Question 1 discussion

[Jamie0331]

Again!
Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

[BBFlatt]

If a person didn't profit from working, why he hell would he (or she) do it?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Again!
Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

[Famspear]

Again!
Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]. "Income within the meaning
of the Sixteenth Amendment and Revenue Act, means 'gains '...and in such connection
'gain' means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or
employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit
and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

That's a fake quote that you copied from a tax protester web site.

Here is a link to the actual text, Einstein:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case? ... s_sdt=3,44

You are a scammer, "Jamie."

EDIT: Notice that the words "wage" and "compensation" are not even found in the actual text of the Court decision.

[Jamie0331]

I know who your are and what you are doing here! Stop!

[Famspear]

I know who your are and what you are doing here! Stop!

No, Jamie. You got yourself into this. You asked for it. And, I'll be hiding under your bed after you go to sleep tonight. Sweet dreams, Einstein......

[Jamie0331]

Funny! The text that I just said. Just stop!

[Famspear]

Funny! The text that I just said. Just stop!

Noooooo, Jamie.... We're watching you.....

......We see you Jamie.......

...................Better watch out....... I'll be hiding under your bed.......

[BBFlatt]

Funny! The text that I just said. Just stop!

Liar

[Jamie0331]

Funny!

[fortinbras]

The Office of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue was created by an Act of Congress dated July 1, 1862; Paulson v. US Sec’y of Treasury (ND Tex 1/11/1984) 53 AFTR2d 574, 84 USTC 9223. The Secretary of the Treasury renamed the Bureau of Internal Revenue as the IRS in 1953, pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1949 [81st Congress, 1st session, chap. 226, PL 109, 6/20/1949, 63 Stat. 203] and the President’s Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1952 (66 Stat 823, 17 Fed.Reg 2243, 5 USC[A] appendix, 5 USCS sec. 903 note), without a statute specifically changing the Bureau’s name - which would really have been unnecessary for such a cosmetic change, and because a change of agency name is explicitly permitted under sec. 4(1) of the 1949 Reorganization Act, 63 Stat. at 204, 5 USC sec. 904(1) - but in the next year’s appropriation for the Dept of the Treasury, Congress used the name Internal Revenue Service [5/11/54, 68 Stat 86] where it had mentioned the Bureau in previous appropriations, thereby ratifying this change; see, for example, 36 Fed.Reg. 850 (1/19/71) and 26 CFR sec 601.101(a). “The end result is that the IRS is a creature of ‘positive law’ because it was created through congressionally mandated power.” Young v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 141; similarly US v. Jersey Shore State Bank (3d Cir 1986) 781 F2d 974 affd 479 US 442; similarly (“We bear in mind that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under sec. 7801(a) of the 1954 [Internal Revenue] Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws.”) Donaldson v. US (1971) 400 US 517 at 534, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 at 591, 91 S.Ct 534 at 544; similarly (“Pursuant to 26 USC sec 7801, Congress granted the Secretary of the Treasury full authority to administer and enforce internal revenue laws. Based on this legislative authority, the IRS was created. It has since been recognized that the IRS is authorized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under sec. 7801(a) and for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws. ... Thus, the IRS has been established by positive law because it was created through a congressionally mandated power, and the Commissioner of the IRS had redelegated the granted authority to issue and serve summons to revenue agents.”) Moyes v. US (ED Cal 8/31/10) 106 AFTR2d 5980, 2010 USTC 50632; similarly (“the IRS is a creature of ‘positive law’ and an agency of the federal govt, not a private corporation”) Snyder v. IRS (ND Ind 1984) 596 F.Supp 240

[Pottapaug1938]

Respondent failed to rebut Petitioner’s affidavit, even in part, and it is well understood that “an
unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.” (Maxims of law).

No, it doesn't.

[Pottapaug1938]

Thanks for wading through the idiocies of our latest drive-by troll-du-jour, Famspear. In his case, Jamie0331 is attempting to use what Stephen Law, in his excellent book "Believing Bullshit", calls "The Blunderbuss" -- making multiple claims and saying "explain this! And this! And this!..."

It can't have been easy.

[Famspear]

Thanks for wading through the idiocies of our latest drive-by troll-du-jour, Famspear…..

It's what I live for!

My tax practice is just a sideline...….

[fortinbras]

Laureldale Cemetery Association v. Matthews (1946) 354 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d 277, does not have anything to do with income tax, it deals with the revenues of an association which was already officially a non-profit corporation.

Lauredale Cemetary Assn (=LCA) was incorporated in 1942 under Pennsylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law. It then tried to persuade the county commission for tax exemption and ran into a snag over a few unclear items. Held, that, altho the lCA had sold bonds (mostly purchased by members of the Board), the bonds paid no dividends, nor were the bondholders or Board members able to reach the revenues left after expenses had been paid (that money was kept by the LCA for future expenses), the bondholders were essentially creditors of the LCA, not owners sharing its profits. Nor was the LCA a profit-making venture. Therefore the LCA had no tax liabilities, as it was entitled to a tax exemption.

[Jamie0331]

Question 2 discussion; Over the decades since the early 1900's, the definition for what is called
“income” has been distorted from original intent, and what was well known by the courts,
Congress, and the people. Respondent consistently has claimed that “income,” as implied and
intended under the 16th Amendment, includes wages, salaries and compensation for services,
however, this “interpretive regulation” is trying to “make income of that which is not income”
according to the 16th Amendment. (Helvering, Supra, Page k).
When challenged, and despite being asked this question by thousands over the last decade,
Respondent has provided nothing in response but hearsay and presumption, which is no evidence
of any kind, (Del Vecchio, Supra, Page f), and Respondent simply ignores the clear cases.
Respondent claims that “all that comes in” as wages or salary or compensation for service is
“income according to the proper definition,” of what they classify as “gross income,” and subject
to its taxation scheme, contrary to this court’s previous rulings, (Doyle, Supra, Page g), in
defining “income.”
Income, originally, was classified as that which comes as a corporate profit, (Stanton, Supra,
Page r), or “unearned wealth,” or assets “arising from” principal, the “source” of the “income.”
(45 Congressional Record. 4420-4423, Supra, Pages a-b). Precedent shows original intent of
what “income” was known as, as “the gain derived from or through the sale or conversion of
capital assets: from labor or from both combined.” (Taft, Supra, Page s), and that what defines
income “must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient,” and “if there is no gain, there is no income.” (Conner, Supra, Page e; U.S.C.A. Const. Am 16. Supra, Page u).
For Respondent to consider wages as all “gain” or “profit” is distorting the definition of income.
Because of some jockeying by Respondent, et al, wanting to reach into American’s pockets, this
court stated it did not accept the idea of a “tax on occupations and labor.” (Pollock, Supra, Page
p).
Income was clearly classified as “gains and profits,” which “limited the meaning of income,”
and it was not “everything that comes in,” (Southern Pacific, Supra, Page r). It was understood
to be a “tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices.” (Henry
Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary 612 (1910).
Respondent claims that wages are “income” and that “deriving” income as the 16th Amendment
states, equals the wages one receives from work, yet the courts have clearly stated that one does
not “derive” income through work. (Edwards, Supra, Page g). In matter of fact, there is “no
material difference” between Petitioner’s or any American’s labor, and what he receives as
wages, and thus, there is no lawful “income” (profit) as original intent established it, (Material
difference is discussed thoroughly in Cottage Savings Assn V. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554
(1991)), and people’s labor is merely “exchanged” for money. (Coppage, Supra, Page e).
“The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the fruit.” (Waring, Supra, Page v). Petitioner’s labor is his property, (Butchers'
Union Co., Supra, Page d; Slaughter House, Supra, Page q) and selling labor is no different than
selling goods. (Adkins, Supra, Page b).
Labor, being “property,” is the tree from which “income” can be “derived” if it is used for that
purpose, but for Respondent to claim it can tax the whole “tree” as “profit” is tantamount to
cutting limbs off the tree till the tree cannot produce “income.” New limbs grow, and other
limbs are cut off... limiting any hope of receiving fruit, (lawful “income)” from the “tree.”
Recognition of the inherent elements of wages and personal costs to produce labor is vital. It is
patently unjust, unconscionable and unfair to force people to offer up all their wages (tree limbs)
as pure “profit” when there are ample “costs” related to the production of labor. “The freedom
and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is exempt from taxation by the federal
government.” (Grosjean, Supra, Page j).
In 1939, “only 3.9% of the population” of the United States were covered by the income tax...
“only a small portion of the population.” (Treasury Department's Division of Tax Research
Publication, Supra, Page t). How can that be when far more than 3.9% of Americans in 1939
provided labor or services? Because wages were not then, and are not today, lawful “income,”
and only 3.9% of the population in 1939 were wealthy enough to actually have true “income”
(unearned wealth or a corporate profit) “derived from” their principal...(The “tree,” or wages). The word “income” was a limiting term to limit the words “gains and profits.” (Southern Pacific,
Supra, Page r). The term “income” was never meant to include principal, or what are wages,
(1913 Congressional Record, Supra, Page a). This court has always made a clear distinction
between “profit” and “wages,” and wages or compensation for labor were not “profit” and could
NOT be taxed as a total “profit,” (U.S. v. Balard, Supra, Page t). Income is “not a wage or
compensation for any type of labor,” (Staples, Supra, Page r). "Reasonable compensation for
labor or services rendered is not profit." (Laureldale Cemetery, Supra, Page n).
In fact, most people of the early 1900's understood that the “new system” of taxation would not
involve wages or salaries as “income.” (Gov. A.E. Wilson on the Income Tax, Supra, Page i).
The right to work and receive wages as compensation for labor is NOT a taxable event. (Jack
Cole Company, Supra, Page m; Coppage, Supra, Page e).
What the Brushaber Supra, (Pages c-d), court, is clearly saying is that any income tax, which has
been structured as an excise tax, but is enforced in such a way as to effectively convert the tax to
a direct tax, would cause the court to declare it unconstitutional due to lack of apportionment.
“What cannot be done directly (direct taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be
accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result." (Fairbanks, Supra,
Page h).
What type of enforcement might effectively convert an excise tax to a direct tax? Once the
demand for the tax money is unavoidable, and Petitioner, or any citizen, can no longer avoid the demand and/or the collection of the tax, even when not engaged in any excise taxable activity, (as
in purchasing alcohol, tobacco and firearms, unless you choose to not purchase the same, thereby
avoiding the tax) that is when the Executive Branch's enforcement of the tax has converted the
tax, in substance, from an excise tax into a direct tax, which is now unconstitutionally being
applied to Petitioner and ALL Americans.
Respondent’s own code states: Section 22 GROSS INCOME:
(a): “Gross income includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or
compensation for personal service...”
“Gains, profit and income” are redundant terms, and confuse the lawful definition of what a
“profit” is because it is the same thing as “income.” They all mean the same thing. Defining it in
Section 22 gives the false and misleading impression there is a difference between these terms
when none exists. If “gains, profit and income” are the same as “salaries, wages, or
compensation,” why state “derived from?” One does not “derive” an apple from an apple.
“It is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross
income. That which is to be included is gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages,
or compensation for personal services." (Lucas, Supra, Page n). The compensation Petitioner or
any American makes cannot be counted in its entirety as a "profit," or this makes his labor or
service (his property, which costs substantial monies to provide), worth nothing. Petitioner cannot declare he has “income” when he does NOT have any, in violation of his
conscience and to not present false testimony via the 1040 form under penalty of perjury.
Respondent claims that all “wages” are gain, yet this court states otherwise. Who is Petitioner to
believe and how does he act when confronted with this court’s and other court’s standing
decisions? (Petitioner has available a 64 page brief on this “income” topic alone which goes into
far more detail of this wrong definition of income).
A direct tax on wages is a tax that diminishes the source of potential “income,” and has been
declared unconstitutional. An indirect tax on wages is unconstitutional because an indirect tax is
a tax on privilege... i.e. wealth producing unearned income, or in making a corporate profit,
neither of which Petitioner (or most Americans receiving wages) is involved with. Lawful
taxation leaves the source (wealth or property) of the “income” undiminished and taps the true
“income” “derived from” the source.
Twice during the debates on the 16th Amendment, Congress rejected the idea of bringing direct
taxes within the authority of the 16th Amendment. Then twice more, on July 5, 1909, Congress
rejected the idea by direct vote of the Senate. (S.J.R. No. 25 and S.J.R. No. 39).
This argument by Respondent was in response to the question put to the court by Peck & Co. as to
whether the 16th Amendment created any new taxing power, which the court stated clearly it did
NOT. (Peck & Co., Supra, Page o). Thus, Respondent has clearly distorted and obfuscated the
original intended definition “income.”

[Jamie0331]

Question 3 discussion; Respondent consistently fails to substantiate the 1040 form itself, since it
presently exists as a “bootleg” form according to Congress and 5 C.F.R., since it does NOT
conform to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements for all information collection
forms. The 1040 form contains no valid OMB number, and does NOT inform the public or
Petitioner that they do NOT have to comply if no valid control number is listed. (44 USC §
3512). Information collection requests which do not display a current control number or, if not,
indicate why not are to be “considered bootleg requests” and may be “ignored by the public.”
(Senate Report analysis of Sec. 3512, Supra, Page q). (7 page explanation document is also
available).

[Jamie0331]

Question 4 discussion; Respondent has been acting under the name “Internal Revenue Service,”
and promoting policies, punishment and propaganda under the same name all the while knowing,
or surely should have known, that this entity was “cancelled” in 2005, (TREASURY ORDER:
150-06, Supra, Page t), and yet the Respondent, et al, has been continuing to function under said
name, and to mislead Petitioner and the public, using the term “Internal Revenue Service,” or
“IRS.”
This brings up the obvious question... just what is this entity that is acting under the falsified
name of “IRS?” How can it so egregiously commit mail fraud under 18 USC § 1342 - “Fictitious
name or address,” among many other 18 U.S.C. violations under color of law?
Each piece of mail so sent out under the name “IRS” since 2005, and each agent doing so, is one
count of mail fraud and subjects them to criminal penalties. This includes original Summons documents to Petitioner’s business associates by IRS agents who can be named, as well as all the
courts named, and parties involved, raising the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, (RICO) violations -18 U.S.C. Chapter 96 , as well. Is this something the courts can simply
continue to ignore?

[Jamie0331]

Question 5 discussion; Respondent is purporting itself, and has been for decades, to be an
agency of the U.S. Government, and yet denies being “an agency of the U.S. government” in its
own testimony. (Diversified Metal Products, Supra, Page g).
Petitioner maintains that Respondent is contradicting publically stated information, using
fraudulent “government” status to be acting, or to position itself in some other deceptive way.
Respondent cannot have it both ways as suits it. There is NO evidence of record that Respondent
is factually a government agency, but is simply acting under color of law to be moving against
Petitioner and all Americans, or has committed perjury in previous testimony in the case cited.
What is real here?

[Jamie0331]

Question 6 discussion; Respondent failed to provide lawful assessment despite Petitioner not
only requesting evidence of the same in past years in certified letter correspondences, but also in
the Tax Court and Appeals Court, which were ignored. The law is clear for any alleged lawful
assessment against any American. (Internal Revenue Manual, Supra, Page m).
Form 23C is used to officially assess tax liabilities. The completed form is retained in the Service
Center case file as a legal document to support the assessment made against the alleged taxpayer. his status notice is reissued to update the status notice file. (TR:R:A Internal Use).
The courts have ruled that any assessment was “invalidated due to the lack of a signature on the
23C Form,” and that the “defect” was a “significant violation of the regulation requiring a
signature.” (Curley, Supra, Page f). Further, the courts have held repeatedly that the procedures
for the Form 23C, as required by 26 CFR § 301.6203-1.3., was a “factual question concerning
whether IRS procedures,” (Brewer, Supra, Page c), and that “Form 4340 Certificates of
Assessment and Payment, together with Form 23C Summary Records of Assessment,
demonstrate that a valid assessment was made.” (Huff v. United States, Supra, Page l).
In this case, there was not only no Form 23C for which a signature from someone presumably
with first hand knowledge and who can be deposed by Petitioner, was available, (part of his due
process right to face his accuser), but the form 4340 Certificates were missing, further making
this violation even more egregious. Respondent routinely violates this requirement across
America, which could be proven through discovery of the thousands of records on Americans
receiving “deficiency” notices, but certainly has violated Petitioner’s rights herein.