Richard C DiMare

[Quixote]

I had seen some references to Richard DiMare before, but now that Harvey has reviewed DiMare's book on Amazon, I was wondering if anyone else had heard of him. DiMare has written a book, "Lawful Income Tax Avoidance for the Qualified Wages and Salaries of Natural Persons". I haven't read the book, but the author seems to attribute a wide variety of society's ills to the income tax.

Richard DiMare is a licensed non-practicing Massachusetts attorney and founder of the American Association for Lockean Liberty, Inc., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit whose mission is "to bridge the gap between psychology and law that prevents U.S. tax attorneys from recognizing a property right in the mental and physical labor of natural persons." He has been focused on this unusual area of law since learning about various tax reform movements in the late 1970s, and his position is that unless U.S. tax attorneys begin to recognize a property right in human labor under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses--and not assume that wages are always income under the Uniformity Clause--our civil rights will continue to erode and future generations will increasingly be at the mercy of dysfunctional parents, religious leaders, labor unions, and corporations.

About the author from Amazon.com

I have tried to make sense of the above, but must have a psychological block, possibly caused by my disfunctional parents.

[The Observer]

I wonder how successful he has been at getting the American Psychological Association to recognize this dysfunction and listing it as a professional diagnosis. I mean, after all, it seems to afflict almost every attorney and judge in the country, not to mention the number of IRS and DOJ employees who not only suffer from it, but make a living at it. I'm just a layman when it comes to psychology, but I wonder if it qualifies as being labeled as an epidemic.

[Famspear]

.....his position is that unless U.S. tax attorneys begin to recognize a property right in human labor under the Constitution's two Direct Tax Clauses--and not assume that wages are always income under the Uniformity Clause--our civil rights will continue to erode.....

Oh, I get it. Let's just ignore the text of the U.S. Constitution and the text of the statutes and hundreds of years of judicial precedent, and just have "U.S. tax attorneys" -- as a group -- "recognize a property right in human labor". That ought to do it!

Boy, now that's a plan!



EDIT: In fairness, I seem to recall some old cases from the 1700s (I can't remember whether they were English or American) where the courts referred to a man's right to work as being a "property right" of sorts. But that doesn't mean that under the U.S. Constitution, Congress cannot enact a valid law that taxes income realized as a result of labor.

[Pottapaug1938]

According to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, there is an attorney by that name in Marblehead. What a perfect place for him... except maybe for Athol.

[Famspear]

According to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, there is an attorney by that name in Marblehead. What a perfect place for him... except maybe for Athol.

I'm not sure which is worse: To be thought of as a Marblehead, or to be thought of as an Athol......

[Quixote]

Of course, wages are 100% taxable not because the taxpayer has no rights in his labor, but rather because he has no basis in his labor. You would see the same result if you were dealing with tangible personal property. For example, when Harvey collects cans along the highway, he has a property right in the cans, but no basis. So the $0.45/pound he gets for the cans is 100% income.

[Famspear]

Of course, wages are 100% taxable not because the taxpayer has no rights in his labor, but rather because he has no basis in his labor.

No matter how many times you try to explain this fundamental concept to the wackadooster tax protester/tax deniers, they will not get it. It's basic tax accounting. Any first semester accounting student (even without having taken a tax course) should be able to understand it. But not the 'doosters!

[Pottapaug1938]

The wackadoosters don't get it because they don't want to get it. It doesn't fit in with that which they fervently believe, so therefore it's false.

[Kestrel]

Of course, wages are 100% taxable not because the taxpayer has no rights in his labor, but rather because he has no basis in his labor. You would see the same result if you were dealing with tangible personal property. For example, when Harvey collects cans along the highway, he has a property right in the cans, but no basis. So the $0.45/pound he gets for the cans is 100% income.

I've heard it argued that there is a basis in his labor, and that basis is the cost of making him able to work. Specifically, it's the basic cost of food, clothing, and modest shelter.

If you are a human person, the tax law does make allowance for that basis by automatically exempting the first $6,100 of your income from tax. Unless someone else is supporting you (and therefore paying the basic costs of your labor on your behalf), you are only taxed on whatever portion of your income exceeds this $6,100 basis.

[Famspear]

Of course, wages are 100% taxable not because the taxpayer has no rights in his labor, but rather because he has no basis in his labor. You would see the same result if you were dealing with tangible personal property. For example, when Harvey collects cans along the highway, he has a property right in the cans, but no basis. So the $0.45/pound he gets for the cans is 100% income.

I've heard it argued that there is a basis in his labor, and that basis is the cost of making him able to work. Specifically, it's the basic cost of food, clothing, and modest shelter.

If you are a human person, the tax law does make allowance for that basis by automatically exempting the first $6,100 of your income from tax. Unless someone else is supporting you (and therefore paying the basic costs of your labor on your behalf), you are only taxed on whatever portion of your income exceeds this $6,100 basis.

But, there is also the argument that the cost isn't really "capitalized" anyway -- that the cost is an expense, and that it's non-deductible, under Internal Revenue Code section 262.

[Pottapaug1938]

Over on Planet Merrill, esteemed legal scholar jessejames posts a 1099-MISC (creatively redacted, Merrill-style, with spare change). It's typical Planet Merrill idiocy; but what caught my eye was the legal ... um, "treatise" next to it, written by none other than Richard D DiMare....