Wikipedia as a tax authority?

[Demosthenes]

Since when is Wikipedia authoritative?

Jeff Quinn
Special to the Bonanza
March 23, 2007

Yes, being "authoritative" is a big deal in our racket. You see, when we're embroiled in a beef with one set of bureaucrats or another (be it the IRS, the California Franchise Tax Board, or any other number of money-grubbers), it often gets down to a matter of who has the most authority on their side. That's what usually carries the day.

And specifically, when it comes to the IRS, there are precious few recognized "authorities" out there - the leader of the pack, of course, is the Internal Revenue code, itself. Then comes the IRS' own regulations, and various lower level pronouncements, such as revenue rulings, notices, and the like. Of course, all of these "authorities" are subject to the dominion of the courts - notably the Supremes, and various courts beneath.

But you're really getting down to the bottom of the barrel, when your case must rely on opinions of professors (some are notable, and have written any number of "treatises" which sometimes are recognized), authors of articles in technical journals and even lesser lights.

But now cometh the arrival of Wikipedia. That's right: Wikipedia is now a tax authority, according to at least a recent passing reference in an opinion of the United States Tax Court!

We would''t suggest you bet the farm, in taking a position which relies on this recent citation, but nonetheless, take note of the trend of taxation opinion and reportage.

A recent article in the Journal of Taxation notes that, in general, the courts seem to be more willing, these days, to accept unofficial sources of authority to assist in determining the merits of a particular case - and when the regulations governing the currently established definition of "substantial authority" were written, such luminaries as Wikipedia were not even heard from! ("Before you were a gleam in your mother's eye," as my Dad used to say.)

So now cometh the case of Ferguson (TC Summary Opinion 2007-30) wherein the Court considers the definitions, per Wikipedia, of "video poker," "expected value," and "progressive jackpot."

Next thing you know, the Revenooers will be relying on "Wiki's" rules to define income, deduction, tax liability ... Who knows where this will all end?

And beyond that, Irwin Schiff and all his tax protestor lackeys, may have already devised their latest arguments (from a quick review of "Wiki" regarding why nobody owes, needs to file, etc. ... ad nauseam.)

[Imalawman]

Oh good lord. The day we turn to Wikipedia for substantive authority is the day I give up the practice of law.

[wserra]

A WestLaw search shows that SCOTUS has cited to Black's 181 times. Of those 181, 166 occurred in the last thirty years.

They don't make judges like they used to.

[jg]

So now cometh the case of Ferguson (TC Summary Opinion 2007-30) wherein the Court considers the definitions, per Wikipedia, of "video poker," "expected value," and "progressive jackpot."

Apparently the court was not using Wikipedia as any sort of tax authority. Although I have not yet made the time to read the decision or search for the terms being defined in any actual authority, it seems good and proper that the court would rely on a widely used reference (dictionary, Wikipedia, etc) to discerrn the currently held ordinary meaning of terms that are not defined in the statutes or regulations.

The article is misleading when it characterizes the use of Wikipedia as citing an authority on tax law.

[Demosthenes]

The opinion:

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Ferg.SUM.WPD.pdf

[Quixote]

If the TC was correct in saying that "[t]he sole issue for decision is whether petitioner’s gambling activity constituted a trade or business under section 162 and, consequently, whether he was a professional gambler in 2003", then using Wikipedia as an authority on video poker appears to be harmless. But if the petitioner is correct in thinking "that if one were to play video poker in a mathematically and theoretically perfect manner, eventually one would realize a profit", then his activities were not gambling. The court relied on information from Wikipedia in deciding that the petitioner is mistaken.

I have no idea whether or not video poker is beatable with correct play, but I would not want to have to rely on Wikipedia for the answer. It may seem like common sense that a gambling device will always favor the house, but observant non-gamblers made a killing off slot machines before they were modified to make payoffs unpredictable.

[grammarian44]

A WestLaw search shows that SCOTUS has cited to Black's 181 times. Of those 181, 166 occurred in the last thirty years.

They don't make judges like they used to.

I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of those 166 came from Justice Scalia. He favors not only Black's but also Webster's, especially Webster's from the Constitutional era. It's all part of the erroneous belief that the meanings of words can be pinned down merely by defining them in terms of other words.

[SteveSy]

A WestLaw search shows that SCOTUS has cited to Black's 181 times. Of those 181, 166 occurred in the last thirty years.

They don't make judges like they used to.

I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of those 166 came from Justice Scalia. He favors not only Black's but also Webster's, especially Webster's from the Constitutional era. It's all part of the erroneous belief that the meanings of words can be pinned down merely by defining them in terms of other words.

Scalia believes that the constitution or law meant what words meant back in the time of the writing. Is that so wrong? For all we know the constitution or law would have never made it had they known meanings of words would be like they are today. Many want to change the document under the bogus perception that its a "living document". They gave us the power to amend it that's what changes it not the modern meaning of a word or modern social or economic change. If not then there wouldn't have been a 19th amendment. Judges are there to interpret the law as designed not to re-engineer it to their pleasure or what they think is now best. That's up to our representatives not some unelected bozo who thinks he knows what's best. If congress screws up and creates an unintentional loophole tough titty, it's up to congress to fix it not a judge.

All the living document BS is, is an effort to usurp the constitution because you can't get your way the designed way. There’s no hidden meaning waiting to be found in law by some man in a black dress like dumbass Mr. egomaniac Harlan suggested. Just my opinion, not that it matters much.

[Prof]

A WestLaw search shows that SCOTUS has cited to Black's 181 times. Of those 181, 166 occurred in the last thirty years.

They don't make judges like they used to.

I'd be willing to bet that a disproportionate number of those 166 came from Justice Scalia. He favors not only Black's but also Webster's, especially Webster's from the Constitutional era. It's all part of the erroneous belief that the meanings of words can be pinned down merely by defining them in terms of other words.

Scalia believes that the constitution or law meant what words meant back in the time of the writing. Is that so wrong? For all we know the constitution or law would have never made it had they known meanings of words would be like they are today. Many want to change the document under the bogus perception that its a "living document". They gave us the power to amend it that's what changes it not the modern meaning of a word or modern social or economic change. If not then there wouldn't have been a 19th amendment. Judges are there to interpret the law as designed not to re-engineer it to their pleasure or what they think is now best. That's up to our representatives not some unelected bozo who thinks he knows what's best. If congress screws up and creates an unintentional loophole tough titty, it's up to congress to fix it not a judge.

All the living document BS is, is an effort to usurp the constitution because you can't get your way the designed way. There’s no hidden meaning waiting to be found in law by some man in a black dress like dumbass Mr. egomaniac Harlan suggested. Just my opinion, not that it matters much.

Where's the hidden meaning, Steviepoo?

Amendment XVI
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.

Where's the hidden meaning here?

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Note that the second quote says pretty clearly that the judges have the final say in controversies in which the United States is a party, such as litigation between citizen taxpayers and the U.S. (i.e., the IRS).

[Cpt Banjo]

It's one thing to view the Constitution as a "living document" where the text announces a principle but is somewhat vague in its details (e.g., "freedom of speech or of the press"). In such cases, I have no problem, for example, with a court's extending freedom of the press to television or the internet, even though it's obvious the Framers would have never conceived of these means of communication.

It's quite another, however, to construe language expressing a principle so as to negate other parts of the Constitution. Thus, Justices Brennan and Marshall's insistence that the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause forbids capital punishment in all cases is indefensible, since it elevates presumed contemporary sentiments over the express language of the 5th and 14th Amendments, which clearly imply that the government may deprive someone of life with due process of law.

Of course, the plain text of the 16th Amendment makes it clear that no income tax of any kind need be apportioned, but there will always be folks out there who think it means something other than what it obviously says.

[SteveSy]

It's one thing to view the Constitution as a "living document" where the text announces a principle but is somewhat vague in its details (e.g., "freedom of speech or of the press"). In such cases, I have no problem, for example, with a court's extending freedom of the press to television or the internet, even though it's obvious the Framers would have never conceived of these means of communication.

I don't think it's being "extended" to accomodate TV. The clear intent of the clause was to allow people to speak their minds regardless of means and without government retribution. However pornogaphy and the like were hardly intended to be included....thanks to judges it is.

Of course, the plain text of the 16th Amendment makes it clear that no income tax of any kind need be apportioned, but there will always be folks out there who think it means something other than what it obviously says.

Strangely enough neither the intent nor the wording was created to tax every single citizen on their earnings, the intent and historical record is clear, do away with Pollock which allowed large corporations to operate tax free. That's why the 1909 excise act was created; it intended to tax the very things they were trying to get to with the 1895 tax. The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

[Paul]

Strangely enough neither the intent nor the wording was created to tax every single citizen on their earnings, the intent and historical record is clear, do away with Pollock which allowed large corporations to operate tax free.

No, it held that rents couldn't be taxed unless the tax was apportioned. It noted in passing that taxing compensation for services without apportionment was fine. So what the 16th Amendment did was overrule a holding that let Congress tax the wage-earner but not the landlord.

And, of course, stevesy has run away from his "plain meannig" argument, hoping that no one would notice.

[Cpt Banjo]

The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

The 16th wasn't needed to tax the working guy's paycheck, since the Court had already held that a tax on such personal earnings wasn't a direct tax.

[Florida]

It's one thing to view the Constitution as a "living document" where the text announces a principle but is somewhat vague in its details (e.g., "freedom of speech or of the press"). In such cases, I have no problem, for example, with a court's extending freedom of the press to television or the internet, even though it's obvious the Framers would have never conceived of these means of communication.

Strangely enough neither the intent nor the wording was created to tax every single citizen on their earnings, the intent and historical record is clear, do away with Pollock which allowed large corporations to operate tax free. That's why the 1909 excise act was created; it intended to tax the very things they were trying to get to with the 1895 tax. The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

From 1913 Congressional Record:

Mr. Gillet: It seems to me that an amendment like this which says that a man who gets an income over $1,000 shall pay one-half of 1 per cent tax would bring home to the people the fact that they are paying the bills as they really are. The tax would be very small only 50 cents on an income of $1,000 and $5 on an income of $2,000. If the Government were expensive, if the administration were extravagant, their little tax of $1 or $5 would be increased. If the Government were economical their income tax would decrease so that all the time they would have a little feeling in their pockets as to whether the Government was economical or extravagant.

Mr. Austin: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Gillett: Yes.

Mr. Austin: Does the gentleman not thin it would defeat every Member who would vote for this amendment if the fact were known at home?

Mr. Gillett: No; I do not. I do not believe the people are so unthinking and selfish. I am willing to take the risk at any rate, and this question, perhaps, illustrates the impulse which we all have. We area ll afraid to do anything which we think may hurt us at home, regardless of whether we thin it is right and best for our country or not.

[.]

an income over $1,000 shall pay one-half of 1 per cent tax would bring home to the people the fact that they are paying the bills as they really are. The tax would be very small only 50 cents on an income of $1,000 and $5 on an income of $2,000

$5 on $2K makes sense, but "an income over $1,000 shall pay .5%" means the tax on $1,000 would be zero. So, how does Gillet come up with 50 cents on $1K? Was there a minimum levy on any income of $1K or more?

[SteveSy]

The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

The 16th wasn't needed to tax the working guy's paycheck, since the Court had already held that a tax on such personal earnings wasn't a direct tax.

When and where?

[Florida]

an income over $1,000 shall pay one-half of 1 per cent tax would bring home to the people the fact that they are paying the bills as they really are. The tax would be very small only 50 cents on an income of $1,000 and $5 on an income of $2,000

$5 on $2K makes sense, but "an income over $1,000 shall pay .5%" means the tax on $1,000 would be zero. So, how does Gillet come up with 50 cents on $1K? Was there a minimum levy on any income of $1K or more?

I can only assume he means including $1,000, not just over it, because in another paragraph, Paragraph A of section II of the bill is read:

A. That there shall be levied, assessed, and paid annually upon the entire income received from all sources in the preceeding calendar year by every citizen of the United States, whether residing at home or abroad, and by every person residing in the United States, though not a citizen there of a tax of 1 per cent per annum upon the amount received over and above $4,000; and a like tax shall be assessed, levied and paid annually upon the entire net income from all property owned and of every business, trade or profession carried on in the United States by persons residing elsewhere.

....and the following comment is given:

This provision holds that a man whose income is $4,000 per annum shall pay 1 per cent per annum as a direct tax to the Government, and as his income mounts into the thousands he shall pay more, which is nothing but just and right.

What I quoted before was a proposed amendment by Mr. Gillett that would expand the tax to those below $4,000 but over $1,000 to one half of one percent.

[SteveSy]

It's one thing to view the Constitution as a "living document" where the text announces a principle but is somewhat vague in its details (e.g., "freedom of speech or of the press"). In such cases, I have no problem, for example, with a court's extending freedom of the press to television or the internet, even though it's obvious the Framers would have never conceived of these means of communication.

Strangely enough neither the intent nor the wording was created to tax every single citizen on their earnings, the intent and historical record is clear, do away with Pollock which allowed large corporations to operate tax free. That's why the 1909 excise act was created; it intended to tax the very things they were trying to get to with the 1895 tax. The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

From 1913 Congressional Record:

Mr. Gillet: It seems to me that an amendment like this which says that a man who gets an income over $1,000 shall pay one-half of 1 per cent tax would bring home to the people the fact that they are paying the bills as they really are. The tax would be very small only 50 cents on an income of $1,000 and $5 on an income of $2,000. If the Government were expensive, if the administration were extravagant, their little tax of $1 or $5 would be increased. If the Government were economical their income tax would decrease so that all the time they would have a little feeling in their pockets as to whether the Government was economical or extravagant.

Mr. Austin: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Gillett: Yes.

Mr. Austin: Does the gentleman not thin it would defeat every Member who would vote for this amendment if the fact were known at home?

Mr. Gillett: No; I do not. I do not believe the people are so unthinking and selfish. I am willing to take the risk at any rate, and this question, perhaps, illustrates the impulse which we all have. We area ll afraid to do anything which we think may hurt us at home, regardless of whether we thin it is right and best for our country or not.

Was it the House or Senate and what page? btw, not everything that came in was considered income back then.

[Cpt Banjo]

The 16th was proposed by the populists, they were for the little guy they certainly weren't trying to get the thing passed so the federal government could tax every working person's frigging paycheck. It would have never been ratified.

The 16th wasn't needed to tax the working guy's paycheck, since the Court had already held that a tax on such personal earnings wasn't a direct tax.

When and where?

Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

And don't regurgitate your usual bilge about how Springer was a licensed attorney, because you know very well that played no part in the Court's decision. It was so irrelevant that the Court didn't even mention what Springer did or what his income consisted of. Given the Court's rationale that direct taxes under the constitution were limited to capitation taxes and taxes on land, it follows that all other taxes are indirect and that it's immaterial whether the person whose income is being taxed has a license or not.

Of course, if a license were all that important, all Congress would have to do would be to require a license to engage in any income-producing activity. There is historical precedent for such a notion -- at one time during the Civil War, the federal government required a license to engage in ANY occupation; heck, even jugglers had to pay $10 a year (of course, the Civil War income tax wasn't linked in any way to the federal licenses -- it was payable regardless of whether someone was licensed). And we know from The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) that Congress may (but does not have to) use a license as a form of taxation, even though it doesn't have the authority to otherwise regulate the underlying activity being licensed.

So is your beef that fact that Congress hasn't gone through the pointless step of requiring licenses? How pathetic.

[SteveSy]

The 16th wasn't needed to tax the working guy's paycheck, since the Court had already held that a tax on such personal earnings wasn't a direct tax.

When and where?

Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880).

Springer obviously did not hold that all taxes on income were indirect taxes if they had Pollock would have been dismissed. They held that a tax on Springer's income was an indirect tax. They never even considered the tax law as it concerned other people, they plainly state so in the first sentence of the case.

The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, as set forth in the record, and by pretended virtue of the acts of Congress and parts of acts therein mentioned, is a direct tax.

So is your beef that fact that Congress hasn't gone through the pointless step of requiring licenses? How pathetic.

What's pathetic is your belief congress can make every income producing activity require a license. Btw, Congress did not license every occupation in 1865, they licensed people doing business, more to the point the tax was never challenged on that issue. I seriously doubt the SC would have allowed every occupation regardless of activity to be licensed it defeats the direct tax clause. Congress can not just lay blanket license taxes. It would in form a flat capitation tax. Before you opine on one of your nonsensical theories again, congress laid capitation taxes in the past that did not tax everyone that actually excluded many.

Strange that you just spew nonsense out never considering the implications of your theories. Why not try something new and actually think something through before posting?