Question 1 discussion

[notorial dissent]

I'm sorry, and please pardon my ignorance, but just where, Constitution, statute, Magnum Carter, fortune cookie, does it say, "The freedom and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!", I just really really don't remember coming across that EVER, except in some illiterate TP's wet dream.

[fortinbras]

Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936); Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 56 S.Ct.
444 (1943); (See also Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 64 S.Ct. 717 (1944); Harper v.
Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966).) The freedom and right to earn a
living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!

Not even one of these cases involved federal taxation. Not even one involved a tax upon wages or salary.

The Grosjean case involved a state license and fee specific to the business of advertising.
The Jones case involved a local license and fee specific to the business of bookselling.
Follett similarly, the town tried to require a license fee from a door-to-door religious missionary.
The Harper case is famous for stomping on the state poll tax for the right to vote.

Where did the pretended quotation come from?? - not from any of these decisions!!

[Duke2Earl]

Like all tax protesters, jamie is a conclusion in a desperate search for a rationale. He has concluded that he personally having to pay income tax simply isn't fair so therefore if he applies enough magic word salad he can make the tax go away. The silly part is he is trying to convince the people least likely to believe it....those who actually know something about taxation.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm sorry, and please pardon my ignorance, but just where, Constitution, statute, Magnum Carter, fortune cookie, does it say, "The freedom and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is EXEMPT from taxation by the federal government!", I just really really don't remember coming across that EVER, except in some illiterate TP's wet dream.

That may have come in some court case, or it may have been the wet dream of some TPer; but no matter what its origin is, or how legally true it may be, it's beside the point. What is being taxed is NOT "the freedom and right to earn a living through any lawful occupation". Rather, it is the compensation and income from ANY occupation, legal or illegal, which is being taxed. If I were a pimp, running a house of prostitution in which illegal drugs were sold to patrons, I would still have to report my income, even if I identified how I got it.

At any rate, I think that we might well have seen the last of Jamie0331. He probably thought that he would come here and give us a legal what for; but he has either realized that he is going to get verbally sliced and diced, whenever he makes one of his semiliterate posts, or he has marched off, in self-perceived triumph, to a more politically congenial site, where he can brag about how he asked us all these questions which we refused to answer (because, of course, we couldn't).

[Hyrion]

Since you seem to consider yourself to be quite the legal scholar, look up the case of Crain v. Commissioner. We'll wait.

Jamie:

Or better yet (at least from an amusement factor perspective for some of us): Apply the knowledge with your own taxes over the next 8-10 years. You'll need to wait for the taxes owed to get large enough for the IRS to consider it worth their effort and costs to initiate proceedings but it'll happen.

Then you will be presented with a wonderful opportunity to gain first-hand knowledge of just how effective your arguments are.

If you do go that route, I strongly recommend any taxes "saved" that way are dumped into GICs or some such so you preserve them. That way your total taxes/costs owed in the end will be easier to handle. I imagine there are more then a few tax protestors who have lost their houses because they believed in those arguments. If you own your house (as opposed to rent), you might want to consider that risk.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, Jaimie, by all means use your superlative tax knowledge on your own taxes, that'll show us. We await your inevitable time in the dock(s) for more of your sure fire unintended comedy.

Now run along home, your mommy is looking for you and the grown ups need to use the computer.

[juan galt]

What??? None of these are the silver bullet?

[Jamie0331]

No! I have already had a hearing at the Appellate tax board this morning.
They are going to try to prove incorrect. They did specifically ask the judge to continue of the hearing! Because they have no evidence! Please stop your bull-shit! My Argument specifically is about wages taxable! No profit or gain! No tax due!

[Jamie0331]

And said yes before we went infont of the Judge! You know shit about how this works!

[Jamie0331]

I have know idea what you are talking about! He uploaded is case file to scibd. The tax board pulled the Jake cole case and now they are trying to find if it was over turned! Really?

[rogfulton]

Jamie, please come back and post the decision when it is handed down.

I suspect you won't because you will not achieve the results you are expecting.

[Jamie0331]

Again! Your are a special snow flake! Prove your point! Wages are not taxable if the are not derived from profits or gains! Prove that the are taxable without derived from profits or gain!

[Famspear]

Again! Your are a special snow flake! Prove your point! Wages are not taxable if the are not derived from profits or gains! Prove that the are taxable without derived from profits or gain!

No, Jamie. YOU are the special snowflake. The rest of the world is not here to "prove" to you that wages are taxable. Grow up, snowflake.

This gets into a technical are of law. Generally, whether wages are taxable is a question of LAW, not a question of FACT. So, it's not a question that requires "proof" for an answer. In law, "proof" is a matter of providing evidence to persuade a trier of fact that a particular proposition is "true." That's not what's involved here.

The phrase "taxable without derived from profits or gain" is meaningless tax protester gibberish.

You've already been provided with the citations to legal authority for the point that wages are taxable. And, if you are paid for performing services, you have realized gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. It matters not whether you believe you have derived a "profit" or "gain". You're just playing with words and -- guess what -- nobody cares.

[noblepa]

Again! Your are a special snow flake! Prove your point! Wages are not taxable if the are not derived from profits or gains! Prove that the are taxable without derived from profits or gain!

No, Jamie. YOU are the special snowflake. The rest of the world is not here to "prove" to you that wages are taxable. Grow up, snowflake.

This gets into a technical are of law. Generally, whether wages are taxable is a question of LAW, not a question of FACT. So, it's not a question that requires "proof" for an answer. In law, "proof" is a matter of providing evidence to persuade a trier of fact that a particular proposition is "true." That's not what's involved here.

The phrase "taxable without derived from profits or gain" is meaningless tax protester gibberish.

You've already been provided with the citations to legal authority for the point that wages are taxable. And, if you are paid for performing services, you have realized gross income under the Internal Revenue Code. It matters not whether you believe you have derived a "profit" or "gain". You're just playing with words and -- guess what -- nobody cares.

I know that this will fall on deaf ears, but...

Jamie, to an accountant, gain from the sale of an asset is defined as the amount that the seller sells the asset for, minus the "basis", or the original cost of the asset (sometimes adjusted for various things). For example, I buy a house for $150,000 and sell it a few years later for $200,000. I therefore have a gain of $50,000. If any of the sale price is taxable, it would be the $50k. The $150k is my basis. The tax laws specifically recognize the $150k as my basis.

Wages, on the other hand, have no basis. Some tax deniers like to argue that the value of an item is whatever a willing seller and a buyer agree it is worth. By that logic, so the thinking goes, when I work for wages, it is assumed that my employer is paying me exactly what my time is worth, so there is no gain on the transaction.

Unfortunately, by that thinking, there can never be any gain on any asset, unless you prove that it was sold for more than fair market value. That is not how gain is calculated.

In addition, the tax laws do NOT recognize any basis for your time. Even if one were to calculate the "gain" on wages, it would still exactly equal the amount your employer paid you, since your basis is zero. Therefore, the entire amount of your wages would be taxable.

Also, as FAMSPEAR pointed out, in law, the only "proof" lies in court decisions. Essentially, the law is interpreted to be what the courts say it is. There have been exactly zero court decisions saying that wages are not taxable. There have been many, many decisions saying that wages ARE taxable. People have gone to jail for acting on the argument that wages are not taxable.

That is the only "proof" available in the law.

[Pottapaug1938]

In short, Jamie: you paid nothing for your labor; so the wages you get, in return for that labor, constitute taxable income.

[Dr. Caligari]

No! I have already had a hearing at the Appellate tax board this morning.

What is the "Appellate tax board"? There's no federal agency with that name.

They are going to try to prove incorrect.

Is English your first language?

They did specifically ask the judge to continue of the hearing!

Who is "they"? And what "Apellate tax board" has judges?

[rogfulton]

Starting to sound like someone is failing a Turing test.

[Duke2Earl]

Jamie is going to be the first person who ever succeeds in convincing the IRS that he doesn't owe tax on his wages. Hundreds have tried and failed for over nearly 100 years. Good luck with that. LMAO!

[notorial dissent]

Jamie is going to be the first person who ever succeeds in convincing the IRS that he doesn't owe tax on his wages. Hundreds have tried and failed for over nearly 100 years. Good luck with that. LMAO!

Yes, looking forward to hearing all about it.

[Hyrion]

Jamie, please come back and post the decision when it is handed down.

With details specifically citing the case please so that someone with appropriate access - whether to PACER or other - can actually review the ruling if they so desire.

Thank you!