Taft v. Bowers, N.Y. 1929, 49 S.Ct. 199, 278 U.S. 470, 73 L.Ed. 460.

[Cracker]

Please explain how this is fackery!

Taft v. Bowers, N.Y. 1929, 49 S.Ct. 199, 278 U.S. 470, 73 L.Ed. 460. "The meaning of
"income" in this amendment is the gain derived from or through the sale or conversion of
capital assets: from labor or from both combined; not a gain accruing to capital or growth
or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable
value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however employed and
coming in or being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient for his separate
use, benefit, and disposal."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/278/470

It is clearly stated that GAIN and profit means the same thing. Taxable income is derived from from profits. If not true! Prove it with a Supreme Court case.

[wserra]

Please explain how this is fackery!

Well, I don't know what "fackery" is. Better look up what "fack" means.

Hmm. I don't think I'll post the definition here. But, given your posting history, I can see why you're interested - especially in #2.

Taft v. Bowers, N.Y. 1929, 49 S.Ct. 199, 278 U.S. 470, 73 L.Ed. 460. "The meaning of

I think we can stop there. Go to your link https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/278/470 and search on "meaning". With the page open, hit <ctrl-f> (that means the control and f keys at the same time), then type the word "meaning" (without the quotes) in the dialog box that opens. What do you see? "Phrase not found", right? Copying from dumbass tax protestor sites again?

What is the matter with you?

[NYGman]

Wes are you implying that he never read the casa?
If he had he would have found, produced in full to avoid contrxtyal issues:

The Sixteenth Amendment provides:

'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'

Income is the thing which may be taxed-income from any source. The amendment does not attempt to define income or to designate how taxes may be laid thereon, or how they may be enforced.

Under former decisions here the settled doctrine is that the Sixteenth Amendment confers no power upon Congress to define and tax as income without apportionment something which theretofore could not have been properly regarded as income.

Also, this court has declared: "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets.' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 207, 40 S. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570). The 'gain derived from capital,' within the definition, is 'not a gain accruing to capital, nor a growth or increment of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested, and coming in, that is, received or drawn by the claimant for his separate use, benefit and disposal.' United States v. Phellis, 257 U. S. 156, 169, 42 S. Ct. 63, 65 (66 L. Ed. 180)

What I think he is missing is that the case is focusing on one type of income, it isn't exclusively defining the sole source of income. As bolded above, income may be defined, several ways, and I think this case os just confirming that gain on capital is indeed includable in income and taxed. Nothing here states gain to be the only income that is taxable. If I missed this, please use the link Wes left and copy and past this exclusive definition.

Oh and I should add, there is bolded language above that directly contradicts the made up post on the OP. Namely The amendment does not attempt to define income or to designate how taxes may be laid thereon, or how they may be enforced. does not equal

"The meaning of
"income" in this amendment is the gain derived from or through the sale or conversion of
capital assets:

[noblepa]

IANAL, but even I can see that that case has nothing to do with wages.

Rather the case seems to be about whether or not income is recognized when the value of stock held rises. The court seems to be saying that the gain, and therefore income, is recognized only when it is realized; that is, when the stock is sold. The gain is defined as the difference between the basis (price paid) of the stock and the selling price.

No where in the decision does it say that ONLY such gain is taxable. If that were true, it MIGHT mean that wages were not taxable. No where in the decision are wages even mentioned.

However, using the same logic applied to wages, you still have a gain. The law does not recognize a basis for one's labor. In other words, you paid nothing for it. Therefore, if you sell your labor for wages, you have a gain. If you are paid $15 per hour, your gain is $15 minus zero, for a gain of $15.

You may argue that you paid for the education that allows you to perform the tasks for which you are paid. If that were true, you would have to amortize that cost over your working life. It would, at best, reduce you tax liability. Alas, however, it won't do even that. The bottom line is that, while philosophically, you may think you have a non-zero basis in your labor, the law does not recognize any such basis.

Once again, the tax deniers seem to be insisting that a word has one and only one meaning, regardless of context. This is not true in the English language and it is not true in the law.

Cracker, please find (and read for yourself) a Federal court decision, any Federal court decision, at any level from a Federal District court to the Supreme Court, in which the decision finds that wages, as ordinarily defined are not taxable income. If you happen to find such a decision (you won't), make sure that it was not overturned by a higher court. (Make sure that the decision at least MENTIONS wages).

We'll wait.

[Cracker]

Return:

However, using the same logic applied to wages, you still have a gain. The law does not recognize a basis for one's labor. In other words, you paid nothing for it. Therefore, if you sell your labor for wages, you have a gain. If you are paid $15 per hour, your gain is $15 minus zero, for a gain of $15.

That is really nonsense!

Case after case proves that gain and profit are them same. How does one profit from earning a living?

[Pottapaug1938]

Cracker is the latest in a string of quote-miners who reads about court cases -- most likely on web sites of sketchy quality, not by reading the cases themselves, and decides that he has found the Magic Words with which to repel the evil tax man.

Nice try. Cracker. Thanks for playing, and collect your parting gifts on the way out.

[Famspear]

Case after case proves that gain and profit are them [sic] same. How does one profit from earning a living?

I'm wondering whether you tried to use this same kind of goofy "logic" with your mom when you were a kid? Did your mom fall for your word games?

I'm wondering whether you tried to use this same kind of goofy "logic" with your teachers when you were a kid? Did your teachers fall for your word games?

Do you think that a psychologically normal adult is going to fall for your word games?

[Famspear]

By the way, in the world of U.S. Federal income tax law, Taft v. Bowers is what we call a leading case. It is one of the cases that law students who take the introductory course in Federal tax law typically study -- particularly where the course materials include the casebook by William D. Andrews (who was a law professor at Harvard Law School).

What "Cracker" still seems intent on doing is trying to argue -- without providing any support for his argument -- that income for Federal income tax purposes does not include the amount a person receives as compensation for personal services he performs.

Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled any such thing in Taft v. Bowers, and nowhere can Cracker seem to find a Federal court decision that supports his goofy argument.

[Pottapaug1938]

Return:

However, using the same logic applied to wages, you still have a gain. The law does not recognize a basis for one's labor. In other words, you paid nothing for it. Therefore, if you sell your labor for wages, you have a gain. If you are paid $15 per hour, your gain is $15 minus zero, for a gain of $15.

That is really nonsense!

Case after case proves that gain and profit are them same. How does one profit from earning a living?

Wrong again! As noblepa said (emphasis mine):

"However, using the same logic applied to wages, you still have a gain. The law does not recognize a basis for one's labor. In other words, you paid nothing for it. Therefore, if you sell your labor for wages, you have a gain. If you are paid $15 per hour, your gain is $15 minus zero, for a gain of $15."

[morrand]

The trouble with teaching a man to fish is that often he learns how to troll, instead.

...[P]laintiffs' assertion that money received in compensation for labor is not taxable has been rejected by numerous courts. See, e.g., Davis [v. United States Government], 742 F.2d at 172; Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir.1984) (per curiam). Cf. United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n. 1 (7th Cir.1984).

Lovell v. United States, 755 F. 2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984). If that is not clear enough, that final citation quoted above (Koliboski)should certainly be:

Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us already are aware. Nonetheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages — or salaries — are not taxable.

Emphasis in original.

No, they are not Supreme Court cases. The Supreme Court has actual work to do. It does not have time to confirm the obvious.

[Uilliam]

Cracker, please find (and read for yourself) a Federal court decision, any Federal court decision, at any level from a Federal District court to the Supreme Court, in which the decision finds that wages, as ordinarily defined are not taxable income. If you happen to find such a decision (you won't), make sure that it was not overturned by a higher court. (Make sure that the decision at least MENTIONS wages).

We'll wait.

Just to clarify the whole "wages" issue, a court decision is not necessary because Congress has defined what "wages" means.

It doesn't matter what the common usage of the word "wages" is because it has been redefined in the tax code to mean the following:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/3401/

26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid - (a long list of exclusions are listed next.)

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employer" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that -
(1) if the person for whom the individual performs or performed the services does not have control of the payment of the wages for such services, the term "employer" (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means the person having control of the payment of such wages, and
(2) in the case of a person paying wages on behalf of a nonresident alien individual, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, the term "employer" (except for purposes of subsection (a)) means such person.

That chapter is chapter 24 which is the "Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages". The above convoluted definition says that if you don't work for the fed or one of it's many entities, then your earnings do NOT constitute "wages" and therefore is not part of "income".

Check out the following article to understand what Terms of Art are.
http://www.stopthemadness.co/taxes/fede ... ms-of-art/

[Pottapaug1938]

Uilliam, please reread morrand's comment, above. Wages are income; and if you wish to convince us otherwise, show us where an appellate court has held to that effect.

As for your quoted definition, please reread the bolded quote:

26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter....

[Burnaby49]

AHA! A point of attack! If your American tax avoiders are as stupid as our Canadian ones they probably hold Dennys mini-conferences over this part of the definition;

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.

The way our idiots would interpret this is that ONLY the individuals defined in (c) are employees, interpreting "includes" as a term of exclusion (reading it as 'includes only') instead of inclusion thereby excluding everything but the positions defined. So, since the Dennys lawyers aren't officers of a corporation or an government employee, they aren't employees as defined by the tax code and don't earn wages.

Our Income Tax Act says that all persons resident in Canada are taxable on their income. The Act, for greater certainty, says that "persons" includes corporations. I don't know how many times I've been to sovereign trials and tax evasion trials where the idiot of the day argues that this definition excludes everything except corporations. So, using that infallible logic, they aren't persons because they are not corporations. No matter how many times this fails in court there's always someone new who is either ignorant of past jurisprudence or ignores it and tries yet again.

I believe that this was Pete Hendrickson's whole spiel. The US tax code defines the states as including D.C and American Samoa. So, taking the exclusionary view, Hendrickson tried to sell the idea that anyone not living in either of those places does not live in the United States for tax purposes. A view I've always held about Californians.

[Uilliam]

Uilliam, please reread morrand's comment, above. Wages are income; and if you wish to convince us otherwise, show us where an appellate court has held to that effect.

As for your quoted definition, please reread the bolded quote:

26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter....

Reread my post, I didn't say that wages aren't income - quite the opposite. What I said is that "wages" is defined by Congress.

What is so glaringly obvious to you about the "For purposes of this chapter"? Chapter 24 is the one that talks about withholding of tax from "wages". Other than Chapter 21, what do you think you know that I don't?

[wserra]

The above convoluted definition says that if you don't work for the fed or one of it's (sic) many entities, then your earnings do NOT constitute "wages" and therefore is (sic) not part of "income".

Only if you're illiterate to the point of not understanding the word "includes". My God, how many times have courts rejected this exact position? And how may times have we pointed that out?

Plaintiff’s next argument is that he is not an ‘employee’ under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer. Plaintiff mistakenly assumes that this definition of ‘employee’ excludes all other wage earners.

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985).

Plaintiff apparently bases his position on a strict interpretation of the statutory language of section 3401(c) which does not on its face include all persons who earn wages from an employer. ... The definition should not be read as exclusive, but rather as indicative of Congress’ intent that those persons so designated in section 3401(c) would be subject to the income tax withholding provision in the same manner as all other employees. The definition of “employee”, contrary to the interpretation urged by plaintiff, is more properly read to include all those persons with the "status of employee under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship.”

Chamberlain v. Krysztof, 617 F.Supp. 491 (N.D.N.Y. 1985).

Janitor Peter Hendrickson, the most prominent proponent of this nonsense, actually went to jail for acting on it. As the court wrote in part of that proceeding,

the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable wages under the Internal Revenue Code

United States v. Hendrickson, Docket No. 2:08-cr-20585 (EDMI 4/26/2010).

What is so glaringly obvious to you about the "For purposes of this chapter"? Chapter 24 is the one that talks about withholding of tax from "wages". Other than Chapter 21, what do you think you know that I don't?

Quite a bit, actually. For example, a definition only applicable to the Chapter on withholding means that certain income may not be subject to, well, withholding. It doesn't mean that the same income is not subject to the income tax.

The rest of your regurgitated nonsense is just as easily refuted. However, I have real work to do. Maybe later.

[AndyK]

Uilliam

Before you wander (again for all of us here) down this twisty road, please look up the IRS law's definition of "include, includes, including"

Then, please post how your brilliant analysis circumvents that part of the law.

[Pottapaug1938]

Uilliam, please reread morrand's comment, above. Wages are income; and if you wish to convince us otherwise, show us where an appellate court has held to that effect.

As for your quoted definition, please reread the bolded quote:

26 U.S. Code § 3401 – Definitions

(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter....

Reread my post, I didn't say that wages aren't income - quite the opposite. What I said is that "wages" is defined by Congress.

What is so glaringly obvious to you about the "For purposes of this chapter"? Chapter 24 is the one that talks about withholding of tax from "wages". Other than Chapter 21, what do you think you know that I don't?

You are still missing the point.

In your quoted law, "income" is defined for the purposes of that chapter. Outside of that chapter, the definition does not apply.

[Famspear]

In addition to not understanding how to analyze statutes (and the meanings of terms such as "includes" and "for purposes of this chapter"), Uilliam is unaware that the Federal income tax on income from personal services (such as wages) is imposed under Chapter 1 of the Code, not under Chapter 24. And, under both Chapters, what constitutes a wage is not limited in the way he wants it to be limited. Under both Chapters, what constitutes an employer or an employee also is not limited in the way he wants it to be limited.

[Famspear]

That chapter is chapter 24 which is the "Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages". The above convoluted definition says that if you don't work for the fed or one of it's [sic] many entities, then your earnings do NOT constitute "wages" and therefore is [sic] not part of "income".

No, that's not what it says. Go back and read it again. As noted above, there is nothing in Chapter 24 that says, or means, that your earnings do not constitute wages and are not part of income if you don't work for the fed or one of its entities.

[noblepa]

That chapter is chapter 24 which is the "Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages". The above convoluted definition says that if you don't work for the fed or one of it's [sic] many entities, then your earnings do NOT constitute "wages" and therefore is [sic] not part of "income".

No, that's not what it says. Go back and read it again. As noted above, there is nothing in Chapter 24 that says, or means, that your earnings do not constitute wages and are not part of income if you don't work for the fed or one of its entities.

As I understand it, many such chapters or sections of the IRC were passed to clarify who was/wasn't supposed to pay taxes. In the early days of the current income tax, I believe a dispute arose as to whether Federal employees, who are paid from the US treasury were required to pay taxes INTO the treasury. The same is true for elected officials. Some elected official claimed, in essence, "surely the Federal income tax doesn't apply to me, an elected official". Congress promptly passed new bills clarifying that, indeed, Federal employees and elected officials ARE subject to the income tax.

That is why there are all those individual sections that specify that this type of employee or that is subject to the tax.