Question 1 discussion

[Hyrion]

I have already had a hearing at the Appellate tax board this morning.

Ahh... so now it potentially makes sense. The reason you may have started posting your arguments here is as a test bed of your arguments for Court. If you succeed here, you might succeed in Court is how the thinking potentially goes.

If that was your purpose: you may want to rethink your strategy. You can "win" against the Lawyers/Accountants/IRS Rep/Others here on this site because ultimately:

• You can choose to completely ignore everything posted including all the citations. Nothing can possibly force you to change your mind if you don't want to. You can choose to believe gravity does not exist and step off the top of the Eiffel Tower to prove your belief if that's truly what you're inclined to do - to use an extreme example regarding your ability to choose what you believe. Free Will is very powerful in that regard.

For that reason, any "win" you feel you experience will be entirely delusional. It will not be measurable in any meaningful way based on reality. Additionally:

• Nothing anyone can say or do lawfully on this site can discipline you in any way for your choices - no matter how misguided.

However - depending on just how far you push your misguided choices in Court - Tax or otherwise - you can not only end up owing a great deal more then the "taxes saved", you can also end up spending some time in prison from the decision of a Judge who has the Lawful Jurisdiction of imposing various forms of disciplinary action.

So if you thought you were going to hone your arguments here in preparation for being in front of a real Judge - you might want to rethink the actual value of that strategy. Just a humble friendly suggestion to consider.

Sadly: It's not possible for the human race to save a single human from themselves.

[BBFlatt]

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.

Perhaps he had his case heard by the Board of Tax Appeals.
(The BTA concluded its last session in 1925)

[NYGman]

I am guessing he will be posting about his great victory soon, unfortunately the PTB will obviously not allow the judge to publish this opinion, and we will be left with something that looks to you and me, like a complete loss.

[noblepa]

I am guessing he will be posting about his great victory soon, unfortunately the PTB will obviously not allow the judge to publish this opinion, and we will be left with something that looks to you and me, like a complete loss.

Yeah, the judge will be too terrified to publish the opinion, lest anyone else find out that wages aren't really taxable.

[Jamie0331]

Wow! https://www.mass.gov/orgs/appellate-tax-board

U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976), (See also Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86
S.E. Rep. 2D 858): "Gross income and not 'gross receipts' is the foundation of income
tax liability... The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code...
'gross income' means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from
investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources. 575 There is a clear
distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for
labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...The word profit is a
different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor...The claim that salaries,
wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore
must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain
is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts
construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the
Treasury Department..."
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. (1935). "Every presumption is to be in the oldest in
favor of faithful compliance by Congress with the mandates of the fundamental law (the
Constitution-Petitioner). Courts are reluctant to adjudge any statute in contravention of
them. But, under our frame of government, no other places is provided where the citizen
may be heard to urge that the law fails to conform to the limits set upon the use of a
granted power. When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that
by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of
discretion permitted to the Congress. How great is extent that range, when the subject is
the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we hardly need remark. But,
despite the breadth of the legislative discretion, our duty to hear and
to render judgment remains... If the statute plainly violates the stated principal of the
Constitution we must so declare."
Jackass! WTF did that say?

[Jamie0331]

Who are you? Please tell me who your are! What are you doing for a living! And why are you here on this BS website? Nothing said here is of fact! Yet! I have posted nothing but of facts! Really! Who fuck are you to disagree with the case laws? Pussyfooting is who you are! Shit kickers! Dumpasses! Foolish people!

[wserra]

U.S. v. Balard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976)

That's United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976) Sloppy, Jamie, sloppy. Or you just don't want people to find the case because, if they did, they'd discover that you make shit up. See below.

"Gross income and not 'gross receipts' is the foundation of income tax liability... The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code ... 'gross income' means the total sales, less the cost of goods sold, plus any income from investments and from incidental or outside operations or sources."

So far, so good. The Eighth Circuit is discussing whether Ballard should have been permitted to take to the jury his position that he actually had a loss in tax year 1970 (the subject of count II), because he was self-employed and his gross receipts were less than his expenses. The trial court, the Circuit decided, did not adequately explain that to the jury, and so reversed Ballard's conviction on that count. But count I alleged that "Ballard reported gross income from wages in the amount of $10,407, even though he knew and believed, he (had) received substantial income in addition to that heretofore stated". The Circuit had no problem with that, and affirmed Ballard's conviction.

What does the case you cite say about your resoundingly silly position that wages are not income?

There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law...The word profit is a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor...The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the Treasury Department..."

That appears nowhere in the case, as you would have known if you could read. Still, since it contains words of more than two syllables, you likely didn't write it. Doubtless some tax protester site.

United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. (1935).

United States v. Butler, 297 US 1 (1936). Damn, man, you can't even copy correctly. Vide:

"Every presumption is to be in the oldest indulged in favor of faithful compliance by Congress with the mandates of the fundamental law (the Constitution-Petitioner). Courts are reluctant to adjudge any statute in contravention of them. But, under our frame of government, no other places is provided where the citizen may be heard to urge that the law fails to conform to the limits set upon the use of a granted power. When such a contention comes here we naturally require a showing that by no reasonable possibility can the challenged legislation fall within the wide range of discretion permitted to the Congress. How great is extent that range, when the subject is the promotion of the general welfare of the United States, we hardly need need hardly remark. But, despite the breadth of the legislative discretion, our duty to hear and to render judgment remains... If the statute plainly violates the stated principalprinciple of the Constitution we must so declare."

Damn, son, can't even cut and paste?

Jackass! WTF did that say?

Well, if you had actually read the case, you might realize that the Supreme Court in Butler found certain provisions of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 unconstitutional. Hint: those provisions had nothing to do with wages. Hint 2: if you knew any history, you would realize that Butler represented the so-called "substantive due process" with which a conservative Supreme Court resisted the New Deal. Hell, you might even know that Butler was the last time the Supreme Court found a federal statute unconstitutional on the ground that Congress had exceeded its spending power.

Shit kickers! Dumpasses! Foolish people!

Good retort. We are proud to award you the coveted Third-Grader of the Month Award.

[NYGman]

Who are you? Please tell me who your are! What are you doing for a living! And why are you here on this BS website? Nothing said here is of fact! Yet! I have posted nothing but of facts! Really! Who fuck are you to disagree with the case laws? Pussyfooting is who you are! Shit kickers! Dumpasses! Foolish people!

You will find all sorts hang out here, just to be entertained by idiots, regurgitating the same failed tax protester drivel, expecting to win this time, if only to be foiled again, and again, by those pesky laws and cases. You have Lawyers, accounts, judges, professors, academics, revenue agents current and past, journalists, and regular Joe's, working regular jobs all coming for the inevitable outcome, and the hilarity of the new positions used to get out of paying their fair share of tax. You don't even bring anything new to the cannon. You are a copy and past hack, Who can't seem to get that right.

As the Who would say, Who the f@#k are you?

[Dr. Caligari]

Wow! https://www.mass.gov/orgs/appellate-tax-board

OK, so you're before a Massachusetts administrative body. So why haven't you cited any Massachusetts law? And, BTW, I suspect that the members of the Massachusetts Appellate Tax Board are not called "judges."

[notorial dissent]

Jaimie, you do realize, which of course you don't, as that would require actual knowledge of the subject, that many/most states can and do tax income, as well as many other things, and that there is NO prohibition, constitutional or otherwise on them doing so, so your bad copypasta is just that. Thank you for playing.

[Chaos]

And why are you here on this BS website?

were you looking in the mirror when you posted this gem on a website you are visiting? no one is keeping you here skippy.

[Duke2Earl]

And when jamie loses as he inevitably will...he will go the same route as hundreds of tax nonsense spewers before him and claim that everyone is against him, the judges are crooked and it's all a plot.

[Jamie0331]

As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

Again! The ATB, and Commissioner Harding agreed that my agrument is on sound case law and needs to be addressed.

The lower courts have screwed up like this!

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444-45 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that "the Paperwork Reduction Act is inapplicable to `information collection request' forms issued during an investigation against an individual to determine his or her tax liability" and specifically rejecting argument that those forms must contain an OMB number).

But yet!

§3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if-
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req= ... ion=prelim

I already won! They did not prove me wrong. I agreed to give them 3 months to come up with something.

I have showed them this.

Dixon v. U.S. [91 AFTR 2d 2003-569 (9th Cir. 2003); For brevity,. the court found that;
1. Counsel for the IRS committed intentional fraud on the court.
2. IRS counsel entered into secret agreements with certain taxpayers in exchange for false
testimony and cooperation in the government's case.
3. IRS attorneys corrupted the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the integrity of the
witnesses, and the ability of the court to judge with impartiality.
4. IRS attorneys violated the rights of taxpayers who agreed to be bound by the U.S. Tax
Court decision.
5. Factual findings of the U.S. Tax Court support the conclusion that fraud plainly
designed to corrupt the legitimacy of the truth-seeking process was perpetrated on the trial court by IRS attorneys McWade and Sims.
6. There can be no questions here ― the actions of IRS attorneys McWade and Sims
amounted to fraud on both the taxpayers and the U.S. Tax Court. The proceeding (in U.S.
Tax Court) was a charade fraught with concealed motives, hidden payments, and false
testimony.
7. The Appeals Court ordered sanctions against the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS
attorneys.

They agreed that they need to prove their case legally. Again! No profits or gains! No tax due! Prove me wrong!

[Famspear]

As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

Again! The ATB, and Commissioner Harding agreed that my agrument is on sound case law and needs to be addressed.

The lower courts have screwed up like this!

Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1444-45 (10th Cir. 1990) (holding that "the Paperwork Reduction Act is inapplicable to `information collection request' forms issued during an investigation against an individual to determine his or her tax liability" and specifically rejecting argument that those forms must contain an OMB number).

But yet!

§3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if-
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req= ... ion=prelim

I already won! They did not prove me wrong. I agreed to give them 3 months to come up with something.

I have showed them this.

Dixon v. U.S. [91 AFTR 2d 2003-569 (9th Cir. 2003); For brevity,. the court found that;
1. Counsel for the IRS committed intentional fraud on the court.
2. IRS counsel entered into secret agreements with certain taxpayers in exchange for false
testimony and cooperation in the government's case.
3. IRS attorneys corrupted the adversarial nature of the proceeding, the integrity of the
witnesses, and the ability of the court to judge with impartiality.
4. IRS attorneys violated the rights of taxpayers who agreed to be bound by the U.S. Tax
Court decision.
5. Factual findings of the U.S. Tax Court support the conclusion that fraud plainly
designed to corrupt the legitimacy of the truth-seeking process was perpetrated on the trial court by IRS attorneys McWade and Sims.
6. There can be no questions here ― the actions of IRS attorneys McWade and Sims
amounted to fraud on both the taxpayers and the U.S. Tax Court. The proceeding (in U.S.
Tax Court) was a charade fraught with concealed motives, hidden payments, and false
testimony.
7. The Appeals Court ordered sanctions against the U.S. Tax Court and the IRS
attorneys.

They agreed that they need to prove their case legally. Again! No profits or gains! No tax due! Prove me wrong!

No, that's the OMB control number/Paperwork Reduction Act argument, Jamie. That's a frivolous argument about the meaning of a FEDERAL law, and the argument has already been ruled to be frivolous, over and over.

Further, since you're apparently talking about a Massachusetts proceeding, not a Federal one, it's obvious that you're clueless about how to perform legal analysis. A Federal OMB control number on a form has no material bearing on your dispute with a Massachusetts taxing authority.

You're copying and pasting gibberish and, in part, you are combining unrelated material you obtained from different sources. For example, you falsely stated that an Appeals Court "ordered sanctions against the U.S. Tax Court". That's not only false, it's gibberish.

Again, Jamie, the rest of the world is not here to "prove you wrong." You lack a basic understanding of how to read and understand written materials.

[Hyrion]

I already won!

Then you can easily site your case. The Judge has ruled and the ruling will be written up. Once it's done everyone here can read the ruling and confirm you won.

I agreed to give them 3 months to come up with something.

This directly contradicts your previous statement. Either you won and the ruling just needs to be written up or a decision has not been made which means you cannot claim to have won.

Prove me wrong!

I believe you've already done that yourself with claiming you won but are giving them 3 months to come up with something.

[Jamie0331]

Starting from this point, the learned Solicitor General has submitted an elaborate argument in behalf of the [247 U.S. 179, 184] government, based in part upon theoretical definitions of 'capital,' 'income,' 'profits,' etc., and in part upon expressions quoted from our opinions in Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 147 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 342, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312, and Anderson v. Forty-Two Broadway, 239 U.S. 69, 72 , 36 S. Sup. Ct. 17, with the object of showing that a conversion of capital into money always produces income, and that for the purposes of the present case the words 'gross income' are equivalent to 'gross receipts'; the insistence being that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets should be treated as gross income, and that by deducting the mere cost of such assets we arrive at net income. The cases referred to throw little light upon the present matter, and the expressions quoted from the opinions were employed by us with reference to questions wholly remote from any that is here presented.

Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. [247 U.S. 179, 185] Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income,' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

Full case dumbass!
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 7/179.html

Submit Submit


<< Previous TITLE 44 / CHAPTER 35 / SUBCHAPTER I / § 3512 Next >>
[Print] [Print selection] [OLRC Home]Help
44 USC 3512: Public protection
Text contains those laws in effect on September 12, 2018
From Title 44-PUBLIC PRINTING AND DOCUMENTS
CHAPTER 35-COORDINATION OF FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
SUBCHAPTER I-FEDERAL INFORMATION POLICY
Jump To:
Source Credit
Prior Provisions
Amendments
Effective Date

§3512. Public protection
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that is subject to this subchapter if-
(1) the collection of information does not display a valid control number assigned by the Director in accordance with this subchapter; or
(2) the agency fails to inform the person who is to respond to the collection of information that such person is not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a valid control number.

(b) The protection provided by this section may be raised in the form of a complete defense, bar, or otherwise at any time during the agency administrative process or judicial action applicable thereto.
Now you’re saying that the government is wrong. You’re talking gibberish BS!
OMB No. 1545-0074 IS NOT Valid.... Hello! Show me that it is!

[Famspear]

McDougall v. Commissioner. Taxpayer's argument—that the 1987 Form 1040 fails to display an OMB control number—was rejected by the Court, with the Court stating that the 1987 Form 1040 does contain the OMB control number, in upper right corner of form; taxpayer's argument—that Form 1040 lacks the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act notice—was rejected by the Court, with the Court noting that the statement appears in the instructions for the form and further noting that a failure to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act would not invalidate an IRS form, as the "mandate for collecting Federal income tax information comes from Congress"). 64 T.C.M. (CCH) 1405, T.C. Memo 1992-683 (1992), aff'd per curiam without opinion, 15 F.3d 1987 (9th Cir. 1993).

United States v. Barker. Taxpayer's argument—that IRS forms must carry valid control numbers from the Office of Management and Budget to be valid—was rejected. 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,490 (N.D. Calif. 1990).

Salberg v. United States. Taxpayer's argument—that although the 1981 Form 1040 contains an OMB control number, the form is invalid because it does not contain an expiration date—was rejected; Court rules that even if the law required an expiration date, the "1981" date on the form would so qualify as an expiration date. 969 F.2d 379, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,490 (7th Cir. 1992).

United States v. Cavins. Taxpayer who was convicted of tax evasion argued that his indictment should have been thrown out because Form 1040 did not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act; argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court stated: "An OMB control number is clearly displayed at the top of each form. If the Form 1040 displays the control number required by § 3512, 'nothing more is required.'", 2008-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,565 (8th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Dawes. Taxpayer's argument—that the tax regulations and IRS instruction books must contain an OMB control number—was rejected. 951 F.2d 1189, 92-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,493 (10th Cir. 1991).

Lonsdale v. United States. Taxpayer's argument—that relevant IRS forms in connection with summonses, liens or levies must contain OMB control numbers for the summonses, liens or levies to be valid—was rejected. 919 F.2d 1440, 90-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,581 (10th Cir. 1990). In Lonsdale, the taxpayer's argument -- that the U.S. Treasury Department delegation orders that give the authority to the Internal Revenue Service to administer the tax laws were required to be published in the Federal Register -- was also ruled to be without legal merit. Id.

Karkabe v. Commissioner. Taxpayer's arguments—that Form 1040 did not display a valid OMB control number, and that the Form 1040 was "bootleg" and "illegal" -- were rejected by the court. T.C. Memo 2007-115, CCH Dec. 56,927(M) (2007).

Pate v. Commissioner. Taxpayer's OMB control number argument—that the Paperwork Reduction Act "may in some manner negate statutory penalties for failure to file tax returns and pay taxes" -- was ruled to be without merit, with the U.S. Tax Court stating that the "requirement to file tax returns and the imposition of penalties for failing to do so represents a 'legislative command, not an administrative request'", and that the Paperwork Reduction Act "provides no 'escape hatch' from penalties for failing to file tax returns; taxpayer's argument — that under Pond v. Commissioner, 211 Fed. Appx. 749, 2007-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,129 (10th Cir. 2007), the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act "call into question" certain well-established judicial precedents — was rejected. 93 T.C.M. (CCH) 1271, T.C. Memo 2007-132, CCH Dec. 56,946(M) (2007), aff'd per curiam, 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,168 (5th Cir. 2008).

Lindsey K. Springer, a proponent of the frivolous Paperwork Reduction Act/OMB control number argument, raised the issue in his own federal criminal tax case. Docket entry 53, May 15, 2009, "Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment/Information/Complaint for Violations of Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995," Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.). His argument was rejected by the court, Docket entry 100, July 2, 2009 (ruling denying motion at docket entry 53, etc.), Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.), and the jury found him guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, three counts of tax evasion, and two counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns. "Okla. preacher, Ark. lawyer convicted in tax case," Associated Press, Nov. 16, 2009, reprinted by USA Today. See also Indictment, March 10, 2009, at docket entry 2, Lindsey K. Springer v. United States, case no. 4:09-cr-00043-SPF, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa Div.).

The OMB control number argument and variations of this argument have been officially identified as legally frivolous Federal tax return positions for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a).

In Cargill v. Commissioner, an $8,000 penalty was imposed on taxpayer Judy Cargill under IRC section 6673 in connection with her appeal in which she persisted in making the OMB control number argument after having been notified that the argument was frivolous. 2008-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,269 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

[juan galt]

D. Individual Tax Shelters
1. Government misconduct amounting to fraud does not require a showing of prejudice to justify relief. Tax shelter investors entitled to the same deal received by the taxpayers who cooperated with the government. Dixon v. Commissioner, 316 F.3d 1041, 91 A.F.T.R.2d 2003-569, 2003-1 U.S.T.C. 50,194 (9th Cir. 1/17/03), remanding T.C. Memo. 2000-116 and T.C. Memo. 1999-101. The Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court finding that misconduct by IRS attorneys during the trial of test cases [secretly allowing the deduction of attorney's fees in exchange for taxpayer cooperation] constituted harmless error. The tax shelter was one designed and administered by Honolulu businessman Henry Kersting, in which participants purchased stock with loans from entities financed by two layers of promissory notes, resulting in their claiming interest deductions on their individual returns. Judge Hawkins held that the taxpayers demonstrated fraud by the IRS attorneys and that a demonstration of prejudice was unnecessary. The Tax Court was directed to enter judgment in favor of taxpayers on terms equivalent to the secret settlement agreements entered into with the test case taxpayers who cooperated with the government. a. Chief Counsel Notice CC-2003-008 (2/3/03). This notice reminds Chief Counsel attorneys of their obligation to adhere to the highest ethical standards in all aspects of their responsibilities, including representation of the Commissioner before the Tax Court. ABA Model Rules 3.3 [candor to tribunals], 3.4 [fairness to opposing party and counsel], 4.1 [truthfulness in statements to third persons], and 8.4 [misconduct] were discussed in the notice.

I just don't see how this is relevant to a "wages aren't income" position. Just sayin'.

[Jamie0331]

We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle, Collector, v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179 , 38 Sup. Ct. 467, 62 L. Ed. --, and Hays, Collector, v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., 247 U.S. 189 , 38 Sup. Ct. 470, 62 L. Ed. --, decided May 20, 1918), the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income. Certainly the term 'income' has no broader meaning in the 1913 act than in that of 1909 (see Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 416 , 417 S., 34 Sup. Ct. 136), and for the present purpose we assume there is no difference in its meaning as used in the two acts. This being so, we are bound to consider accumulations that accrued to a corporation prior to January 1, 1913, as being capital, not income, for the purposes of the act. And we perceive no adequate ground for a distinction, in this regard, between an accumulation of surplus earnings, and the increment due to an appreciation in value of the assets of the taxpayer.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 7/330.html

Wow! Income was clearly classified as “gains and profits” “limited the meaning of income” it was not “everything that comes in”

Are you a brain fart?

[Hyrion]

Full case dumbass!
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 7/179.html

From the first line of the opinion in the case you point to:

This was an action to recover from the Collector additional taxes assessed against the respondent under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909

It is in the realm of possibility that everyone else here is confused about your case - which it is understood your position is based on and for. However, the fault of that confusion would lie squarely on your own shoulders as you are being - in my humble opinion - deliberately vague on the specifics of your case.

Posting a bunch of repeated tax protester claims with no explanation of your own opinion or position or facts of your case leads the readers to reasonably conclude your position:

• With respect to your own personal taxes, income is not taxable. To put another way: wages you get for mowing someone's lawn is not taxable.

However - given the case you cited is dealing with Corporate taxes, which are different from individual taxes in many ways, perhaps we should now conclude either:

• Your specific case actually deals with corporate taxes in the form of your own personally owned, small business.

or

• You are citing a case to support your position that does not actually have anything to do with your position.

Given your authorings so far - I'd say the odds favor you citing a case and specific rulings that do not actually apply to your position.