The Full CtC

[bmielke]

In tax policy class I took during my LLm we focused a class period and week's reading on this issue . . . There's a couple funny little Donald Duck cartoons about paying taxes that came out during this time.

Hmm. Perhaps an LLM is overrated.

Meanwhile, you conveniently forget that in the process of being pumped full of lawyery goodness, you took a semester-long class on graphic novels.

I once took a class on propaganda, because my buddies and I were convinced it was thefinal piece we needed to rule the world...I drank too much back then.

[Imalawman]

There's a couple funny little Donald Duck cartoons about paying taxes that came out during this time.

I have been led to believe that the cartoons urged taxpayers to pay their Victory Tax currently, i.e., with their 1943 return, rather than deferring it until they filed their 1944 return in 1945, as they had the option to do. Was I misled?

Not at all, that is correct. I wasn't referring to withholding in connection with Donald Duck - just an example of the type of propaganda that was taking place. I just pointing out that they were drumming up support for the tax. It's funny because I was going to clarify that (I thought I was a bit vague on that point) and thought, "eh, no one's going to really care whether they were encouraging payment at year's end or withholding". Nothing gets past this crowd.

The Donald Duck cartoon was part of a series of cartoons called the "Spirit of '43" (or was it '42). In any event, its evident that the government realized that they had a problem with year-end collection and thus, withholding was instituted. I know I've seen propaganda relating to withholding, but I'm not sure if I can lay my hands on it. I think the DD cartoon is on the internet somewhere, but I haven't looked for it. Maybe I will tonight.

Damn it, we really go off on tangents sometimes don't we....

[Gregg]

I once took a class on propaganda, because my buddies and I were convinced it was thefinal piece we needed to rule the world...I drank too much back then.

I, on the other hand rule the world without the benefit of any classes on propaganda. Economics, padawan is the wisdom you need...

you bribe capital, pay lawyers, blackmail financiers and enslave the proletariat.

[Famspear]

Update:

Eugene George Warner (an alleged CtC user) who is mentioned earlier in this thread was released from federal prison on October 7, 2011.

Hendrickson's Heroes still in federal prison at this time:

--->Michael I. O'Daniel (to be released March 1, 2012);

--->Roger Charles Menner (to be released May 17, 2013);

and, of course Peter Eric ("Blowhard") Hendrickson Himself (to be released Nov. 18, 2012).

[jg]

The aforementioned video "The Spirit of '43 starring Donald Duck" is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr9qpeOjmuQ

"Taxes will keep democracy on the march!"

[Doktor Avalanche]

Having finally worked up the courage to read it, I'm amazed how fast he got it wrong.

Barely out of the first paragraph...

Let’s get this said loud and clear right at the outset: IF YOU HAVE TAXABLE INCOME, YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE INCOME TAX. Section 1(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says:
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of-... [a tax of varying percentages]” Pretty straightforward. Of course, it does raise the question of exactly what is taxable “income”...

"We must reject... ...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-- everything that comes in-- are income...”. United States Supreme
Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

And the rest is semantic garbage, the rankest sophistry imaginable.

[Gregg]

United States Supreme
Court, So. Pacific v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, (1918)

How come methinks the quote, and maybe even the case, has little to do with income tax as now applied? And those "..." in the middle of the supposedly relevant phrase I have found often makes the phrase irrelevant.

[AndyK]

And the rest is semantic garbage, the rankest sophistry imaginable.

Are you now becoming antisemantic?

[notorial dissent]

Well, for once ole Prattlin' Pete almost got it right, almost, except for the teensy tiny little insignificant detail that this is dealing (soley) with income from prior to the Income Tax Act date of Jan 1, 1913. The case actually says, more or less, what he claims, except that it only applies to income prior to 1913, and otherwise has no meaning for any of his ravings. Even when he gets the quote right he can't follow it through to the correct conclusion.

[Famspear]

Well, for once ole Prattlin' Pete almost got it right, almost, except for the teensy tiny little insignificant detail that this is dealing (soley) with income from prior to the Income Tax Act date of Jan 1, 1913. The case actually says, more or less, what he claims, except that it only applies to income prior to 1913, and otherwise has no meaning for any of his ravings. Even when he gets the quote right he can't follow it through to the correct conclusion.

Yes, this is another example of Preposterous Pete Hendrickson focusing on what the Court said and ignoring what the Court ruled -- and then taking what the Court said out of context and arguing that what the Court said somehow means something other than what the Court ruled.

The case of Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918), involved the taxability of a dividend paid by a corporation to its shareholder under the Revenue Act of 1913. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the government was trying to argue that the 1913 Act taxed "all that comes in". The Court rejected that argument, and ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913 (the effective date of the relevant provision of the 1913 Act), the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Act -- which taxed income realized during or after the year 1913 -- not income realized before 1913.

The Court did NOT rule that earnings from a private sector activity unconnected to the exercise of a federal privilege were somehow not income. (Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ruled that.) No issues regarding the definition of income with respect to wages, salary or any other kind of compensation for labor were presented to or decided by the Court in Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe.

Preposterous Pete loves to focus on what the court in a particular case SAID (and loves to take what the court said out of context), and he ignores what the courts have RULED. When he is presented with RULINGS that contradict his position, he concocts a nonsensical rationale for his supposed "belief" that the rulings don't really contradict his "private sector" argument -- and his eager, dimwitted followers just snap up his bait.

Legal scholars know how to use dicta -- non-binding words stated in passing by the courts. Pete and similar con artists do not.

Recall this from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306, 96-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,185 (9th Cir. 1996) (bolding added).

[fortinbras]

(1) To a certain extent, it is true that not everything that comes in can be counted as taxable income; compensation for losses, repayment of loans, etc.

(2) Stare decisis, as a hard and fast rule, does not apply to courts of last resort - e.g., the US Supreme Court.

(3) I wish I had a nickle for every court case misquoted or misrepresented by the tax dodgers. Then I wouldn't need to sell drugs to schoolchildren.

[webhick]

(3) I wish I had a nickle for every court case misquoted or misrepresented by the tax dodgers. Then I wouldn't need to sell drugs to schoolchildren.

fortinbras FTW.

[LPC]

The case of Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918), involved the taxability of a dividend paid by a corporation to its shareholder under the Revenue Act of 1913. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the government was trying to argue that the 1913 Act taxed "all that comes in". The Court rejected that argument, and ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913 (the effective date of the relevant provision of the 1913 Act), the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Act -- which taxed income realized during or after the year 1913 -- not income realized before 1913.

I think that the critical date is March 1, 1913. At least, that's the date still found in several sections of the Internal Revenue Code, such as section 316:

26 U.S.C. § 316. Dividend defined

(a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “dividend” means any distribution of property made by a corporation to its shareholders—

(1) out of its earnings and profits accumulated after February 28, 1913, or [...]

[Famspear]

The case of Southern Pac. Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918), involved the taxability of a dividend paid by a corporation to its shareholder under the Revenue Act of 1913. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the government was trying to argue that the 1913 Act taxed "all that comes in". The Court rejected that argument, and ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913 (the effective date of the relevant provision of the 1913 Act), the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Act -- which taxed income realized during or after the year 1913 -- not income realized before 1913.

I think that the critical date is March 1, 1913. At least, that's the date still found in several sections of the Internal Revenue Code, such as section 316:

26 U.S.C. § 316. Dividend defined

(a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “dividend” means any distribution of property made by a corporation to its shareholders—

(1) out of its earnings and profits accumulated after February 28, 1913, or [...]

I stand corrected. (The Court's reference to the date of January 1, 1913 was only part of a discussion of the fact that the earnings and profits had accumulated in the corporation prior to January 1, 1913.)

[Doktor Avalanche]

And the rest is semantic garbage, the rankest sophistry imaginable.

Are you now becoming antisemantic?

Ha!

Nikki FTW!