts provided should be assessed, collected, and paid upon gains, profits, and incomes was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution.
4. Direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.
“Nothing is said of any other direct tax. In neither case is there a definition given or attempted of the phrase 'direct tax.'”
Mr. Justice Chase said further, 'That he would give no judicial opinion upon the subject, but that he was inclined to think that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution were only two,-a capitation tax and a tax on land.'
The moral of the story is: ‘Direct Taxation’ is either (1) a ‘capitation tax’ as expressed within the Constitution; ergo no further explanation needed, because there is no doubt as what that actually means, to argue about such a point we might as well begin arguing about the meaning of “conclusion” or “constitution” or “freedom” or “liberty” or it is (2) a ‘direct tax’, a tax on realty or that which is tied to the land, i.e. slaves.Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const. Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.
Well, POLLOCK cited differently regarding income, not the income tax, but "income", it was considered to exist within 'direct taxes' as a tax upon ownership of property.Read the case and decide for yourself. Quit swallowing Hendrickson's garbage that the income tax is a capitation.
If you read the Pollock case, it tells you that Springer's income consisted of his personal earnings from his law practice and interest on government bonds. Now, we all know that Pollock held that a tax on the income from property was a direct tax because it was viewed as a tax on the underlying property. Consequently, a tax on the income from government bonds would have been held to be a direct tax by the Pollock majority. But we also know that Pollock didn't overrule Springer. It follows, therefore...Weston White wrote:Within the Springer case though, it does not point out what he was being taxed for other than his income, always in reference to gains and profits. That could very well be anything. So there is no real context to this citing this case without that information.
Pollock also recognized that a tax on wages and personal earnings is not a direct tax:All these cases are distinguishable from that in hand, and this brings us to consider that of Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , chiefly relied on and urged upon us as decisive.
That was an action of ejectment, brought on a tax deed issued to the United States on sale of defendant's real estate for income taxes. The defendant contended that the deed was void, because the tax was a direct tax, not levied in accordance with the constitution. Unless the tax were wholly invalid, the defense failed.
The statement of the case in the report shows that Springer returned a certain amount as his net income for the particular year, but does not give the details of what his income, gains, and profits consisted in.
The original record discloses that the income was not derived in any degree from real estate, but was in part professional as attorney at law, and the rest interest on United States bonds. It would seem probable that the court did not feel called upon to advert to the distinction between the latter and the former source of income, as the validity of the tax as to either would sustain the action.
The opinion thus concludes: 'Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.'
While this language is broad enough to cover the interest as well as the professional earnings, the case would have been more significant as a precedent if the distinction had been brought out in the report and commented on in arriving at judgment, for a tax on professional receipts might be treated as an excise or duty, and therefore indirect, when a tax on the income of personalty might be held to be direct.
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such...
...According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.
