Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Famspear]

I don't know about where you live, but when i worked for an executive agency of my state, my state income was not federally taxable. But hey, maybe they made a mistake, three years in a row...

Your state income -- the income you receive from a state government agency, if that's what you're saying -- is indeed "federally taxable." If your state agency thought otherwise, they were wrong.

If they failed to withhold Federal income tax for you, that's more of a problem for you than for them. If they failed to report your income on a Form W-2, that's a problem for them. If you willfully failed to report the gross income on a federal income tax return for each of the three years (and I'm making a reasonable assumption that you made far more than the gross income filing requirement each year, so you would have been required by law to file), then you committed a crime.

Without giving any personal information that would identify you, can you tell us what state it was and what agency it was?

[Famspear]

You brought it on yourself. Next time, do your homework.

Shhh. Stop embarassing yourself please.

Now look up the definition of the term "projection" (it's a term in psychology). If you don't want others to know how embarrassed you are, don't respond by staying "Shhh. Stop embarrassing yourself please." That doesn't fool us.

[stija]

Famspear, please get lost. I neither talk to liar nor entertain fools.

If you think that the syllabus is wrong, all you need to do is find a contrary Supreme Court decision, holding that the federal taxation of the salaries of state employees is unconstitutional.

I don't think you're going to find one.

I did not say it is wrong, i said you missed the point. For someone who carefully analyzes every word as well as number of ?? you sure forget to read when it suits you.

Home Loans and Alabama Superior Court are not the same. Where an inherent gov't authority of the three branches is called in question, both the office and officer are immune from taxation. But i guess you won't believe it until you see it - fine by me, I neither care nor will it change the facts.

In re: to your quote, i hope you noticed that the corporation in the case was immune.
Second, i hope you noticed that the attorney was a resident of New York.
Third, the language of the act was unequivocal: "Salaries, wages and other compensation received from the United States of officials or employees thereof, including persons in the military or naval forces of the United States. . . ."
Fourth, US has consented to allow states to tax its officers, employees, etc...in 4 USC 111, thus your reference is pointless today.
Therefore, there is nothing there that i either don't agree with or that contradicts my allegations. I never alleged that employees or officers of federal corporations were immune, especially so when resident of a state.

Since i can't find explicit language telling you what is not and what is excluded, here is the two prong test that SCOTUS uses when deciding these cases, and you can hopefully infer from it:

“...two guiding principles of limitation for holding the tax immunity of State instrumentalities to its proper function. The one, dependent upon the nature of the function being performed by the State or in its behalf, excludes from the immunity activities thought not to be essential to the preservation of State governments even though the tax be collected from the State treasury.... The other principle, exemplified by those cases where the tax laid upon individuals affects the State only as the burden is passed on to it by the taxpayer, forbids recognition of the immunity when the burden on the State is so speculative and uncertain that if allowed it would restrict the federal taxing power without affording any corresponding tangible protection to the State government; even though the function be thought important enough to demand immunity from a tax upon the State itself, it is not necessarily protected from a tax which well may be substantially or entirely absorbed by private persons.”

See Metcalf and Eddy and revisited in Helvering.

Now, the case you quoted involved a federal corporation which was basically a federal commercial enterprise (Home Owner's Loan Corp.) and was held to still be immune. I repeat it here because we will revisit it much later when you are ready, just remember the holding.

Since the case you quoted does not involve an agency essential (3 branches) to gov't operations, can you reference a relevant case involving a state agency exercising either judicial, legislative or executive powers and actually prove my allegation wrong? I never argued that employees of commercially run state/federal enterprises are immune. For a lawyer, you're a good one, 1) assuming things to suit your agenda, 2) skipping over the facts alleged, and 3) arguing/proving inapposite arguments.

I alleged that BOTH the employee/officer AND employer/office are immune from taxation when carrying out one of the three main powers of either gov't. I said i worked for an executive agency of my state.

Stop arguing things i never raised. That is why i won't talk to Famspear.

In the meantime i'd like to point a few things, one could argue in support of my allegations in re: to your case, even though it is irrelevant as explained above:

1. The state of New York did not impose a requirement on Home Owner's Loan to match their employee's contributions such as FICA, FUCA, etc, thus there was absolutely no burden on the instrumentality of the US. No burden to report, withhold or pay anything whatsoever. The burden was squarely on New York's resident.
2. Title 26 does impose a burden, if interpreted your way, both monetary and substantial (paperwork, interpretation, administration) on 'employers' which you would suggest include state agencies like the one i worked for, by imposing both a monetary requirement (FUCA, FICA etc) and additional staff requirements to comply with the provisions of Title 26.
3. The above quote, my quote, explicitly explains that if:
a) the function is essential gov't function (executive, leg, jud), or
b) if the burden is not speculative and uncertain, but real

...then state agencies and instrumentalities thereof are immune from federal taxation. Therefore, i would argue that requiring state agencies to report, withhold, and also contribute property into federal coffers fits both prongs of the test and therefore grants immunity to judicial officers, police officers, legislators and the like. I am sorry, but you haven't proven otherwise because Home Loans Corp was neither a body of the executive, legislative nor judicial dept of the US, but a commercial enterprise. Plus, I alleged that feds can't tax state branches and their employees, not the other way around.

United States argued in their fight against SB1070 successfully that to require them to run each and every alleged illegal detainee through their databases would be a burden so cumbersome as to impede one of their essential functions and interfere with the functions and priorities of the United States gov't. I could argue the same thing, as there is a lot of paperwork involved in filing all those information returns and withholding and ALSO actually contributing payments to match state employee contributions - property leaving the state while the state is exercising its inherent right to exist.

Even though you're good at misdirection and arguing irrelevant matters not alleged, at least with you i am getting somewhere. Now let's follow from this case and get into corporate citizens. Let's talk Delaware for example, because it isn't a coincidence that more than 1/2 of Fortune 500 companies are there.

Now Delaware Title 8 Subchapter XVI Section 390 prohibits its corporate citizens from ever becoming domestic under any of the US based jurisdictions.

§ 390. Transfer, domestication or continuance of domestic corporations.

(a) Upon compliance with the provisions of this section, any corporation existing under the laws of this State may transfer to or domesticate or continue in any foreign jurisdiction and, in connection therewith, may elect to continue its existence as a corporation of this State. As used in this section, the term:

(1) "Foreign jurisdiction" means any foreign country, or other foreign jurisdiction (other than the United States, any state, the District of Columbia, or any possession or territory of the United States); and

Now say i chartered a Delaware corp and i decided to hire you, a citizen and domiciliary of Delaware, and we are in a legal employee-employer relationship in Delaware. What in Title 26 do you suggest imposes a requirement on my Delaware Corp to report, withhold or do anything in relation to you, my employee? You don't need to explain unless you feel it necessary, Title 26 sections imposing such requirements would suffice, and we can go from there. In fact, i would prefer if you just gave me sections as i no care what you have to say, only what law says.

[wserra]

What issues do I raise???? You have no clue yet you keep dissenting. You are PRESUMING my issues.

If you're not raising any issues, why should anyone comment on your posts? Of course, that does permit you, once someone shoots down what appears to be your position, to disclaim it. The word "sophistry" comes to mind.

State your positions, so that folks don't have to "PRESUME" them, and perhaps more people will comment.

[grixit]

stja: Self Taught Jurists of America?

I really don't understand how people can browbeat themselves into misunderstanding words.

[ArthurWankspittle]

OOhh a live troll and I missed all the fun.

...They have a vast amount of experience dealing with tax evaders, tax protestors, and tax evaders and a wide range of their arguments.

and good short term memories.

Just be careful that you are not walking into a gun fight holding only a dull knife.

To take a quote from someone, somewhere in the Casey Serin saga: "or bring a spoon to a 'sharks with lasers on their heads' fight".

[AndyK]

There was a time when state and municipal employees (and their employers) were exempted from Social Securirty taxation. Could this be part of sitja's misconception?

Also, with all of his self-created citation language into the Constitution, he has managed to avoid a critical one: A XVI (I just made up that citation style)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But, he's just a troll attempting -- with his ESL grammar, spelling, and usage -- to make himself feel important so no amount of discussion, citation, or reasoning will accomplish anything.

Eventually he'll either get bored (or get kicked off the computer in the library) and vanish.

[notorial dissent]

stja: Self Taught Jurists of America?

I really don't understand how people can browbeat themselves into misunderstanding words.

Browbeat nothing!!! stja's "knowledge" is willful and intentional. If he were just regurging, which admittedly most of them do, it usually becomes quite obvious after a bit. He isn't.

This one, on the other hand, knows what he is peddling, which means he actually knows the answers, at least at some level, and is choosing to peddle this drivel. A better quality troll, but a toll none the less.

[LPC]

Since i can't find explicit language telling you what is not and what is excluded, here is the two prong test that SCOTUS uses when deciding these cases, and you can hopefully infer from it:

“...two guiding principles of limitation for holding the tax immunity of State instrumentalities to its proper function. The one, dependent upon the nature of the function being performed by the State or in its behalf, excludes from the immunity activities thought not to be essential to the preservation of State governments even though the tax be collected from the State treasury.... The other principle, exemplified by those cases where the tax laid upon individuals affects the State only as the burden is passed on to it by the taxpayer, forbids recognition of the immunity when the burden on the State is so speculative and uncertain that if allowed it would restrict the federal taxing power without affording any corresponding tangible protection to the State government; even though the function be thought important enough to demand immunity from a tax upon the State itself, it is not necessarily protected from a tax which well may be substantially or entirely absorbed by private persons.”

See Metcalf and Eddy and revisited in Helvering.

You're quoting from a 1938 case, Helvering v. Gerhardt, that was decided while the Supreme Court was still in the process of unwinding the holdings that had held state government employees to be immune from federal income tax. You have to fast forward to the end:

Assuming, as we do, that the Home Owners' Loan Corporation is clothed with the same immunity from state taxation as the government itself, we cannot say that the present tax on the income of its employees lays any unconstitutional burden upon it. All the reasons for refusing to imply a constitutional prohibition of federal income taxation of salaries of state employees, stated at length in the Gerhardt case, are of equal force when immunity is claimed from state income tax on salaries paid by the national government or its agencies. In this respect we perceive no basis for a difference in result whether the taxed income be salary or some other form of compensation, or whether the taxpayer be an employee or an officer of either a state or the national government, or of its instrumentalities. In no case is there basis for the assumption that any such tangible or certain economic burden is imposed on the government concerned as would justify a court's declaring that the taxpayer is clothed with the implied constitutional tax immunity of the government by which he is employed. That assumption, made in Collector v. Day, supra, and in New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra, is contrary to the reasoning and to the conclusions reached in the Gerhardt case and in Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra; Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, 283 U.S. 279; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra; Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra; McLoughlin v. Commissioner, 303 U.S. 218. In their light the assumption can no longer be made. Collector v. Day, supra, and New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra, are overruled so far as they recognize an implied constitutional immunity from income taxation of the salaries of officers or employees of the national or a state government or their instrumentalities.

Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 486 (1939) (emphasis added).

And referring to "Helvering" as a case name is a sure sign of a tyro. Guy Helvering was the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from 1933 to 1943 and there are literally hundreds of court decisions with his name on them.

[Famspear]

Famspear, please get lost. I neither talk to liar nor entertain fools.

I am neither a liar nor a fool. And for all intents and purposes, I live here. You don't. You walked in here of your own accord. If you can't stand the heat, then YOU get lost.

Stop arguing things i never raised. That is why i won't talk to Famspear.

No, the reason you say you won't talk to me is that you repeatedly made a fool of yourself at my hand. You have no answers.

Now say i chartered a Delaware corp and i decided to hire you, a citizen and domiciliary of Delaware, and we are in a legal employee-employer relationship in Delaware. What in Title 26 do you suggest imposes a requirement on my Delaware Corp to report, withhold or do anything in relation to you, my employee? You don't need to explain unless you feel it necessary, Title 26 sections imposing such requirements would suffice, and we can go from there.

You're probably already aware of the Code provisions. Internal Revenue Code section 3102 imposes the obligation on the employer to deduct Social Security tax and Medicare tax from wages. And section 3402 imposes the obligation to deduct and withhold Federal income tax.

[Pottapaug1938]

There was a time when state and municipal employees (and their employers) were exempted from Social Securirty taxation. Could this be part of sitja's misconception?

Also, with all of his self-created citation language into the Constitution, he has managed to avoid a critical one: A XVI (I just made up that citation style)

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But, he's just a troll attempting -- with his ESL grammar, spelling, and usage -- to make himself feel important so no amount of discussion, citation, or reasoning will accomplish anything.

Eventually he'll either get bored (or get kicked off the computer in the library) and vanish.

Or, perhaps, he'll go to a more politically congenial forum and, like so many other trolls we've known and loved, brag about how he went onto Quatloos and posed us challenging questions and that we were unable to give him satisfactory answers.

[stija]

I alleged:

I alleged that BOTH the employee/officer AND employer/office are immune from taxation when carrying out one of the three main powers of either gov't. I said i worked for an executive agency of my state.

You quote a case dealing with a federal corporation for profit where the burden imposed was only on the taxpayer, a resident of New York. You quoted an irrelevant thing.

If you guys are going to post and call me a troll instead of proving your arguments or answering mine, then i came to the wrong place to have an adult discussion about this.

LPC, are you suggesting that there is no ABSOLUTELY no immunity for states and their officers at all today, because Day was overruled? In your case there was ABSOLUTELY no burden on the federal corporation man, do you get that?

Title 26 would purportedly lay a requirement on Superior Court of Arizona to both:
a) match their judges contribution into FICA, FUCA, etc - burden
b) require trained people to administer, collect, and forward monies and paperwork.

There was NO such burden in your case. You quoted:

Assuming, as we do, that the Home Owners' Loan Corporation is clothed with the same immunity from state taxation as the government itself, we cannot say that the present tax on the income of its employees lays any unconstitutional burden upon it. All the reasons for refusing to imply a constitutional prohibition of federal income taxation of salaries of state employees, stated at length in the Gerhardt case, are of equal force when immunity is claimed from state income tax on salaries paid by the national government or its agencies. In this respect we perceive no basis for a difference in result whether the taxed income be salary or some other form of compensation, or whether the taxpayer be an employee or an officer of either a state or the national government, or of its instrumentalities. In no case is there basis for the assumption that any such tangible or certain economic burden is imposed on the government concerned as would justify a court's declaring that the taxpayer is clothed with the implied constitutional tax immunity of the government by which he is employed. That assumption, made in Collector v. Day, supra, and in New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra, is contrary to the reasoning and to the conclusions reached in the Gerhardt case and in Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell, supra; Group No. 1 Oil Corp. v. Bass, 283 U.S. 279; James v. Dravo Contracting Co., supra; Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., supra; McLoughlin v. Commissioner, 303 U.S. 218. In their light the assumption can no longer be made. Collector v. Day, supra, and New York ex rel. Rogers v. Graves, supra, are overruled so far as they recognize an implied constitutional immunity from income taxation of the salaries of officers or employees of the national or a state government or their instrumentalities.

Why are they mentioning a burden at all then? Why not just say, from now on there is NO immunity whatsoever? Their clear language, which i must be not understanding because of my ESL English, proves that should there be a burden it would JUSTIFY the clothing of immunity from the agency itself. Sorry LPC.

Are you going to discuss this or have you decided that i am a troll and not worth talking to? Do you NOT understand that requiring the employee of Home and Loan's to pay a tax is NOT any requirement at all, economic or other, on the corporation in question.

That is NOT the case with Title 26, and you know it. So quit avoiding answering my claims, with irrelevant matters. You can call me a troll, you can call me an idiot, but answer my allegations if you claim that i am wrong. Don't quote me a case that does NOT impose a burden, because obviously your decision infers, that should there be a burden of any kind on the AGENCY itself, it would be unconstitutional.

You other idiots, if you have nothing to contribute, you may as well stop adding 'troll' posts.

You're probably already aware of the Code provisions. Internal Revenue Code section 3102 imposes the obligation on the employer to deduct Social Security tax and Medicare tax from wages. And section 3402 imposes the obligation to deduct and withhold Federal income tax.

Yes I am, and i would call that both an economic and administrative burden. Would you not? If there were other specific section expemting the 'employer' (state agencies) from withholding and participating and laid a requiremeny SQUARELY on the employee somehow, things would fare differently. But there isn't such a section to my knowledge, maybe you can teach me? Alternatively you could just skip over this issue by pretending it is not there and call me a troll again.

Compare that to a provision in New York state law from LPC's case that imposed a requirement of payment ONLY on its resident, and NO burden WHATSOEVER on the federal corporation.

You're a joke LPC, just like you're friend Famspear.

[Famspear]

...If you guys are going to post and call me a troll instead of proving your arguments or answering mine, then i came to the wrong place to have an adult discussion about this....

We're not here to "prove" our "arguments". We're here to explain the law.

In other words, you are here to prove something. We are not.

This forum deals with tax protester scams. Your posts, although disorganized and only partially coherent, are obviously filled with re-hashes of aspects of tax protester scams we have seen over and over and over.

Why not take a breath and try to organize your thoughts a bit?

[stija]

We're not here to "prove" our "arguments". We're here to explain the law.

In other words, you are here to prove something. We are not.

This forum deals with tax protester scams. Your posts, although disorganized and only partially coherent, are obviously filled with re-hashes of aspects of tax protester scams we have seen over and over and over.

Why not take a breath and try to organize your thoughts a bit?

Nothing in here contributes to explaining how intergovernmental tax immunity applies in instances where there is a burden on the agency itself, both monetary and administrative.

You do not even understand burden vs no burden and YOU want to explain the law?

Try again, if you wish. I care not, and obviously you do neither. It would seem you come here to troll because your woman won't let you do this to her at home.

[stija]

US Constition, Amendment 16 wrote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


But, he's just a troll attempting -- with his ESL grammar, spelling, and usage -- to make himself feel important so no amount of discussion, citation, or reasoning will accomplish anything.

And i was under the impression that XVI did not add any new power of taxation or bring any new subjects under the taxing authority. Boy was i wrong....

[Pottapaug1938]

US Constition, Amendment 16 wrote:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

But, he's just a troll attempting -- with his ESL grammar, spelling, and usage -- to make himself feel important so no amount of discussion, citation, or reasoning will accomplish anything.

And i was under the impression that XVI did not add any new power of taxation or bring any new subjects under the taxing authority. Boy was i wrong....

You are right about the bit about no new powers of taxation being added -- but that's old news to the regulars here. What the 16th Amendment did was remove the requirement for apportionment, and made the source of the income irrelevant, so that now, whenever you receive income, it doesn't matter how, where or from whom or what you got it, it is still sublect to the federal income tax.

[Pottapaug1938]

We're not here to "prove" our "arguments". We're here to explain the law.

In other words, you are here to prove something. We are not.

This forum deals with tax protester scams. Your posts, although disorganized and only partially coherent, are obviously filled with re-hashes of aspects of tax protester scams we have seen over and over and over.

Why not take a breath and try to organize your thoughts a bit?

Nothing in here contributes to explaining how intergovernmental tax immunity applies in instances where there is a burden on the agency itself, both monetary and administrative.

You do not even understand burden vs no burden and YOU want to explain the law?

Try again, if you wish. I care not, and obviously you do neither. It would seem you come here to troll because your woman won't let you do this to her at home.

See my answer on the 16th Amendment. It doesn't matter if you work for a private company or an instrumentality of a state government -- if you are within the jurisdiction of the United States, and you receive income, that income is subject tot he income tax.

[stija]

You are right about the bit about no new powers of taxation being added -- but that's old news to the regulars here. What the 16th Amendment did was remove the requirement for apportionment, and made the source of the income irrelevant, so that now, whenever you receive income, it doesn't matter how, where or from whom or what you got it, it is still sublect to the federal income tax.

Apparently not to AndyK. See his post above.

So......let me get this straight.....XVI did nothing AND removed the requirement for apportionment? How do you define nothing? And where should i look for a proper definition of it?

See my answer on the 16th Amendment. It doesn't matter if you work for a private company or an instrumentality of a state government -- if you are within the jurisdiction of the United States, and you receive income, that income is subject tot he income tax.

So when the Supreme Court says that there is no immunity because the tax in New York case did NOT impose ANY burden on the federal corporation, they are just talking about burdens for shits and giggles, because, as you say, it ultimately does not matter right, everything is taxable, even if there is a burden to report, withhold and CONTRIBUTE on the agency itself? So all this talking and discussing the burdens laid on the agencies was just an irrelevant exercise in mental masturbation and has no bearing on deciding whether the immunity applies?

If that is your proposition, you can start looking for case law now and i guarantee that you won't find it to support your proposition.

I disagree with your proposition, if that is it. I am of the opinion, as the Supreme Court case clear language infers, that if there were a burden on Home and Loans Corp, that the tax would have been held unconstitutional, which is why they explained that since there was NO burden on the federal instrumentality whatsoever, but only on the resident, the tax stands. They also overruled Day because of IMPLIED immunity without the additional requirement of unwarranted burden which SCOTUS added later.

Now that is not the case with Title 26 now is it?

Also, states can tax feds because Congress EXPLICITLY consented in 4 USC 111, so we can stop talking about that. The proposition made here, many many many posts ago, is that the feds cannot tax state agencies/agents if the tax lays a burden on the agency while exercising an essential function of the state gov't. LPC's case is irrelevant to the proposition, and nothing has been posted to refute it. We can ignore it if you wish, but that does not help the discussion, that is, if you want to discuss this at all. I would love any of you to teach me that i am wrong. I like learning, that is why i came here thinking that i would learn something.

For example, LPC has thought me with his New York case reference, that even if it is not an inherent or essential gov't function, the immunity still applies should there be a burden. You see, i did not know that. I really thought that the determining factor was an essential gov't function - executive, judicial or legislate. Thanks LPC.

Mental NOTE::
1. So far I have learned that there are two different verbs 'to regulate,' one from Black's and one which may or may not be from Black's. Thanks Famspear.
2. I have also learned that a real burden on the gov't agency is the determining factor of whether intergovernmental tax immunity applies, in instances where there is no explicit surrender to taxation such as the case in 4 USC 111. Thanks LPC.

[Pottapaug1938]

Stija said "So......let me get this straight.....XVI did nothing AND removed the requirement for apportionment? How do you define nothing? And where should i look for a proper definition of it?"

You have a hard time getting ANYTHING straight, Pal. I did NOT say that the 16th Amendment did nothing. What I DID say that was that the Amendment grated no new power to tax because Congress already had that power. The Amendment simply removed restrictions on that power (apportionment and source). I've already told you that further enlightenment can be had on old threads within this topic; but you should start with the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

[stija]

You have a hard time getting ANYTHING straight, Pal. I did NOT say that the 16th Amendment did nothing. What I DID say that was that the Amendment grated no new power to tax because Congress already had that power. The Amendment simply removed restrictions on that power (apportionment and source). I've already told you that further enlightenment can be had on old threads within this topic; but you should start with the case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

What restrictions? Excise taxes were at some point restricted or required to be apportionment?

Your words:

You are right about the bit about no new powers of taxation being added -- but that's old news to the regulars here. What the 16th Amendment did was remove the requirement for apportionment, and made the source of the income irrelevant, so that now, whenever you receive income, it doesn't matter how, where or from whom or what you got it, it is still sublect to the federal income tax.

In order to remove a requirement of apportionment, there needs to be a requirement first. You inferred that there was one and it was removed. It's my ESL English bro, sorry.

Pal, that is not what the court said. The court said that the XVI removed any confusion that the income tax is in the class of excise taxes which are NOT SUBJECT to apportionment, and from this point on should NEVER be confused with a direct tax which is subject to apportionment.

Therefore, XVI did nothing whatsoever, as ruled by many courts, including the one you quoted. It merely may have tried to avoid the Pollock argument again. But Pollock's property was NOT taxable in the first place, which is why it was held unconstitutional - what can't be reached directly cannot be reached indirectly by taxing the profits of rents from real estate coming from an untaxable source. It wasn't a question of income taxes specifically, but capital gained from private property of Loan and Trust Co. In fact, the court would have rendered void only sections 23-37 (or something) but then held that the taxing burden would then rest wholly on income taxation of professions and vocations which could not have been the intent of the code.

Stop selling nonsense and confusing yourself. But i am willing to agree with you because it is ultimately irrelevant.