income from whatever source derived (again)

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by jg »

Due to the following post in another thread we will once again visit Title 26 section 61 and the interpretation of the phrase " gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: <snip list>"
Weston White wrote:
derive - To obtain or receive from a source.
- The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

There is no discernible difference between the phrases 'income from labor', in the context that it is used within the FAQ and this thread, and 'income derived from labor.' Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional. When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income. The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.
You see that is not what it says though (the law that is), so that is what the problem is… because the FAQ is suppose to be based upon and in support of the law.

61(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, …;



Though to debate your view point:

‘Income from labor’ – Would mean, ‘income’ was received through the performance of my labor, without any other consideration. Such as being employed in the stock market or insurance, mining, or railroad professions or being a broker or investor or whatever.

* Ergo, I gained ‘income’ as a result of my particular designation of labor. The source of my ‘income’ was attributed to the direct and special consideration of my particular profession, so stipulated within the IRC itself.

‘Income derived from labor’ – Would mean, ‘income’ was attributed through the performance of labor. Such as working at Taco Bell saving up that money earned through that process of labor in an interest bearing account and realizing a gain of more than $10.00 within a given year.

* Ergo, I gained ‘income’, which derived from my performing labor. The source of my ‘income’ was the money I had earned during the act of carrying out the task of common work.

LABOR.
“Labor,” “business,” and “work” are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Labor implies toll; exertion producing weariness; manual exertion of a toll some nature.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY - 3rd EDITION

Now if what you are claiming were remotely true they would not need to make any reference or mention of the source, just as your own example or that within the FAQ has done, because it would already be accounted for consideration within the use of 'income', it would simply read as:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income, [including (but not limited to) the following items:"

Amendment XVI would read:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Regardless of whatever word games you want to try and play, the simple fact is that the income tax is legal and constitutional.
I am not claiming that now am I? Only that it is being grossly misapplied.
When you perform work for someone else and they pay you in exchange for that work, you have income.
No you receive revenue. You only have income once you have realized a gain or profit from that revenue.
The source of that income is your labor, or it can be said that the source is the person that paid you.
True, but only when you have realized an ‘income’, compensation is not ‘income’.
<snip for brevity>.
The concept that you only have income when you have a gain or profit was rejected in 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
It is conceded by the respondents that there is no constitutional barrier to the imposition of a tax on punitive damages. Our question is one of statutory construction: are these payments comprehended by 22 (a)?

The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:


"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.

"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or 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. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4

This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 ; Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216, 223 ; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9 ; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166 . Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive [348 U.S. 426, 430] labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted. Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 49 ; Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 87 -91. Thus, the fortuitous gain accruing to a lessor by reason of the forfeiture of a lessee's improvements on the rented property was taxed in Helvering v. Bruun, 309 U.S. 461 . Cf. Robertson v. United States, 343 U.S. 711 ; Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 ; United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., 284 U.S. 1 . Such decisions demonstrate that we cannot but ascribe content to the catchall provision of 22 (a), "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." The importance of that phrase has been too frequently recognized since its first appearance in the Revenue Act of 1913 5 to say now that it adds nothing to the meaning of "gross income."
Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." 6 The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of [348 U.S. 426, 431] his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions. Helvering v. Bruun, supra, at 468-469; United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., supra, at 3.

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income to the recipients. Respondents concede, as they must, that the recoveries are taxable to the extent that they compensate for damages actually incurred. It would be an anomaly that could not be justified in the absence of clear congressional intent to say that a recovery for actual damages is taxable but not the additional amount extracted as punishment for the same conduct which caused the injury. And we find no such evidence of intent to exempt these payments.

It is urged that re-enactment of 22 (a) without change since the Board of Tax Appeals held punitive damages nontaxable in Highland Farms Corp., 42 B. T. A. 1314, indicates congressional satisfaction with that holding. Re-enactment - particularly without the slightest affirmative indication that Congress ever had the Highland Farms decision before it - is an unreliable indicium at best. Helvering v. Wilshire Oil Co., 308 U.S. 90, 100 -101; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 447 . Moreover, the Commissioner promptly published his nonacquiescence in this portion of the Highland Farms holding 7 and has, [348 U.S. 426, 432] before and since, consistently maintained the position that these receipts are taxable. 8 It therefore cannot be said with certitude that Congress intended to carve an exception out of 22 (a)'s pervasive coverage. Nor does the 1954 Code's 9 legislative history, with its reiteration of the proposition that statutory gross income is "all-inclusive," 10 give support to respondent's position. The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. 11 Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, cf. Commissioner v. Jacobson, 336 U.S. 28, 47 -52, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to [348 U.S. 426, 433] bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income. See Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., supra, at 223.
Please note the proposition that statutory gross income is "all-inclusive," and that Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.

Also note that the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." is rejected as the test for all gross income questions.

Income is not only profit; but it is an accession to wealth that is clearly realized.
It is correct to say that my labor (or even my wages, interest, dividends, etc.) is not income. We will, of course, encounter lazy language, even in court decisions, that say wages are income and such; but that is not what the statute says.
The increase of wealth that is derived from an item is income and is included in gross income except as otherwise provided in the statutes (or actually that subtitle of the statute).

As there is no provision in the statute that exempts or excludes compensation from labor from the definition of income there is indeed no difference between compensation for services or compensation for labor (or for work or for business or for time served or for production or for pounds hauled, etc.)

As to the idea that "derived from" implies only the earnings in addition to the payment for compensation (or any other item) one need only realize that interest is one of the items specifically listed as an item from which income can be derived in section 61 and attempt to apply that interpretation to the receipt of interest.

If, indeed, the law says only earnings on the item are to be included in income it is not possible that interest would be such an item as it would mean that the interest itself is not an item of income but only the earnings on that interest; but that interest is an item from which only the earnings are to be included so only the interest on that interest would be included as only the earnings on the item are income from what ever source derived so only the interest on that interest would be included in gross income and so on in an endless loop that reveals the impossibility of such a meaning of "derived from whatever source".

The statute in section 61 might be paraphrased to say that "gross income means all increases to wealth realized from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items <snip list>". From whatever source derived means that the source is not important in determining that the amount is part of gross income except to the extent that particular sources of increased wealth are otherwise provided in the law as not to be included in gross income subject to the income tax.

Please do not strain so hard to grasp this as to hurt yourself,or others, (though to most readers the language of the statute in section 61 is plain and clear)
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

As there is no provision in the statute that exempts or excludes compensation from labor from the definition of income there is indeed no difference between compensation for services or compensation for labor (or for work or for business or for time served or for production or for pounds hauled, etc.)
There does not need to be, because that was never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC. The IRC only makes exceptions for those to which it applies according to certain situations, it does not make address to those for which it does not apply; only to those for which it does apply, and for when exception has been lent.

Furthermore, if taxing labor was meant to be done through excise taxes (indirectly), then why would taxes on property be required to be done through direct taxes? Because that does not make any sense, the Forefathers went and made some silly rule that real property had to have some special rule in consideration of taxation, but nothing else, why? Oh and of course “head taxes”. If they meant to tax the revenue of the people indirectly, which is the basis for obtaining all other forms of property, why would property require some special exception? That just does not make any sense at all.

Of course the actual definition of what are direct taxes is completely contrary to that.

The fact is I doubt anybody here actually has even a basic grasp about what “head taxes” even means.

This is the truth about the income tax though:

Excise:

1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee
Please do not strain so hard to grasp this as to hurt yourself,or others, (though to most readers the language of the statute in section 61 is plain and clear)
No, it is that most others do not bother to take the time to fully understand 26 USC 61 at all, in fact most do not even bother reading it, not even once during their entire life… similar to the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

In fact I would like to see a “scientific poll” conducted how many persons have actually read any combination of those documents (through and through), how many times, and how many years since they last read each one.
Last edited by Weston White on Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Weston White wrote:....
In fact I would like to see a “scientific poll” conducted how many persons have actually read any combination of those documents (through and through), how many times, and how many years since they last read each one.
And the efficacy of the results of that impossibly construed poll would mean what?
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Nikki

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Nikki »

Why?

Does it matter how many people have read and understand it?

Have you read, and do you understand the laws which make up the building codes in your neighborhood?

Have you read all the moter vehicle laws for your state? Does that have any impact on how you drive?

A law, as enacted, is the law. It doesn't matter if no one reads it, it's still the law.

You are straining at gnats in a major effort to achieve trolldom.
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Imalawman »

Weston White wrote:
Please do not strain so hard to grasp this as to hurt yourself,or others, (though to most readers the language of the statute in section 61 is plain and clear)
No, it is that most others do not bother to take the time to fully understand 26 USC 61 at all, in fact most do not even bother reading it, not even once during their entire life… similar to the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

In fact I would like to see a “scientific poll” conducted how many persons have actually read any combination of those documents (through and through), how many times, and how many years since they last read each one.
You know, I have spent the good part of the last 10 years seriously engaged in the study of the tax code (through 3 degrees and actual practice in the field). Think about this - for the last year (as I earn an LLM in tax) I have spent at least 7-8 hours each day studying the tax code. Have you ever even spent one solid day studying the tax code without interruption? During final exams last semester I spent about 2 weeks straight where I studied the tax code for 12 hours a day - each day. Now, you want to tell me again how you've "researched" the tax code?

As Tommy Boy said, "I can get a good look a T-bone by sticking my head up a Bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it". Trust me on this - you're wrong. You're so dreadfully wrong. In a way, this is like going up to a mathematician and saying, "2 + 2 = 4". To a casual reader of the code, maybe this could possibly be a complicated point - to the mathematician, its the very model of simplicity - boredom to even discuss. Yet, there is humour to be found in a person that would say such obviously ludicrous statements.

I know, this all sounds pedantic and conceited. But its merely the truth. I wouldn't challenge Wes on a matter of civil tort law as he's devoted his career to the subject. Even though I clerked for a plaintiff's lawyer for 2 years, it can't possibly give the perspective of someone that has devoted their life's work to the subject. This doesn't mean that you can't be interested in, and debate, a subject. But if the expert says, "look this is stupid and ridiculous" shouldn't you take great heed in proceeding with that argument?
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:
Weston White wrote:....
In fact I would like to see a “scientific poll” conducted how many persons have actually read any combination of those documents (through and through), how many times, and how many years since they last read each one.
And the efficacy of the results of that impossibly construed poll would mean what?
That not only do people not have an awareness of or concern for the laws that effect them, but that they also do not even have a basic understanding of their nations core principles, which serve to create and guide those laws. This essentially indicates that they are entirely dependant upon others to tell them everything they know... really sad.

Similar to being blind or illiterate, though at least for a blind person that knows Braille, still has hope on their side.
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Have you read all the moter vehicle laws for your state? Does that have any impact on how you drive?
Correction, it is “motor” not moter. (myEmpowermentTrip++);


Actually, this is a very good point you bring up and yes it actually does matter, a great deal in fact.

Nearly everybody drives, though almost nobody spends anytime researching the VC’ and as a result every city and county banks on the ignorance of the people to generate them profits. So much so that enforcing VC’ is not about “the law” it is about making revenue for the treasury of each city and county.

If the people would spend even a bit of time reviewing such codes, there likelihood of violating them would greatly decrease and in such times that they do get pulled over, their likelihood of catching crooked or ill-informed cops would greatly increase.

Ask yourself why are we not taught though public education neither basics in law nor our nations founding principles? Why are we never taught even the most basic judicial processes, how to perform legeal research, the complexities of our structured government, local, state, and federal, etc., etc.? Why is all of this kept from us, to remain a complete mystery? Then on the other hand why are we held accountable when we do something wrong, how are we to know we have done something wrong? We were never taught! It is the principle of perpetual chaos at work here.
Nikki

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Nikki »

Weston -- regarding the tax laws; what benefit is it to the average taxpayer to study up on the ramifications or a reverse triangular merger?

Your fixation on reading and knowing the laws is grossly misplaced.

There are thousands of people in this country wealthy enough to afford to employ legions of specialists to reduce their tax liabilities. These specialists do little more than pore over the tax laws down to every comma and period.

Don't you think that if they could come up with some major benefit for their employer it would be used? Since it hasn't, does that mean anything?
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

You know, I have spent the good part of the last 10 years seriously engaged in the study of the tax code (through 3 degrees and actual practice in the field). Think about this - for the last year (as I earn an LLM in tax) I have spent at least 7-8 hours each day studying the tax code. Have you ever even spent one solid day studying the tax code without interruption? During final exams last semester I spent about 2 weeks straight where I studied the tax code for 12 hours a day - each day. Now, you want to tell me again how you've "researched" the tax code?

As Tommy Boy said, "I can get a good look a T-bone by sticking my head up a Bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it". Trust me on this - you're wrong. You're so dreadfully wrong. In a way, this is like going up to a mathematician and saying, "2 + 2 = 4". To a casual reader of the code, maybe this could possibly be a complicated point - to the mathematician, its the very model of simplicity - boredom to even discuss. Yet, there is humour to be found in a person that would say such obviously ludicrous statements.

I know, this all sounds pedantic and conceited. But its merely the truth. I wouldn't challenge Wes on a matter of civil tort law as he's devoted his career to the subject. Even though I clerked for a plaintiff's lawyer for 2 years, it can't possibly give the perspective of someone that has devoted their life's work to the subject. This doesn't mean that you can't be interested in, and debate, a subject. But if the expert says, "look this is stupid and ridiculous" shouldn't you take great heed in proceeding with that argument?
And I am quite certain you can cite chapter and verse and locate sections in a flash. Though how much time to you spend researching and cross-referencing originating acts (i.e. Classification Act and Public Salary Tax Act), noted the evolution of the Revenue Act from 1862 to 1913 and 1913 through present, confirming statutes/regulations in the Federal Register, verifying implementing regulations, read congressional reports concerning the crafting of the XVI Amendment, and the withholding provisions, seriously reviewed the Annotated Constitution concerning Direct taxes and the XVI Amendment, read at least Federalist Papers 12, 21, 30-36 (and Anti-Federalist Papers)? Have you ever seriously studied the history of capitation taxes or for that matter poll-taxes, personal taxes, and tallies?
Dezcad
Khedive Ismail Quatoosia
Posts: 1209
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 4:19 pm

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Dezcad »

Weston White wrote:Ask yourself why are we not taught though public education neither basics in law nor our nations founding principles? Why are we never taught even the most basic judicial processes, how to perform legeal research, the complexities of our structured government, local, state, and federal, etc., etc.? Why is all of this kept from us, to remain a complete mystery? Then on the other hand why are we held accountable when we do something wrong, how are we to know we have done something wrong? We were never taught! It is the principle of perpetual chaos at work here.
I wasn't taught how to diagnose medical conditions from certain symptoms or what medications may help certain medical conditions, so I rely upon my doctor to help me.

Weston, do you take the advice of any medical professionals? Or do you just do your own research on the internet and self-diagnose and self-medicate?
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Famspear »

Weston wrote:
Weston White wrote:[ . . . . ]Though how much time to you spend researching and cross-referencing originating acts (i.e. Classification Act and Public Salary Tax Act), noted the evolution of the Revenue Act from 1862 to 1913 and 1913 through present, confirming statutes/regulations in the Federal Register, verifying implementing regulations, read congressional reports concerning the crafting of the XVI Amendment, and the withholding provisions, seriously reviewed the Annotated Constitution concerning Direct taxes and the XVI Amendment, read at least Federalist Papers 12, 21, 30-36 (and Anti-Federalist Papers)? Have you ever seriously studied the history of capitation taxes or for that matter poll-taxes, personal taxes, and tallies?
To correctly analyze the tax law and understand that the wage (the way WE define the term, not the way you or Hendrickson defines the term) of an ordinary private sector worker not involved in an activity connected with a federal privilege is taxable, we do not need to do the following:

1. study the Classification Act;

2. study the Public Salary Tax Act, although it is an interesting Act and is relevant to the evolution of the tax law;

3. note the evolution of the revenue acts since 1861, although those acts are indeed interesting;

4. study confirming regulations in the Federal Register;

5. study "statutes" in the Federal Register (statutes are not generally published in the Federal Register; they're published in the United States Statutes at Large);

6. seriously review the "Annotated Constitution" (though we do study the actual verbatim text of the Constitution);

7. study any of the Federalist Papers (although they're nice and important, the knowledge of the Federalist Papers is absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the U.S. federal income tax -- sorry to disappoint you);

Get my drift? some of these materials are relevant and others are not. But even the relevant topics are not material to an understanding that Hendrickson is wrong, and that you are wrong -- meaning that these materials not important enough.

I have studied nearly all the materials you cited -- but that's because I'm a tax geek. And I can tell you that based on all my study, I conclude that the law is what the courts rule the law to be, and that Hendrickson's arguments are legally frivolous.

Weston, you are still trying to teach dolphins to swim.
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Dezcad wrote:
Weston White wrote:Ask yourself why are we not taught though public education neither basics in law nor our nations founding principles? Why are we never taught even the most basic judicial processes, how to perform legeal research, the complexities of our structured government, local, state, and federal, etc., etc.? Why is all of this kept from us, to remain a complete mystery? Then on the other hand why are we held accountable when we do something wrong, how are we to know we have done something wrong? We were never taught! It is the principle of perpetual chaos at work here.
I wasn't taught how to diagnose medical conditions from certain symptoms or what medications may help certain medical conditions, so I rely upon my doctor to help me.

Weston, do you take the advice of any medical professionals? Or do you just do your own research on the internet and self-diagnose and self-medicate?
That is not the same, and you know it. Understanding the county you live in, and the world around you is entirely different than internal medicine, and in many instances teaching it would violate individuals religious rights. Though that is a good point to bring up, why not to a certain extent teach medical practices to students as an elective or something. But I am not saying teach students to all the sections of law and important cases to reference, not that they would remember it all anyways, the same as you would not teach them all the names of medicines and types of treatments and the names of machines and whatnot. Just teach them how to find out and understand such things on their own whenever needed... without having to be reliant upon another.

Though I believe in natural remedies, I eat organic/natural food, I stay away from synthetic treatments as much as possible.
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

To correctly analyze the tax law and understand that the wage (the way WE define the term, not the way you or Hendrickson defines the term) of an ordinary private sector worker not involved in an activity connected with a federal privilege is taxable, we do not need to do the following:

1. study the Classification Act;

2. study the Public Salary Tax Act, although it is an interesting Act and is relevant to the evolution of the tax law;

3. note the evolution of the revenue acts since 1861, although those acts are indeed interesting;

4. study confirming regulations in the Federal Register;

5. study "statutes" in the Federal Register (statutes are not generally published in the Federal Register; they're published in the United States Statutes at Large);

6. seriously review the "Annotated Constitution" (though we do study the actual verbatim text of the Constitution);

7. study any of the Federalist Papers (although they're nice and important, the knowledge of the Federalist Papers is absolutely NOT ESSENTIAL to an understanding of the U.S. federal income tax -- sorry to disappoint you);

Get my drift? some of these materials are relevant and others are not. But even the relevant topics are not material to an understanding that Hendrickson is wrong, and that you are wrong -- meaning that these materials not important enough.

I have studied nearly all the materials you cited -- but that's because I'm a tax geek. And I can tell you that based on all my study, I conclude that the law is what the courts rule the law to be, and that Hendrickson's arguments are legally frivolous.

Weston, you are still trying to teach dolphins to swim.
And there it is, prove positive that you are entirely full of guff! Your cup hath runneth over.
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by jg »

Weston White wrote:
As there is no provision in the statute that exempts or excludes compensation from labor from the definition of income there is indeed no difference between compensation for services or compensation for labor (or for work or for business or for time served or for production or for pounds hauled, etc.)
There does not need to be, because that was never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC. The IRC only makes exceptions for those to which it applies according to certain situations, it does not make address to those for which it does not apply; only to those for which it does apply, and for when exception has been lent.
...
Saying it does not make it so.


Read the case and try to see what the Supremes said:
The full case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426
This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." <cites omitted> Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.
...
It therefore cannot be said with certitude that Congress intended to carve an exception out of 22 (a)'s pervasive coverage. Nor does the 1954 Code's legislative history, with its reiteration of the proposition that statutory gross income is "all-inclusive," give support to respondent's position. The definition of gross income has been simplified, but no effect upon its present broad scope was intended. Certainly punitive damages cannot reasonably be classified as gifts, <omit cite>, nor do they come under any other exemption provision in the Code. We would do violence to the plain meaning of the statute and restrict a clear legislative attempt to bring the taxing power to bear upon all receipts constitutionally taxable were we to say that the payments in question here are not gross income.
Your contention that compensation for labor (or services or work or whatever) was "never the intended subject of the IRC nor is it a numerated exception for the purposes imposing the IRC. In fact it is all together entirely outside the realm of the IRC." is directly contradicted by the statements of the court in Glenshaw Glass and, as yet, has not been supported so is merely your opinion or imagination.
Your claim does violence to the plain meaning of the statute.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Nikki

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Nikki »

Weston:
Why do you refuse to accept that the tax law today is (1) the exact text of 26USC as it exists today (2) as interpreted and decided by judicial opinions since the adoption of the 16th Amendment. Period. Nothing more.
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 13806
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:17 pm

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by notorial dissent »

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Weston White wrote:This is the truth about the income tax though:

Excise:

1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity
2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee
This, of course, is woefully incomplete. Mr. White, illegally-obtained income has been held to be taxable, yet it falls into neither of the categories you listed. I guess you and Pete forgot about that one, right?

The gift tax has been upheld as an excise, yet it too falls into neither of the categories you listed. If the gratuitious transfer of property can be the subject of an excise, what in the world makes you think the transfer of property in exchange for labor can't be?
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
Nikki

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Nikki »

It's interesting, in an academic sense, that Weston and all the other contrarians who post here are capable of posting reams of (dis)information in response to a challenge but are total failures when it comes to answering very simple, straight-forward questions.

Could it possibly be that they all lack the innate ability to think and are all only capable of parroting concepts framed by others?
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Nikki wrote:It's interesting, in an academic sense, that Weston and all the other contrarians who post here are capable of posting reams of (dis)information in response to a challenge but are total failures when it comes to answering very simple, straight-forward questions.

Could it possibly be that they all lack the innate ability to think and are all only capable of parroting concepts framed by others?
There is scant room in the law for creativity, at least for any length of time. Outside the law though, in the realm in which non-practitioner self-promoters "practice," the room to dream stuff up without having to test it abounds. To he** with the rules - the path to success is apparently volume; 100 million stupid acts should result in a change in the law, right?

The same principle applies to aerodynamics with one significant life-altering difference. You can dream up all kinds of really neat looking designs but getting one to actually fly (reliably and safely) is not so simple. At least in that realm, bad design has a tendency to thin the herd because Mother Nature doesn't pay much attention to those who don't have a grasp of the rules.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by LPC »

Judge Roy Bean wrote:There is scant room in the law for creativity, at least for any length of time.
Then I must have a very unusual set of clients, because they are constantly challenging me to think of new combinations of techniques to meet their goals.

But that's estate planning for you. The trust (or "use") was initially created to avoid feudal hereditaments, the Statute of Uses was enacted to prevent the avoidance of taxes through trusts, and the great game began!
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.