This is a suit to recover income taxes.

[Famspear]

Read the full case before you comment on this. Provide supporting documents for your nonsense.

No, YOU read the case.

Don't just copy and paste stuff you saw somewhere.

Clue: We've seen all this before.

As noted above, you need to state a position. Do it in one or two sentences.

[Chaos]

so it has to be a suit? it can't be shorts and tee shirt?

[wserra]

While you're at it, answer my question:

Facts are there must be a gain before there is income.

OK. Let's assume that you put in a day's work someplace. Unlikely, I know, but humor me. Your employer pays you $100. You previously had $200. Now you have $300.

Explain how that isn't a gain.

[Cracker]

“It is apparent that plaintiffs in this case realized no gain in connection with the reimbursement by the insurance company”

I know you have seen this all before and fail to accept the truth of facts.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969149 ... p118711251

Is not just seen somewhere. Nonsense is what you’re about.... So Framspear! Where did you get your info on this case to make a comment like, it’s about a fire and insurance claim?

Please show me the CONNER v. UNITED STATES that you have read so I can have clarification on what the he’ll your talking about.

I am not interested in brain farts! Show me the cases where you get your knowledge. Brain farting is nonsense.

[Cracker]

What is GAIN?

Profits; winnings; increment of value. Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 65, 21L. Ed. 45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, SO App. Div. 405, 83 N. Y. Supp. 840.

What is PROFIT?

It is total revenue minus total cost. It is th amount on which the tax is levied.

What is REVENUE?

As applied to the income of a government, this is a broad and general term, including all public moneys which the state collects and receives, from whatever source and in whatever manner. U. S. v. Bromley, 12 How. 99, 13 L. Ed. 905; State v. School Fund Com’rs, 4 Kan. 208; Fletcher v. Oliver, 25 Ark. 295. It also designates the income of an individual or private corporation.

One doesn’t gain, profit, or have revenue from earnings. More brain farting.

[Famspear]

“It is apparent that plaintiffs in this case realized no gain in connection with the reimbursement by the insurance company”

I know you have seen this all before and fail to accept the truth of facts.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1969149 ... p118711251

Is not just seen somewhere. Nonsense is what you’re about.... So Framspear! Where did you get your info on this case to make a comment like, it’s about a fire and insurance claim?

Please show me the CONNER v. UNITED STATES that you have read so I can have clarification on what the he’ll your talking about.

I am not interested in brain farts! Show me the cases where you get your knowledge. Brain farting is nonsense.

Get it straight, kid: The rest of us are not here to "show you the cases" where we "get our knowledge." Other people are not here to prove things to you or to persuade you of things. We're not here to provide you with "clarification". In the current parlance: You are not a special snowflake.

We're here to teach, and to expose scams -- in this case, tax scams.

You obviously have been reading some of my materials, on this web site or another.

If you had ACTUALLY READ THE CONNER CASE, you wouldn't be asking stupid questions about it.

As I stated many, many years ago, at another web site: The correct citation is Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). Citations to Conner are attempts by tax protesters to create the false impression that this case was about taxability of wages as compensation.

This case had nothing to do with wages or the taxability of wages. This case was about the taxability of compensation paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages." The compensation was for the loss of a home by fire.

Here is a link to the text of the case:

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

[Famspear]

Here's a direct quote from the text, Einstein:

As already pointed out, plaintiffs' home was rendered uninhabitable by the fire. Plaintiffs had an insurance policy which reimbursed them for their necessary and reasonable increase in living expenses resulting from the fire. Plaintiffs rented another home, the rental payments were $600.00 per month, this lasted for six months, and plaintiffs paid out of their pocket $4,200.00 as rent (PX-11). Plaintiffs testified that during this period of time the mortgage payments on their burned home continued and they paid them. The additional $465.82 reimbursed by the insurance company to plaintiffs was not itemized or otherwise explained in the trial. Accordingly, that amount is not being considered.

It is apparent that plaintiffs in this case realized no gain in connection with the reimbursement by the insurance company of the rental payments in the total amount of $4,200.00. If there was any income in the ordinary and real sense of the word realized by anyone relating to these payments, it was the owner of the house that plaintiffs rented. With respect to the reimbursement by the insurance company to plaintiffs of the $4,200.00, plaintiffs were no more than a conduit through which these funds passed.

If one of plaintiffs suffered a personal injury covered by insurance, the receipts of that insurance would be specifically excludable under section 104(a) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The same would hold true under section 104(a) (2) if plaintiffs had been compensated for personal injury not covered by insurance. While it is recognized that these statutory exclusions apply only to personal injuries, the same logic on which they are based would control the issue of the judicial exclusion from gross income of the payments made to the plaintiffs here. Congress has taxed income, not compensation.

That last sentence is the one that the tax protesters quote -- trying to give the false impression that the Court was talking about wages.

[Famspear]

Off topic: Counsel for the taxpayer in Conner is an acquaintance of mine, Harold ("Hank") Chamberlain (I met him only once). He founded the famous tax law firm of Chamberlain Hrdlicka here in Houston, although he has not been with the firm for many, many years. Very nice guy.

He graduated from law school in 1957. I was in the first grade around that time.

I say that only because, lately, it's starting to get harder and harder to find people who are older than I am.

[Duke2Earl]

This exact question has been litigated numerous times over many years. I'm really easy to convince. All cracker has to do is post a federal court case in which the final conclusion was that anyone's wages were not subject to income taxes....just one case. All the rest of this "argument" is mental masturbation.

[Famspear]

One of the tactics used by tax protesters over the years is to falsely imply that we haven’t “read the cases,” and to falsely imply that the tax protester HAS read the case. That’s what Cracker is doing here. I see that “Cracker” copied and pasted the infamous fake quote regarding Staples v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 737, (E.D. Pa. 1937). Here’s what Cracker posted, earlier:

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 last sentence, “Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor” -- is fake. It’s not found in the text of Staples. It was conveniently added by tax protesters many years ago. We’ve seen this fakery over and over.

Here is link to the text of the Court’s decision in Staples:

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

In Staples, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the value of a building erected by a tenant on the landlord's property is not income to the landlord until the land is sold or otherwise disposed of by the landlord.

The word “wage” is not found in the text.

[Famspear]

This exact question has been litigated numerous times over many years. I'm really easy to convince. All cracker has to do is post a federal court case in which the final conclusion was that anyone's wages were not subject to income taxes....just one case. All the rest of this "argument" is mental masturbation.

Indeed.

Our latest victim exhorts us to read the "full case", yet he himself has not done so or has not understood what he has read.

Another example: He copied and pasted at length from the text of Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F.2d 575 (8th Cir. 1943), yet fails to identify any holding that supports his unstated, completely erroneous belief that his wages are not taxable for Federal income tax purposes.

Cracker, don't just copy and paste stuff. READ WHAT YOU'RE COPYING AND PASTING.

Look for a U.S. Federal court decision where the Court ruled that wages are not income for Federal income tax purposes -- if that's what you're trying to "prove."

[Famspear]

Here's another example of Cracker's idiocy -- something he posted earlier in this thread:

Try reading full cases!

Class B. Under this class these propositions are relied upon: [240 U.S. 103, 112] (1) That as the 16th Amendment authorizes only an exceptional direct income tax without apportionment, to which the tax in question does not conform, it is therefore not within the authority of that Amendment.

(2) Not being within the authority of the 16th Amendment, the tax is therefore, within the ruling of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429 , 39 L. ed. 759, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 673; 158 U.S. 601 , 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 912, a direct tax and void for want of compliance with the regulation of apportionment.

He then provides the link to the case itself, which is the famous case of Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916).

Yes, Cracker, TRY READING THE FULL CASES!


That quote is from a list of the arguments made by the taxpayer in that case. In the text, the Supreme Court listed the arguments, and then rejected those arguments -- and ruled against the taxpayer. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that the income tax imposed by the tax act of October 3, 1913 (Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 166) violated the Sixteenth Amendment. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax under the 1913 Act.

READ THE CASES YOU YOURSELF ARE CITING, CRACKER!

Did you really think that no other tax protester had ever cited this case here in Quatloos? Did you really think that we hadn't read this case many, many years ago?

[Cpt Banjo]

Since he simply cuts and pastes without actually reading the cases, it's a good bet that sooner or later he'll post the quote from Mr. Earl's brief and pass it off as the holding of the Court.

[Cracker]

earn·ings
/ˈərniNGz/Submit
noun
money obtained in return for labor or services.
synonyms: income, wages, salary, stipend, pay, payment, fees; More
income derived from an investment or product.
"savers who are attracted by the tax-free earnings"

Find me a law that states taxable earnings.
Clearly gains and profits are taxable income.
I earn a living, don’t gain one.
Clearly gains and profits have the same meaning.

What is GAIN?

Profits; winnings; increment of value. Gray v. Darlington, 15 Wall. 65, 21L. Ed. 45; Thorn v. De Breteuil, SO App. Div. 405, 83 N. Y. Supp. 840.

What is EARNINGS?

This term is used to denote a larger class of credits than would be includedin the term “wages.” Somers v. Keliher, 115 Mass. 105; Jenks v. Dyer, 102 Mass. 235.The gains of the person derived from his services or labor without the aid of capital.Brown v. Hebard, 20 Wis. 330, 91 Am. Dee. 408; Iloyt v. White, 40 N. H. 48.
https://www.legistify.com/glossary/earning-capacity/

[Famspear]

The receipt of a wage is income from gains or profits. The receipt of a wage is income under the U.S. Constitution and the Internal Revenue Code.

Now, go look for a Federal court case where the Court ruled otherwise, Cracker.

[Chaos]

While you're at it, answer my question:

Facts are there must be a gain before there is income.

OK. Let's assume that you put in a day's work someplace. Unlikely, I know, but humor me. Your employer pays you $100. You previously had $200. Now you have $300.

Explain how that isn't a gain.

but what if you use Tide Ultra?

[Cracker]

3. Income, within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Income Tax Act of 1913, 1916, 1917, and the Corporation Tax Act of 1909, is a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets. P. 255 U. S. 517. Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 252 U. S. 207.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/255/509/

Gains that are not taxable income are;

The gains of the person derived from his services or labor without the aid of capital.Brown v. Hebard, 20 Wis. 330, 91 Am. Dee. 408; Iloyt v. White, 40 N. H. 48.

Kelly bundy who say. If I had 200 dollars and put a days work in, and got paid 100 dollars. I would have earned 100 dollars and now I have 300 dollars.

[Famspear]

Gains that are not taxable income are;

The gains of the person derived from his services or labor without the aid of capital.Brown v. Hebard, 20 Wis. 330, 91 Am. Dee. 408; Iloyt v. White, 40 N. H. 48.

Wrong. That's not what the courts ruled in those cases. They're not even Federal tax cases.

[Famspear]

Kelly bundy who say. [ . . . ]

Kelly bundy who say? Who say Kelly bundy?

Who know who Kelly bundy be?



I'm getting the impression that English is not your strong point, Cracker. If so, this may be part of your problem with trying to understand legal materials.

If I had 200 dollars and put a days work in, and got paid 100 dollars. I would have earned 100 dollars and now I have 300 dollars.

Verrrrrry good, Cracker! How long did it take you to figure this out?

Do you have trouble figuring out how to tie your shoes?

[Cracker]

Lol! Hello Framspear! I was waiting for you....
You have reviewed all that I have posted...

What is your taxable income results? What is by law, taxable income Framspear?

Show supporting documents to back your nonsense! Lol