D.C. Circuit Reverses Itself in Murphy

[SteveSy]

Try thinking like you are a citizen included in "We the people", "A government of the people for the people" rather than a lawyer indoctirnated in the "law" is my bible, therefore who makes the law is my "God".

Try reading the thread. Overall, the comments are critical of the decision. It was the right result, but the reasoning is questionable. I don't know why the DC Circuit wants to keep shooting itself in the foot, but I doubt any other circuit will join in.

Please explain how it's the right result? The current decision was nothing but a dance to change what was a rational decision outcome to a decision in the government’s favor.

Let's use some simple logic....don't resort to citing the law because that's circular reasoning.

Let's make this real simple.

If someone pays for "Damages" are they offering to give you:
a) A reasonable profit or gain
b) Replacement for something lost


Did the Jury award:
a) Profit or gain to the recipient.
b) Damages

[Famspear]

Whoa Steve!

Around June 12th, you were talking about the judiciary this way:

Nothing anywhere requires me to accept a person's opinion of law in a case I was not part of. In short just because some person, a servant of the people, formed an opinion on a law does not require me to change mine. Unless and until the law is proven to be one way or another the opinion is just an opinion.

viewtopic.php?p=10038&highlight=&sid=6d ... 1b95#10038

Now, you're saying:

btw, not everything should be based on what the "law" says as congress defines it. We have a judiciary that was created in part to help limit government intrusion. That limit is now for the most part in the hands of congress.

So, when the judiciary makes a ruling you like -- a ruling that you personally feel helps "limit government intrusion" even though it's not "what the law says as congress defines it -- you apparently would ACCEPT that ruling as a proper interpretation of the law based on the fact that the CONSTITUTION limits the power of Congress, I guess. I agree with that.

But when the judiciary makes a ruling you don't like, then you think you're not required "to accept a person's opinion [i.e., a judge's ruling] of law in a case I was not part of". Well, whether you accept that ruling or not, it's the law, and it applies to YOU, and you're stuck with it whether you accept it or not.

The application of stare decisis (the precedential legal effect of a court's holding) and the application of res judicata (claim preclusion) in a given case are different. The latter generally applies only to the parties in that case. The former applies to everyone - as a rule of law -- and that includes YOU, STEVE.

And regarding this comment:

Try thinking like you are a citizen included in "We the people", "A government of the people for the people" rather than a lawyer indoctirnated [sic] in the "law" is my bible, therefore who makes the law is my "God".

No, Steve -- first of all, court rulings are not pronouncements by God. People who make the law are not my "God." That's goofy. And your personal beliefs about the law are not authoritative; you are not my "God," and neither is any other tax protester.

Court rulings, however, are pronouncements of LAW -- secular law, man-made law. I am not one of those people who confuses citizenship and religion. As a citizen lawyer, I do not have the luxury of making up my own rules about what the law is, or believing just what I want to believe based on my own ideas about God or the law or however it is you, Steve, come up with your ideas, in the guise of some spurious reference to "God," merely because I don't like a particular court ruling.

--Famspear

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Let's use some simple logic....don't resort to citing the law because that's circular reasoning.

A tax protester classic statement. On issues of law, use idiosyncratic logic, as promulated by the tax protester. For heaven's sake, don't cite the law itself -- that would somehow be "circular reasoning."

That about says it all, when it comes to tax protesters.

--Famspear

[Cpt Banjo]

The Murphy Decision is just one step closer to giving congress total and complete control over anything and everything. No limits, no judicial review because whatever congress does is constitutional this the constitution is meaningless. It provides little or no limits. Any limits that may exist are simply a matter of legislative grace.

It's precisely because the Constitution doesn't specify any limits on how far Congress can tax that it's a matter of legislative grace.

It does provide limits.....however you've been indoctrinated to believe they are words that really have no meaning.

Everything is now an indirect tax including taxing property. Everything is "uniform" no matter how specific the tax is laid. You’ve accepted totally illogical contradictory arguments as the basis for your beliefs…in short you have accepted that the moon is made of green cheese and it has always been that way.

More inane ravings from someone who ignores the last 217 years of constitutional law as it relates to taxation.

[Quixote]

don't resort to citing the law because that's a circular reasoning.

You want to discuss the proper outcome of a lawsuit without considering the law?

Did the Jury award:

a) Profit or gain to the recipient.

b) Damages

The jury awarded damages. Murphy received a gain. You seem to think that "damages" is always distinct from "gain or profit". If Murphy had lost a building instead of reputation, and been awarded compensation for its loss in excess of her basis, her damage award would result in gain.

Word games are not going to work.

[Dr. Caligari]

Did the Jury award:
a) Profit or gain to the recipient.
b) Damages

Can you say "involuntary conversion," boys and girls?

I knew you could!

[/Mr. Rogers voice]

[SteveSy]

Whoa Steve!

Around June 12th, you were talking about the judiciary this way:

Nothing anywhere requires me to accept a person's opinion of law in a case I was not part of. In short just because some person, a servant of the people, formed an opinion on a law does not require me to change mine. Unless and until the law is proven to be one way or another the opinion is just an opinion.

viewtopic.php?p=10038&highlight=&sid=6d ... 1b95#10038

Now, you're saying:

btw, not everything should be based on what the "law" says as congress defines it. We have a judiciary that was created in part to help limit government intrusion. That limit is now for the most part in the hands of congress.

So, when the judiciary makes a ruling you like -- a ruling that you personally feel helps "limit government intrusion" even though it's not "what the law says as congress defines it -- you apparently would ACCEPT that ruling as a proper interpretation of the law based on the fact that the CONSTITUTION limits the power of Congress, I guess. I agree with that.

I use common sense in my decision to agree or not. You on the other hand use nothing but "law" no how nonsensical or illogical it may be. Even your logic and common sense is based on what is or is not law. In short your reality is defined by those who make or decide law and nothing else.
For instance, I’m sure you find that the phrase a “uniform graduated tax” is acceptable, even though it’s clearly an oxymoron, emphasis on the moron part. To illustrate how illogical and nonsensical it is we could say that all blacks must sit at the back of the bus. That would also be acceptable because everyone is treated equally, within their own class of course. If a tax is uniform simply because of classing then there is no reason to believe equality should not be the same. In fact if this were not the case the income tax itself would violate the equality rule.

But when the judiciary makes a ruling you don't like, then you think you're not required "to accept a person's opinion [i.e., a judge's ruling] of law in a case I was not part of". Well, whether you accept that ruling or not, it's the law, and it applies to YOU, and you're stuck with it whether you accept it or not.

Unlike you I'm not stuck in a world where my common sense is defined and manufactured based on the lastest legal decision. Cases like the Charles River Bridge case were obvioulsy wrong based on common sense.

The application of stare decisis (the precedential legal effect of a court's holding) and the application of res judicata (claim preclusion) in a given case are different. The latter generally applies only to the parties in that case. The former applies to everyone - as a rule of law -- and that includes YOU, STEVE.

It doesn't apply to me, my world is not defined by the latest judicial decision. Yours is because you accept it is. Though they may cart me off to some court room and say I’m wrong doesn’t mean I am, nor does it make it right just because they may claim its right and just. Under your view any and all tyrannical governments were and are right and the loser, ending up in prison or losing his property, was wrong. To rationalize that this is incorrect you illogically conclude that because we have American courts doing the deciding it somehow makes the outcomes different and right. They are all courts and they are all governments. God has not come down and placed his blessings of superiority on our system. What is right or wrong is based on personal belief and common sense in favor of fairness and justice. You have chosen the illogical path and relieved yourself of personal belief when and only when it comes to American courts even though you have no logical reason to do so, except of course to rationalize the irrational.

And regarding this comment:

Try thinking like you are a citizen included in "We the people", "A government of the people for the people" rather than a lawyer indoctirnated [sic] in the "law" is my bible, therefore who makes the law is my "God".

No, Steve -- first of all, court rulings are not pronouncements by God. People who make the law are not my "God." That's goofy. And your personal beliefs about the law are not authoritative; you are not my "God," and neither is any other tax protester.

I disagree. They are your God even though you won't admit it. They define how you act and when you act. They define what is or is not fair and just for you and you accept it. Most like you provide, nor hint at, the limits to your willingness to follow whatever decree is made.

Court rulings, however, are pronouncements of LAW -- secular law, man-made law. I am not one of those people who confuses citizenship and religion. As a citizen lawyer, I do not have the luxury of making up my own rules about what the law is, or believing just what I want to believe based on my own ideas about God or the law or however it is you, Steve, come up with your ideas, in the guise of some spurious reference to "God," merely because I don't like a particular court ruling.

--Famspear

Well then you should not be here....we acted illegally to form this nation. We defied what you hold sacred, the law. Strange how you accept illegal acts to form a nation and accept the benefits from it and then try to preach to me how the law as decreed by some of that nation is now something I should accept as the end all.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

If someone pays for "Damages" are they offering to give you:
a) A reasonable profit or gain
b) Replacement for something lost


Did the Jury award:
a) Profit or gain to the recipient.
b) Damages

Let's make this real simple, Steve.

If someone pays you for damages, they are giving you replacement for something you lost. You, like the judges in the Murphy case, concentrated too much on the word "lost" and you missed the significance of the word "replacement."

The defendant in Murphy paid Ms. Murphy $70,000. That's MONEY. It's a REPLACEMENT for what she lost. What Murphy LOST was not MONEY. What she LOST was her mental well-being.

Had the defendant simply somehow "deleted" Murphy's emotional distress, with a magical ray gun or something, the defendant would have been restoring Murphy's mental well being. I guess you MIGHT be able to argue that doing that would not result in true economic INCOME to her.

However, as a point of basic economics (not law), the event that occurred when Murphy received $70,000 was an INCOME event - regardless of the mental contortion that judge Ginsburg, et al. went through to pretend otherwise, and regardless of the REASON the money was awarded.

Murphy LOST her mental well-being; Murphy GAINED $70,000 in MONEY. That's two different things. The first is a loss. The second is the replacement.

On your second question, the jury really awarded neither profit nor damages. The jury rendered a VERDICT, a finding of fact, that the MONEY that she should receive as a REPLACEMENT for her loss of mental well-being was the amount of $70,000. The court then rendered what is called a judgment (for that amount, presumably).

Oftentimes the way we use language on a day-to-day basis obscures, rather than illuminates, the economic substance. The fact is that before the award, Ms. Murphy did not have the $70,000, and after the award, she did have it. From the standpoint of an economist, that's an income event. And from the standpoint of the law, the Murphy court might be the first court that has ever stated that the receipt of money in that kind of circumstance would not be "income" within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Unfortunately for tax protesters, the members of the court appear to have realized that they screwed up, and they "fixed" the problem in a creative way -- by not admitting they were wrong, and by citing the Penn Mutual case for an alternative basis for reversing the EFFECTS that the first Murphy decision would have had -- on Ms. Murphy, and on other litigants in other cases.

Ironically, the result is still another devastating blow for tax protesters. Government lawyers will now be able to cite the Murphy case when a protester argues that something is not "income" -- by pointing out that under the Constitution, something does not even need to be "income" (in the true economic sense) to be properly taxed as income.

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

If someone pays for "Damages" are they offering to give you:
a) A reasonable profit or gain
b) Replacement for something lost


Did the Jury award:
a) Profit or gain to the recipient.
b) Damages

Let's make this real simple, Steve.

If someone pays you for damages, they are giving you replacement for something you lost. You, like the judges in the Murphy case, concentrated too much on the word "lost" and you missed the significance of the word "replacement."

The defendant in Murphy paid Ms. Murphy $70,000. That's MONEY. It's a REPLACEMENT for what she lost. What Murphy LOST was not MONEY. What she LOST was her mental well-being.

It was to replace something damaged. Regardless of what was given...it could have been chickens.

Had the defendant simply somehow "deleted" Murphy's emotional distress, with a magical ray gun or something, the defendant would have been restoring Murphy's mental well being. I guess you MIGHT be able to argue that doing that would not result in true economic INCOME to her.

Money does not define income.....you should know better. If she were given chickens it would still have been held as income on review.

However, as a point of basic economics (not law), the event that occurred when Murphy received $70,000 was an INCOME event - regardless of the mental contortion that judge Ginsburg, et al. went through to pretend otherwise, and regardless of the REASON the money was awarded.

Whatever....no basis for this

Murphy LOST her mental well-being; Murphy GAINED $70,000 in MONEY. That's two different things. The first is a loss. The second is the replacement.

The money was awarded as replacement in lieu of Mental restoration. It was accepted as an "equal" for something lost.

Unfortunately for tax protesters, the members of the court appear to have realized that they screwed up, and they "fixed" the problem in a creative way -- by not admitting they were wrong, and by citing the Penn Mutual case for an alternative basis for reversing the EFFECTS that the first Murphy decision would have had -- on Ms. Murphy, and on other litigants in other cases.

You provided, as always no rational or logical explaination why.
You only provided your theory on "economic gain".

It's just like the baseball card scenario. I have a baseball card worth 10k which was provided to me by my grandfather. He purchased it in a $.05 pack of cards. I trade that baseball card for another baseball card that is exactly the same which the trader paid 10k for. According to your nonsensical illogical theory based on "law" I have $9999.95 in gain or profit. In reality I gained nothing the card is nothing more than what I already had. No accession to wealth no nothing but a card.

Ironically, the result is still another devastating blow for tax protesters. Government lawyers will now be able to cite the Murphy case when a protester argues that something is not "income" -- by pointing out that under the Constitution, something does not even need to be "income" (in the true economic sense) to be properly taxed as income.

In truth that's the most important outcome of the case, and I believe one of the main reasons for it. Had really nothing to do with what was right or wrong....only power. Tax protestors and their potential gain more followers has become a major issue to government. Obviously....How much revenue is truly gained by going after all these "pool cleaners" as many of you call them. Seems if they weren't a threat the petty revenues generated by these tax protestors wouldn’t even warrant the expense of a trial. The truth is far different though. Government is having difficulties keeping up with all the non-payers and people bucking the system.

[Dr. Caligari]

Though they may cart me off to some court room and say I’m wrong doesn’t mean I am, nor does it make it right just because they may claim its right and just. Under your view any and all tyrannical governments were and are right and the loser, ending up in prison or losing his property, was wrong.

If the court of appeals says something, and the Supreme Court doesn't reverse it, what they say is THE LAW. It may not be fair or just or logical, but it IS the law.

If you were to post that the result in Murphy is illogical and unjust, I would not bother to post in response. I may even agree with you. I only have problems with TPs, and TP wanna-bes (like you), who presume that whatever they think is fair and just is the law. It's not.

[SteveSy]

Though they may cart me off to some court room and say I’m wrong doesn’t mean I am, nor does it make it right just because they may claim its right and just. Under your view any and all tyrannical governments were and are right and the loser, ending up in prison or losing his property, was wrong.

If the court of appeals says something, and the Supreme Court doesn't reverse it, what they say is THE LAW. It may not be fair or just or logical, but it IS the law.

If you were to post that the result in Murphy is illogical and unjust, I would not bother to post in response. I may even agree with you. I only have problems with TPs, and TP wanna-bes (like you), who presume that whatever they think is fair and just is the law. It's not.

But that's not what I think. I don't make my decisions based on what I do or do not want. For instance I believe and accept that a VAT tax is constitutional even though I wouldn't want such a tax nor would I like paying 17-23% on everything I buy. I base that on history and what I’ve found. Trying to pigeon hole me and every other TP as just trying to make up law is disingenuous propaganda.

I base my decisions on what I've found in history. I do favor fair and just decisions, most of you do not. You base it off of nothing but the ramblings of some guy in a black robe who may or may not even have experience in the area he's deciding on.

More importantly he is appointed and thoroughly reviewed in this day and age for his likeliness to agree with members of the government.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

disagree. They are your God even though you won't admit it. They define how you act and when you act. They define what is or is not fair and just for you and you accept it. Most like you provide, nor hint at, the limits to your willingness to follow whatever decree is made.

No, Steve, you just slipped up again. Court decisions do not define how I "act" and when I "act," in the sense in which you apparently mean. Court decisions are part of what the law is -- under the U.S. legal system. That's not merely my personal feeling or opinion. That's a rule that was laid down by others, before I was born.

I think I see what part of your problem is. It's a problem for many tax protesters. You have the idea that for something to be "the law," it must somehow seem "fair" to you, or must somehow "be" fair. If a particular rule of law is not "fair," or does not seem fair to you, you reject it. However, you reject it not merely as "not being fair," you also reject the idea that it is really "the law." You are not the first person to make this mistake.

Steve, you and many other tax protesters have a mental life which consists in part in trying to redefine the world around you, in trying to re-describe the world around you, in terms of your own personal beliefs. You are pretending that the world, or at least the "legal" part of the world, is different from what is really is because you don't like the reality you see.

Steve, the tax law is full of unfairness. All law is full of unfairness. That does not make it any less "the law."

I see this theme over and over in the writings of tax protesters. What is really going on here is that tax protesters feel -- and the key word is "feel" -- a deep anger. We're talking about an emotion. The feelings of anger, with feelings of frustration or hostility, etc., are affecting the way these people PERCEIVE the world. In the case of tax protesters, the anger is transmuted into a false belief that the tax law is "invalid" in some way, or that the law "isn't what it really is."

Steve, I see this all the time in the way some protesters falsely "accuse" me of being an apologist or "lapdog" for the Internal Revenue Service -- as though the Internal Revenue Service were really "the enemy" and they are trying to "defeat" the IRS by "invalidating" the tax law. There is a certain twisted "logic" to this, if you think about it. If the IRS is your enemy, you can defeat your enemy (maybe) by rendering the enemy's game plan invalid or impotent.

What is lost in all this, of course, is that protesters miss the point that the tax practitioners are not trying to "defend" the IRS. This is a point that many tax protesters just can't comprehend, because they are so delusional that they can't separate out, in their own minds, the idea that a logical person can understand that the tax law is indeed LEGALLY valid from the idea that the government is "the enemy."

In some sense, the IRS is indeed my "enemy" (but not in the way tax protester think) -- only in the sense that I am trying to LEGALLY minimize the amount of tax my clients pay. I am, in that sense, in a quasi-adversarial relationship with the IRS. But it's not an emotional, hateful kind of relationship. I don't have "bad feelings" about the IRS, or at least not the kind that some tax protesters do. And I'm certainly not transmuting that adversarial relationship with the IRS into a delusional belief about the nature and validity of the tax law. The IRS is not the tax law, and the tax law is not the IRS.

--Famspear

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

disagree. They are your God even though you won't admit it. They define how you act and when you act. They define what is or is not fair and just for you and you accept it. Most like you provide, nor hint at, the limits to your willingness to follow whatever decree is made.

No, Steve, you just slipped up again. Court decisions do not define how I "act" and when I "act," in the sense in which you apparently mean. Court decisions are part of what the law is -- under the U.S. legal system. That's not merely my personal feeling or opinion. That's a rule that was laid down by others, before I was born.

I think I see what part of your problem is. It's a problem for many tax protesters. You have the idea that for something to be "the law," it must somehow seem "fair" to you, or must somehow "be" fair. If a particular rule of law is not "fair," or does not seem fair to you, you reject it. However, you reject it not merely as "not being fair," you also reject the idea that it is really "the law." You are not the first person to make this mistake.

Say what you will if it makes you feel better...
Here I can do the same. The only reason you believe as you do is because you want to justify a form of socialism. No money, no socialism.


The rest was removed due to unsupported ramblings.

--Famspear

You don't know anything about me...trying to construct strawman on what I am or what I believe is a sad way to try and pretend you are somehow superior. Of course all of you resort to the same lame tactic….can’t win with logic or reason, simply make crap up with bunch of concocted BS. TP's are pool cleaners, they're trailer trash, their ignorant, they have no education, they don't ever research anything, they make up law as they go, they have criminal records, they’re greedy, They don’t pay to raise their children, they make their wives work for all the money blah, blah blah.....

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Money does not define income.....you should know better. If she were given chickens it would still have been held as income on review.

You screw up again, Steve. You're absolutely right about the chickens. The fair market value of the chickens received would be included in income -- just as the amount of money received would be income.

Go back and look at what I wrote. No one says that "money defines income." What we are saying is that when you receive money, the EVENT is an income event, in the true economic sense. And that's true regardless of what you originally "lost."

When I receive a money settlement as a replacement for "loss" of mental well being, there is no offsetting "deduction" (if you want to call it that) to make the income not "be income." I have no tax basis in my emotional well being. Indeed, even assuming that I spent real money to "acquire" that emotional well being, the act of spending that money resulted in non-deductible personal living expenses, under the law. Thus, I have no basis, and therefore no loss, to deduct against the income I realize when I receive the "replacement."

I repeat: When I "lose" emotional well-being, I don't somehow get any tax basis in that "loss." I just FEEL BAD.

It is illogical to say that when I later receive monetary compensation for that loss, I could somehow "offset" that "loss" against the amount of money I receive, to somehow result in "no gain." There is simply no economic "loss" to offset against the economic effect of receving the money. Before, I did not have the money; now, I have the money. I'm economically richer. I haven't replaced my lost emotional well being with "new" emotional well being; I've replaced it with MONEY. Yes, the money might make me feel better (it probably will), but that's a separate concept.

When you feel bad, Steve, you just feel bad. You may be "poorer" emotionally, but you're not "poorer" economically. You haven't "lost" anything economically.

By the way, juries do award recoveries for medical expenses incurred. In other words, part of your settlement can be to reimburse you for the doctor bills you paid because you were emotionally depressed. That is a different kind of damage. There, you actually paid money out, and now you're being reimbursed for that. The tax law has rules about how that's treated, too.

Yours, Famspear

[SteveSy]

When I receive a money settlement as a replacement for "loss" of mental well being, there is no offsetting "deduction" (if you want to call it that) to make the income not "be income." I have no tax basis in my emotional well being.

What does basis have to do with anything....it results in illogical conclusions like the baseball card scenario. So what I didn't pay for it, it was replaced with something because I lost it. I had something I lost it, someone compensated me for my loss. The jury considered it a fair replacement.

Even if you want to use the nonsensical "basis" bs, it costs a hell of a lot to achieve the age of 50 or whatever the person was. It certainly wasn't free. There's you basis.

[jg]

What is right or wrong is based on personal belief and common sense in favor of fairness and justice.

This claims that right and wrong is a personal matter, to be determined individually. Perhaps that could be a basis for a value system (and I will not discuss the merits, or lack therof, for such a base of a value system ) ; but it is not feasible to use that standard in a legal system.

As previously stated, this is the crux of the tax denier creed - that the law is what the individual determines it should be and if is not applied, or enforced, or interpreted (or even explained) to the individual's satisfaction then it can be ignored or disregarded. Of course, this is not like any civil disobedience that has an expectation of punishment and a goal of changing the law. It is like the child that argues with the discipline from a parent.

In order for there to be a known set of laws to which all members of the society are expected, and yes even forced, to obey the personal aspect of right and wrong can not be determinative of what is legal or illegal; or we are left without any consistent standard to follow.

Just one man's opinion, yours may vary significantly.

[SteveSy]

What is right or wrong is based on personal belief and common sense in favor of fairness and justice.

This claims that right and wrong is a personal matter, to be determined individually. Perhaps that could be a basis for a value system (and I will not discuss the merits, or lack therof, for such a base of a value system ) ; but it is not feasible to use that standard in a legal system.

As previously stated, this is the crux of the tax denier creed - that the law is what the individual determines it should be and if is not applied, or enforced, or interpreted (or even explained) to the individual's satisfaction then it can be ignored or disregarded. Of course, this is not like any civil disobedience that has an expectation of punishment and a goal of changing the law. It is like the child that argues with the discipline from a parent.

Even a parent should explain to their children why something is wrong otherwise the child, especially when they get older, has no incentive to accept their parents authority. Your comment reflects your beliefs though, government being your parent. The government is here to serve the people not control them. This is the distinction between most of you and I.

In order for there to be a known set of laws to which all members of the society are expected, and yes even forced, to obey the personal aspect of right and wrong can not be determinative of what is legal or illegal; or we are left without any consistent standard to follow.

Well then the same applies to all governments. You forget the only reason we have what we have is because people did not accept authority and found it to be unfair and unjust based on personal feeling. It certainly wasn't based on law. In fact they rejected the "law" and the "authority" to give you what you have now. They did this because they chose liberty, something I honestly believe most of you dismiss as nothing but a nice thought something irrelevant to our current government.

It doesn't take a genius to realize taxing someone's damages, replacement for something lost, as gain is unfair and unjust. Spin it however you like by using something illogical and nonsensical like "basis" if you wish. I'll keep my feet firmly planted in reality while you are brainwashed in to believing reality is really found in some opinion concocted by those who work for, paid by, and appointed by those wishing to take your money.

Just one man's opinion, yours may vary significantly.

Ditto

[natty]

It does provide limits.....however you've been indoctrinated to believe they are words that really have no meaning.

Please show how apportionment or uniformity in any way limited the plenary taxing power. You can't.

[SteveSy]

It does provide limits.....however you've been indoctrinated to believe they are words that really have no meaning.

Please show how apportionment or uniformity in any way limited the plenary taxing power. You can't.

The government can tax anything, that's a given. How they can tax it provides an inherent limitation.

Using the court's opinion I can't show a limitation, because the courts have basically given congress carte blanch to tax anything and everything anyway it wants. I can by logic and reason though. If direct taxes provide no limitation then why does the government do everything is can to avoid calling something direct?

[LPC]

Did the Jury award:
a) Profit or gain to the recipient.
b) Damages

Can you say "involuntary conversion," boys and girls?

BINGO! Give the man a prize.

I know that everyone else ignores you, but I still love you, Dr. C.

No one can know whether a jury award for damages is gain to the recipient without knowing the basis of the recipient.

Which is the issue the DC Circuit insisting on evading, but which any tax law student in the 25th percentile would understand.