Bulten says everyone misunderstood him - quel surprise!

[Quixote]

In a recently terminated thread, Bulten, having had his head handed to him by several posters, and true to the trollish tradition, now claims that he really meant to ask a different question than the one he actually asked. He now claims he wants evidence that the income derived from pay for work is equal to the pay received. He has been shown such evidence but has ignored it.

"One's gain, ergo his "income," from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs." Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 734 (1978), affd. 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980).

Bulten suggests that the taxpayer's argument in Reading was flawed. He's right of course, all losing arguments are flawed. Now all Bulten has to do is find an argument that's not flawed. Famspear has already passed out while waiting for a responsive reply from Bulten. I won't be holding my breath.

[Joey Smith]

Bulten has a history of being wrong. In that same thread he admitted that he was wrong to file "zero" returns.

He just can't understand that now he is 100% wrong too. TP's semantical attempts to characterize wages as something other than income have ALWAYS failed.

Just ask Irwin "not income in the constitutional sense" Schiff, which you can do on Saturday mornings between 10:15a and 10:30a.

[webhick]

Just ask Irwin "not income in the constitutional sense" Schiff, which you can do on Saturday mornings between 10:15a and 10:30a.

What is forbidden man-love for $500 Alex.......

But how will they spend the other fourteen minutes?

[notorial dissent]

A better, simpler, and one with a shorter answer, is when has Bulten been right?

[John J. Bulten]

My first request is for you to show any case from the 1910s where pay for work was authoritatively held to be income in itself ....

Now, Famspear, .... How many different ways do I need to ask my question until you admit you understand it? I only raised the one issue: I asked for one of two types of counterexample. Everything else was merely responsive to the ensuing pile-on, just like all my deflections of your side points in this post are merely responsive. Here is one more way of attempting to get back to the same question I keep asking: since you believe pay for labor was income in 1913, do you believe that there should have been many individual laborers who filed returns and/or had withholding for the 1910s (not necessarily a majority of all workers, just a number agreeable to the number paid above exemption level in accord with contemporaneous pay statistics)? Yes or no ....

Quixote, I've been ignoring your replies because, true to your deceptive affirmation of deception, they do not answer. You said "the real issue ... is if income derived from pay for work was taxed". No, the real issue (that for which I requested evidence) is if income derived from pay for work is generally equal in amount to the pay for work .... I'm not looking to you to answer in the future, either.

Yep, you're right. I have not attempted to answer your request for counterexamples.

Sometimes Quixote sticks to deceptively correct comments, and sometimes he goes flat-out incorrect to see if I call his bluff.

I did not say everyone misunderstood me, I implied Famspear refused to admit he understood me. In response Famspear candidly admitted he was not attempting to answer, and implied he did understand. Grammarian also understood, but declined to quote any of the BTA cites.

I did not claim I meant to ask a different question than I asked. Perhaps in Quixote's casuitry, he charges this because I forgot to repeat "1910s" every single time, or because he dislikes my rephrasing when I attempt to underscore the unanswered question without mechanistic repetition. (Beware portmanteaux.) Obviously, the question I asked was answered by no one except Grammarian, and then only by citation without quote.

But even if we ask about the 1980s instead, Reading is not "evidence that the income derived from pay for work is equal to the pay received". Without redredging the case (which Quixote didn't link), it only evidences the following. (1) TC cases apply to only the party and tax year discussed, so the Readings, by claiming deductions which would only be valid if their pay was income, effectively admitted income and thus failed to dispute evidence that their pay was income. (2) Circuit cases apply circuitwide, so anyone in the 8th Circuit who admits income in Tax Court will fail if trying to deny income in Circuit Court.

The quote comes from a TC context where proof of income had already been established. The 8th Circuit, in nonspecific affirmation of the TC's reasoning, in no way upheld the out-of-context TC dictum as binding when proof of income has not been established.

Finally, I do have an unflawed argument. I did not present it in the previous thread because Quatloos already has every major piece of it, and my purpose in that thread was merely to air a single syllogism and ask for counterexamples that might disprove it. I will continue that purpose for the foreseeable nonce.

While I argued the negative (no counterexamples exist) and asked for a counterexample to my logic (which should be easy to find and quote), Famspear responded repeatedly by consciously dodging the request, begging the question, and redirectingly demanding cases from me to prove my negative. I even demonstrated there was no need for cases because statutes have clearly distinguished "salary" and "income from salary". But I'm the one waiting for any answer more than a grammarian breadcrumb.

Now, all that aside, at the risk of asking it mechanistically, my first request is for you to show any case from the 1910s where pay for work was authoritatively held to be income in itself. This is indeed what I meant to ask. (I am not asking for responses to the other paragraphs above, and will only respond to such responses as befits the forum's defacto purposes of mirth and frolic.)

Tax beneficiaries should be falling over each other to affirm how everyone has known ever since 1913 that every laborer owes taxes on pay for work, above exemptions. It might be hard to actually dredge up returns, but as I said, BTA cases are not hard to quote from (not for tax beneficiaries anyway), and government stats are not hard to come by, and probably one or more of you has some historical artifacts. Every one of you should be thrilled, thrilled to demonstrate that the 1910s (and the 1860s) were full of happy taxpayers. But all you do is read the same body of law back to me that I live by, and claim it is factual evidence. It constantly strengthens my recognition that (not only is CtC right but) "exactly when did pay-for-work become taxable" is the directest way to ask the question and demonstrate the stonewall.

They walked still farther and the girl said, "Is it true that long ago firemen put fires out instead of going to start them?"
"No. Houses have always been fireproof, take my word for it."
"Strange. I heard once that a long time ago houses used to burn by accident and they needed firemen to stop the flames."
He laughed.
She glanced quickly over. "Why are you laughing?"
"I don't know." He started to laugh again and stopped. "Why?"
"You laugh when I haven't been funny and you answer right off. You never stop to think what I've asked you."
He stopped walking. "You are an odd one," he said, looking at her. "Haven't you any respect?" ....

Montag hesitated. "Was—was it always like this? The firehouse, our work? I mean, well, once upon a time..."
"Once upon a time!" Beatty said. "What kind of talk is that?"
Fool, thought Montag to himself, you'll give it away. At the last fire, a book of fairy tales, he'd glanced at a single line. "I mean," he said, "in the old days, before homes were completely fireproofed—" Suddenly it seemed a much younger voice was speaking for him. He opened his mouth and it was Clarisse McClellan saying, "Didn't firemen prevent fires rather than stoke them up and get them going?"
"That's rich!" Stoneman and Black drew forth their rule books, which also contained brief histories of the Firemen of America, and laid them out where Montag, though long familiar with them, might read:
Established, 1790, to burn English-influenced books in the Colonies. First Fireman: Benjamin Franklin.
RULE 1. Answer the alarm swiftly.
2. Start the fire swiftly.
3. Burn everything.
4. Report back to firehouse immediately.
5. Stand alert for other alarms.
Everyone watched Montag. He did not move.

[Joey Smith]

statutes have clearly distinguished "salary" and "income from salary".

Exactly! Just like H20 is distinguished from water. I mean, if H2O was water then they would just call it water, right? So H2O must be different than water.

Sorry, John, but this is just another wrong theory that you have come up with. There is a 0.00% chance of any court buying your argument.

[Paul]

Sometimes Quixote sticks to deceptively correct comments,

Translation: I have to change subjects because I can't rebut Quixote.

[Famspear]

Dear Mr. Bulten: Congratulations! You've backed off from the yawning precipice by effectively admitting that your implication -- that obtaining copies of actual, filed Federal income tax returns from the 1910s would be an easy task -- was juuuuussst a bit delusional.

Sorry, but the Reading case is on point, as are all the other cases we have cited. And yes, the Tax Court, like the District Court, is a trial court. It’s not an appeals court. That does not mean, however, that the holdings in Tax Court cases do not stand as precedent. You might be confusing the concept of a holding (related to the principle of precedent, or stare decisis) with the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) effects of a court case are generally limited to the parties in that case. The precedential value of the HOLDING (OR HOLDINGS) in a case applies to everyone, not “only to the party and year discussed.” That’s why Tax Court cases, like District Court cases, etc., etc., are CITED BY COURTS IN SUBSEQUENT CASES.

Yes, Mr. Bulten, the holding in Reading is PRECEDENT and is properly cited for the rule that the income derived from pay for work is equal to the pay received.

Again, for you to succeed here, and for you to succeed in court, you would have to cite a court case where the taxpayer won on his or her argument that, for Federal income tax purposes, “income” from compensation for personal services was a lower amount than “compensation” for personal services, or whatever your latest verbal formulation of your wacky theory happens to be. Because your argument is absolutely without legal merit, we are of course -- in sending you off on the task of seeking to find such a case -- sending you on a fool’s errand. You seem to recognize this, and as a result you continue to bob and weave desperately there, on your very short leash.

Thanks for the long quote from Ray Bradbury. Anticipating the eventuality of your ending up in court (which I hope does not happen to you), why don’t you save the Bradbury excerpt and use it in court at the point where you’ve boxed yourself into the same corner there that you’ve boxed yourself into here? It should work about as well in court as it did here.

--Famspear

[Joey Smith]

Personally, I prefer DEVO:

PITY YOU
YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM
A NERVOUS SORT OF CONTRACTION
A MINDLESS KIND OF REACTION
YOU NEVER GET NO SATISFACTION

HERE'S TO YOU
I KNOW YOU REALLY GOT A PROBLEM
A NASTY KIND OF REFLECTION
A DANGEROUS SORT OF DESTRUCTION
THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT
MAKES IT HARD TO REACH
TAKES IT ALL AWAY
FROM WHAT YOU HAD IN MIND
YEAH YEAH YEAH
A NERVOUS KIND OF DISTRACTION
A NASTY SORT OF CONTRACTION

BUT THERE'S SOME BIG FAT POINT
THAT YOU SEEM TO BE MISSING
AND IT'S DRIVING YOU TO DESTRUCTION
BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM
TO STOP YOU IN THE LEAST
OR HALT THIS OBSESSION GOT YOU
GOING ON BACK
WEEK AFTER WEEK
DAY AFTER DAY
HOUR AFTER HOUR
FROM WHERE YOU CAME
FOR MORE OF THE SAME