Lost Horizontal claims Quatloos can not rebut Cryer motion

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Bashful wrote:What about the "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" publication that the IRS puts out. It seems to address the major frivolous arguments and has court cites to refute these positions.

http://www.irs.gov/taxpros/article/0,,id=159932,00.html
You mean the document by the IRS that puts forth a frivolous argument?
Contention: The Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned federal income tax on United States citizens.
Some assert that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize a direct non-apportioned income tax and thus, U.S. citizens and residents are not subject to federal income tax laws.

The Law: The courts have both implicitly and explicitly recognized that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes a non-apportioned direct income tax on United States citizens and that the federal tax laws as applied are valid
That's frivolous.....the Sixteenth didn't authorize a non-apportioned direct tax on anything per the SC.

[T]hat the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation -- that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption...
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
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

Post by Cpt Banjo »

SteveSy wrote:More importantly we're talking about court cases here. You have not provided a court case that uses Stratton's in the context you used it against the argument that wages are always 100% taxable as income.
Here are a few:
“Treas.Reg. § 1.61-2(a)(1) clearly includes wages within the definition of income. Buras, however, argues that this regulation is invalid because it is inconsistent with the constitutional definition of income. According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed.

Appellant's argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Ct. 136, 140, 58 L. Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that "the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital" are commonly treated as income. Id.”

U. S. v. Buras, 633 F. 2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980)
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable… Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S. Ct. 136, 140-41, 58 L. Ed. 285 (1913) ("the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital * * * are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.")."

Hill v. U. S., 599 F. Supp 118 (M.D. Tenn. 1984)
“May argues that according to Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64 L. Ed. 521, 40 S. Ct. 189 (1920), "income" must be a "gain." Since he presumes that wages are a fair exchange for time and effort expended, he theorizes that there is no gain derived from wages. There is no merit to this argument. Any discussion of wages gain and income in Eisner is dicta -- it deals with whether stock dividends are income…

’Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined . . . It is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.' n7

n7 Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 58 L. Ed. 285, 34 S. Ct. 136 (1913).

U. S. v. May, 555 F. Supp 1008 (E. D. Mich. 1983)
“The Supreme Court early established the principle that the word "income", as it is used in the Sixteenth Amendment, is to be construed according to its common, everyday meaning. In Lynch v. Hornby, 247 U.S. 339, 344 (1918), the Court stated, "* * * Congress was at liberty under the [Sixteenth] Amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word * * *." Under this principle, the ordinary, and perhaps most common, meaning of "income" has been wages. Thus, when a coal company argued before the Supreme Court that the proceeds from its sale of ore, which it had dug from its properties, were the return of depleted capital, not income, the Court dismissed the argument, observing, "the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income." Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, * * * [231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913)]. This quote illustrates that whether or not wages can be characterized as the product of an exchange, they are still income within the Constitutional embrace.”

Rowlee v. CIR, 80 T. C. 1111 (1983)
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Post by Duke2Earl »

What exactly is so very difficult about the very concept of representative government that is so hard to understand? Here we have Sybil, in full cry of his idiocy, claiming yet again that no law is effective, no court decision is binding, no Constitutional interpretation is valid unless he personally agrees. Last week, we had the young person in Ranting and Raving totally unable to even understand how the Constitution, let alone mere laws, could apply to him because he hadn't personally signed it. Ed Brown doesn't recognize the law, the courts or anything unless you show him the law but you can't use the law to do that. Exactly what size ego do you need to have to claim that you personally get to choose which, if any, laws you have to obey?
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Cpt Banjo wrote:Here are a few:
Thanks but that's not exactly what I was talking about. Dan was referring to the context of depreciation not being relevant to human capital. Those read the one liner as Dan has. Of course not one of them explains how 100% of the earnings from wage labor is income in its entirety. The SC obviously did not say 100% of any earnings derived from wage labor is income either. More importantly what Dan and the courts miss is the phrase preceding the word "income". Please show, so we know you're reading it in context, that the earnings from labor of an individual were commonly deal with in legislation when it concerned taxing individuals.

If you can't find where such a thing was commonly dealt with in legislation at the time you'll be intellectually dishonest to claim they were referring to the income of a wage earner and not income from business derived from labor.


Here's a refresher:
yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.
For 2 consecutive years 40 years ago is not "commonly dealt with" so give up on that one.


btw, The sale of commodities was commonly dealt with in legislation that by no way means its always 100% income. Many of you tax advocates see words and phrases that do not exist or implied meanings that have no support in things you read. Sort of like a flat Earther seeing the phrase the land is flat in a report and using that as proof all land is flat.

sorry for all the edits.
Last edited by SteveSy on Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Duke2Earl wrote:What exactly is so very difficult about the very concept of representative government that is so hard to understand? Here we have Sybil, in full cry of his idiocy, claiming yet again that no law is effective, no court decision is binding, no Constitutional interpretation is valid unless he personally agrees. Last week, we had the young person in Ranting and Raving totally unable to even understand how the Constitution, let alone mere laws, could apply to him because he hadn't personally signed it. Ed Brown doesn't recognize the law, the courts or anything unless you show him the law but you can't use the law to do that. Exactly what size ego do you need to have to claim that you personally get to choose which, if any, laws you have to obey?
Be gone troll!
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

All deductions from income, repeat ALL, are the result of laws enacted by Congress.

They chose to allow businesses to deduct the cost of producing a product or service.

They chose to not all a person (beyond the standard deduction) to deduct the costs of earning a living.

Got a beef with that -- take it up with your congressman.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Nikki wrote:All deductions from income, repeat ALL, are the result of laws enacted by Congress.

They chose to allow businesses to deduct the cost of producing a product or service.

They chose to not all a person (beyond the standard deduction) to deduct the costs of earning a living.

Got a beef with that -- take it up with your congressman.
So you're saying that if congress decided to remove all deductions the tax would still be constitutional as a tax on income...? If so I think you need to do more reading. Almost everyone on here wouldn't even agree to that. Not everything that comes in is income.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

LPC wrote:Sybil will now bluster about how the Supreme Court didn't mean what it said, or why we should ignore what the Supreme Court said, for which he will offer no support other than his own certainty.
I was going to gloat about how right I was, but it really didn't require a psychic, did it?
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.
Paul

Post by Paul »

Please don't use the "personal expense" argument. It's not in reality a "personal" expense to travel to earn an income.
And don't use the words of the Code to prove that you have a filing obligation, right?

For the umpteenth time, your daily commute is a personal expense because you incur the traveling expense because of your choice to live traveling distance from your work. Flowers said so. When you really are traveling away from your normal place of business on business, it's a business expense and you do get the deduction.
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

Post by Cpt Banjo »

SteveSy wrote:So you're saying that if congress decided to remove all deductions the tax would still be constitutional as a tax on income...? If so I think you need to do more reading. Almost everyone on here wouldn't even agree to that. Not everything that comes in is income.
Who says it would need to be characterized as a tax on income? Congress certainly has the authority under Article I, Section 8 to impose an unapportioned gross receipts tax if it wants to.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Cpt Banjo wrote:
SteveSy wrote:So you're saying that if congress decided to remove all deductions the tax would still be constitutional as a tax on income...? If so I think you need to do more reading. Almost everyone on here wouldn't even agree to that. Not everything that comes in is income.
Who says it would need to be characterized as a tax on income? Congress certainly has the authority under Article I, Section 8 to impose an unapportioned gross receipts tax if it wants to.
On something other than the individual yes. To tax gross receipts of an individual would include taxing property. It would be in direct conflict with the direct tax clause.

btw, there would have been no need for the 16th if all gross receipts, no matter who or what makes it, is taxable by Article 1 section 8. It wouldn't even have come up for debate.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

LPC wrote:
LPC wrote:Sybil will now bluster about how the Supreme Court didn't mean what it said, or why we should ignore what the Supreme Court said, for which he will offer no support other than his own certainty.
I was going to gloat about how right I was, but it really didn't require a psychic, did it?
Of course they meant what they said. You obviously want it to mean something else, something unsupportable. They said "commonly dealt with in legislation as income". Now to show that they meant what you think they meant you should be able to find what "earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital" were "commonly dealt with in legislation as income" back in 1909. Unless you can find where a 100%, or even 1%, of an individual’s earnings from the "human brain and hand" were treated as income you're being intellectually dishonest. You've simply surgically highlighted a quote out of the middle of a paragraph, like some TPs do in an effort to support your conclusions where no support actually exists.
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

Post by Cpt Banjo »

SteveSy wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote:
SteveSy wrote:So you're saying that if congress decided to remove all deductions the tax would still be constitutional as a tax on income...? If so I think you need to do more reading. Almost everyone on here wouldn't even agree to that. Not everything that comes in is income.
Who says it would need to be characterized as a tax on income? Congress certainly has the authority under Article I, Section 8 to impose an unapportioned gross receipts tax if it wants to.
On something other than the individual yes. To tax gross receipts of an individual would include taxing property. It would be in direct conflict with the direct tax clause.

btw, there would have been no need for the 16th if all gross receipts, no matter who or what makes it, is taxable by Article 1 section 8. It wouldn't even have come up for debate.
Given the Pollock decision, a gross receipts tax on an individual would be problematic only if it included receipts from the rental of property or investment receipts. Otherwise, it would be perfectly valid.

The point, of course, is that deductions are a matter of legislative grace and that Congress could, if it wished, levy a tax on the gross amount of compensation received for the performance of personal services so that the issue of whether such an amount constituted "income" would never arise.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Cpt Banjo wrote:The point, of course, is that deductions are a matter of legislative grace and that Congress could, if it wished, levy a tax on the gross amount of compensation received for the performance of personal services so that the issue of whether such an amount constituted "income" would never arise.
Not exactly true. Deductions to "income" are a matter of legislative grace. It must first be income. There is a huge difference. Allowing congress to say any deduction is within their power creates the power to define income itself. For instance Congress could remove the ability to deduct the cost of the home upon sale. In essence it would be a deduction to gross receipts and not income at all. Income does not equate to gross receipts, the SC has plainly said so. Congress has the power to reduce the amount of income it taxes by way of deductions, but it must first be income. They do not have the power to decide the limits of what will or will not be income.
Given the Pollock decision, a gross receipts tax on an individual would be problematic only if it included receipts from the rental of property or investment receipts. Otherwise, it would be perfectly valid.
I believe you're wrong on this. For one, such a tax on individuals has never been before the SC nor has it ever been laid. The SC has never claimed a gross receipts tax on every individual regardless of circumstance is constitutional as an indirect tax. Even the simplest of understanding of the founding of this country would make such a proposition absurd. It would have required a constitutional amendment. "Real property" isn't even mentioned in the constitution, if that and poll taxes is all the founders intended it to include they would have simply put "real property" within the constitution.
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

Post by Cpt Banjo »

SteveSy wrote:
Cpt Banjo wrote:The point, of course, is that deductions are a matter of legislative grace and that Congress could, if it wished, levy a tax on the gross amount of compensation received for the performance of personal services so that the issue of whether such an amount constituted "income" would never arise.
Not exactly true. Deductions to "income" are a matter of legislative grace. It must first be income. There is a huge difference. Allowing congress to say any deduction is within their power creates the power to define income itself. For instance Congress could remove the ability to deduct the cost of the home upon sale. In essence it would be a deduction to gross receipts and not income at all. Income does not equate to gross receipts, the SC has plainly said so. Congress has the power to reduce the amount of income it taxes by way of deductions, but it must first be income. They do not have the power to decide the limits of what will or will not be income.
You missed the point. My hypothetical tax wouldn't be an income tax, but a gross receipts tax.
Given the Pollock decision, a gross receipts tax on an individual would be problematic only if it included receipts from the rental of property or investment receipts. Otherwise, it would be perfectly valid.
I believe you're wrong on this. For one, such a tax on individuals has never been before the SC nor has it ever been laid. The SC has never claimed a gross receipts tax on every individual regardless of circumstance is constitutional as an indirect tax. Even the simplest of understanding of the founding of this country would make such a proposition absurd. It would have required a constitutional amendment. "Real property" isn't even mentioned in the constitution, if that and poll taxes is all the founders intended it to include they would have simply put "real property" within the constitution.
The fact that it might be a case of first impression or that such a tax hasn't ever been laid isn't relevant. Springer was a case of first impression, yet the Court had no problem in holding that the Civil War income tax wasn't a direct tax. Moreover, given the current definition of an excise ("a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership, is an excise which need not be apportioned", Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124 (1929)), it's pretty clear that a gross receipts tax on the receipt of compensation for labor would be upheld as an excise.

And please don't change the subject to what you think the term "excise" meant in 1789. I'm dealing with what the law is, not with what you think it ought to be. You can bitch and moan all you want about how the Court is wrong in its definition of an excise, but that won't change what the law is one bit.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

SteveSy wrote:For one, such a tax on individuals has never been before the SC nor has it ever been laid. The SC has never claimed a gross receipts tax on every individual regardless of circumstance is constitutional as an indirect tax.
Wrong again.

FICA is a tax on the gross amounts of wages, without any deductions, and it has been considered constitutional since the decision in Steward Machine.

And one of the first taxes enacted by Congress following the ratification of the Constitution was a stamp tax on documents to be filed, including deeds, so that Congress was imposing a tax on the gross amounts realized on the sales of property, without regard to whether the sale resulted in any gain or loss.

The fact of the matter is that taxes on transfers of property and other forms of transactions have ALWAYS been considered duties or excises, and the Pollock decision was an aberration that will never be repeated (although the Murphy court came close).
Last edited by LPC on Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

SteveSy wrote:btw, there would have been no need for the 16th if all gross receipts, no matter who or what makes it, is taxable by Article 1 section 8.
It's nice to know you agree that Pollock was wrongly decided, but you're wrong to say that the 16th Amendment gave Congress a power to tax something that it couldn't have taxed before. Congress already had the power to tax incomes, gross receipts, and anything else it wanted to tax. The only issue resolved by the 16th Amendment was whether a tax on incomes from property had to be apportioned.

"It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus, limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion."

License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).

If you you want to claim that gross receipts are a permissible subject of taxation, you'll need to provide some support other than your accounts of the sweet whisperings of the ghosts of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
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.
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

LPC wrote:
SteveSy wrote:For one, such a tax on individuals has never been before the SC nor has it ever been laid. The SC has never claimed a gross receipts tax on every individual regardless of circumstance is constitutional as an indirect tax.
Wrong again.

FICA is a tax on the gross amounts of wages, without any deductions, and it has been considered constitutional since the decision in Steward Machine.
That's only on the employer, the sister case Helvering v. Davis avoided the issue as it relates to the actual employee being taxed on their earnings. Actually every case concerning the constitutionality of taxing wages where the employee pays the tax has been avoided.

And one of the first taxes enacted by Congress following the ratification of the Constitution was a stamp tax on documents to be filed, including deeds, so that Congress was imposing a tax on the gross amounts realized on the sales of property, without regard to whether the sale resulted in any gain or loss.
There is a big difference between taxing something the state or federal government has control over and taxing citizens directly. I just don't understand why you fail to see that difference. The SC has on many, many, too many to count, made that distinction when they could have, if you were right, just taxed the item directly. Such cases as Flint v. Stone and Nicol v. Ames to name a couple.

The fact of the matter is that taxes on transfers of property and other forms of transactions have ALWAYS been considered duties or excises, and the Pollock decision was an aberration that will never be repeated (although the Murphy court came close).
I will agree to a certain extent. But never has the court considered a transfer tax on something everyone must have in order to survive. Consider a transfer tax on votes….”transfer” can include anything. All the government has to do is somehow put you in a position where some type of transfer is required and whala it’s taxed, defies simple common sense if you ask me. More importantly why would you argue the government has such a power under a perpetual tax. The power to tax is the power to destory, that tax would allow for the destruction of anyone or thing on command. In fact I would argue the government has done its fair share of destroying and regulating via unconstitutional taxation. Something the founders vigorously defended as an irrational understanding of the constitution and extent of federal powers.

I just don't understand how you make sense out of the direct tax clause. Under your reasoning or the reasoning you’ve adopted from another the direct tax clause serves NO purpose and never did. It was easily circumvented by mere name changing. All that debate and all those letters of concern were for what, fun? Were they that frigging stupid to overlook such an obvious flaw? I suppose if you ignore the obvious and simple common sense then sure your theory is plausible.
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Post by Quixote »

Actually every case concerning the constitutionality of taxing wages where the employee pays the tax has been avoided.
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984).

This is where Steve tells us that's not what he meant.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
SteveSy

Post by SteveSy »

Quixote wrote:
Actually every case concerning the constitutionality of taxing wages where the employee pays the tax has been avoided.
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984).

This is where Steve tells us that's not what he meant.
I'm familiar with that case, it's wrong, not to mention they give no rational explanation why wages from an employee are considered 100% income while wages earned by a business is not or most likely in 99.9999999% of the case will not be. I'm talking about a contracting service that charges an hourly rate and then pays the employee. Of course in their haste to make a decree they failed to realize they were wrong from the word go.

The arrogance of the court is disgusting and revolting. It's that I'm God attitude where they think their simple decree is considered unquestionable and deserves no explanation.

People do not earn a wage expense free evey year nor do employees have an increase in wealth equal to 100% of their earnings over a taxable year every year they work. The proposition is absurd on its face.


btw, the context of my statement was in relation to the Supreme court.

Here's another quote from the 7th:
Moreover, the tax code imposes a "direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation
- United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 08/09/1991)

They can't even understand a fundemental SC case little alone deal with something as complex as what "income" is.
that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear
- Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)