http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 36&start=0Over the years I have done a lot of reading of CtC [Cracking the Code] -- I understand that the federal gov't would logically have the right to tax money received from it as an excise, and I understand the specially defined terms in the IRS code, "employee", "trade or business", etc. But it is not entirely clear to me why all federally connected money received would be taxable or that "income" in relation to taxes is defined as federally connected money received.
It seems to me that the Revenue Act of 1962 [sic; should read "1862"], Sec 90, contains a provision for taxing non-federal "income" received. I'm not entirely clear why only federally connected interest, dividends, etc. would be taxable
On January 18th, user "TruthBearer" responds evasively:
Notice that "TruthBearer" did not identify any language in the Constitution or a statute to the effect that only federally connected interest, dividends, etc., would be taxable.If you think about it a bit more, the answer lies in your own question. From your study of CtC, you know that the income tax is an indirect type of "excise" tax, which is a "piece of the action" type tax. As such, the excise can only attach when the "action" occurs in connection with some activity having some nexus to the federal government's powers specified by the Constitution. It is that nexus that is germane and basic to the tax, which otherwise cannot apply.
Where is the language in the Constitution or a statute that says that for income to be taxable, it must have "some nexus to the federal government's powers specified by the Constitution"? The answer, of course, is that there is no such language.
"Freeme" is not put off by that evasion. "Freeme" responds with this:
On January 20, "TruthBearer" responds:Thank you,TruthBearer. I agree that the income tax is an indirect tax, an excise tax, a "piece of the action" tax.
What is not clear to me is what [language] specifically states that the tax applies to federally connected investment income.
At least "TruthBearer" admits that there is no such language. Of course, "TruthBearer" can't explain why he believes that his theory is "abundantly clear." He has no support for his statements.To my knowledge there is no specific wording about it--probably because it is abundantly clear and settled that "duties, imposts, or excises" are Constitutionally permitted indirect taxes, and as such can be avoided by staying out of their grasp. You don't NEED to set up your lemonade stand on federal property, but if you do, the feds can claim a piece of your action.
Later "oldhawaiiscot" provides, as a supposed explanation, the following link:
http://www.taxresponseteam.org/home/incometax/
That's a link to the web site for "Pablo Rodriguez," another fool, who was banned by Blowhard Hendrickson a long time back. Pablo, of course, is just as clueless as Blowhard Hendrickson, "TruthBearer", and "oldhawaiiscot," and the web site offers no specific Constitutional or statutory language that "freeme" is asking for.
On January 21st, "freeme" persists with his skepticism:
Of course, "freeme" is on the right track.OK, but it seems to me that there would need to be something specific in the code about that.
On January 22nd, Blowhard Hendrickson himself provides "freeme" with this link:
http://losthorizons.com/Documents/AllEc ... Income.htm
....which of course leads to more of Hendrickson's evasive bulls**t, and does not provide the authority that "freeme" is seeking. Hendrickson's approach is essentially, "it is so because I say it is so, right here on my web site."
"Freeme" is polite, but he is not being fooled by the evasions. He writes:
Then, a user named "greencode" gives a try:Thank you very much for that, ForumAdmin -- it is helpful.
I found the "subject to an income tax under the excise laws of the United States" part especially interesting.
I understand that the "income" tax is an excise, but it is not entirely clear to me why the excise would apply to all federally connected "income" and why it could not apply to other types of "income."
It seems to me that there should be something in the code or a statute authorizing a tax on federally connected interest, investment "income," etc.
And there's a federal excise tax on gasoline -- is gasoline federally connected?
Of course, it's mumbo jumbo.The way CTC talks about the history, and when we go back to look at the old Revenue Acts, and see how things go forward, and then got incorporated into the new IRC 1939, 1954, 1986, etc..., it can help to think more simply.
You mentioned the Revenue Act 1862, that is in CTC, it had a number of sections, but in there it had 2 main "income" taxes, they were:
1. The "employee salary" tax (Sec. 86?) - anyone in the employment or service of the US (including now also any 'state" or agency, instrumentality, or corp. thereof, or anything of like kind or class...)
2. The "gains" tax (Sec. 90) - this is the classic "gain derived from capital" that Eisner v Macomber talked about, and others. You have property/money, and it "gains" additional value, the "gain" is what is taxed.
Also think like a business, after all the expenses, the "gains or profits" are taxed.
So then, I don't think, unless there is specific language saying so, that "income" derived from property has to be "federally connected" - you have to read the definitions for the section. For instance, the "income" reported on 1099-DIV is an example of "gain derived from capital... profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets."
The problem is that "taxable service work" which is only supposed to be reported and apply to a subset of people in our country, through fraudulent third party documents ALL workers are made to look like "taxpayers" gettin [sic] paid "income."
If you check the amounts, the average worker doesn't make enough "gain derived from capital" to even have to file a tax return. That is an excise. By trying to apply the "income" tax to all you get paid for work, the excise gets applied like a direct tax without apportionment, so it is technically unconstitutional, but with the false documents it appears to be constitutional. I hope that didn't come across as too mumbo jumbo.
And on January 27th, "freeme" politely responds:
"Freeme" is really skating on thin ice now! He is seeing past the evasions, and he still wants an answer to a very pertinent question.Thank you, Greencode -- I understand and agree.
This is the main point I am trying to clarify: "...I don't think, unless there is specific language saying so, that 'income' derived from property has to be 'federally connected'..."
The village idiot (Nationwide/libre/Harvester/johnny cash/johnthetaxist/John Travis Harvester) responds with his DMVP lunacy.
Then, as already noted in another thread, Blowhard Hendrickson swats "Nationwide" down, and writes this non-responsive evasion to "freeme":
Again, Blowhard Hendrickson asserts that there is an "inherent element" of "federal connection" that is a "feature" of the excise known as the "income tax", but he can provide no support for his assertion. Instead, he urges "freeme" to read "ALL of the material" at the link previously provided -- which of course will lead "freeme" nowhere.While the "income tax" is an excise, it is not the only excise. Gasoline taxes are also excises, but a different variety. The limitations to which other types of excises are subject are similar in some respects but not identical in all respects to those upon the "income tax".
As for the inherent element of federal connection, that IS a feature of the "income tax" excise, as the factor distinguishing the gain-producing activity taxable as such by the feds from other gain-producing activities. This factor both creates a necessary federal ownership interest in the gains and preserves the tax from qualifying as a capitation and bringing the apportionment provision of the Constitution into play. Please read ALL of the material at the link I provided earlier, in particular the portion discussing the "capitation" issue.
Freeme now shows he is not fooled by Blowhard Hendrickson's evasion. Freeme politely responds:
"TruthBearer" is feeling uncomfortable with "freeme"'s persistence:Thank you again, Forum Admin.
I understand the capitation issue.
My question is where in the link you provided earlier is it explained why a federal ownership interest in the gains is necessary for the gains to be taxable.
Where is it explained why other gains, profit or income could not also be taxable?
http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 6&start=15Freeme, I believe your question has been more than adequately answered here--particularly by Pete. Do we need to see it in writing somewhere that the noses on our faces are in fact noses and not ears? Sorry, I shouldn't be flip, because your question is one that may also occur to others who have studied CtC without fully grasping its implications as well as its facts. Full comprehension comes with a thorough understanding first of the type of earnings which constitute "taxable income" and why they must be federally connected. It's all in there. Sometimes it takes a fourth or fifth reading to get all the light bulbs turned on....
---which of course is another bulls**t, evasive, non-response.
