This is a suit to recover income taxes.

[Cracker]

Oh Framspear, not federal court cases. No! They are Not! They are from the Top of the peeking order.....

[Chaos]

Kelly bundy who say. [ . . . ]

Kelly bundy who say? Who say Kelly bundy?

Who know who Kelly bundy be?

[Famspear]

Oh Framspear, not federal court cases. No! They are Not! They are from the Top of the peeking order.....

Hey, no peeking!

[Pottapaug1938]

So no rebuttal? Just the same thing? Topic is income is taxable only if it is derived from gains and profits! No? You are dead on this ground of facts! Please go have a burger and a cocktail and think about what you can not defend!

If you made any points worth addressing, we would rebut them conclusively. However, all that you have given us is barely-literate copypasta from cases which you have misread, quotes which you have mined and taken out of context, and outright gibberish. We all have much more important things to do than reargue a topic which was argued already, years ago.

Since you're such a legal scholar, Cracker, look up the case of Crain v. Commissioner. There is a sentence there which perfectly describes our attitude towards the idiocies which you are posting.

[Pottapaug1938]

“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

Since my house was badly damaged, by fire, on November 9th, and since I am now in rental quarters, I'll have to keep this case in mind.

[Uilliam]

The first and most important thing to know is what is "income". The federal income tax is based upon how much "income" you made. The IRS wants you to think that "income" is "all that comes in from whatever source", but that is far from the truth.

However, US federal income tax law is solely based upon your receipt of "income", and "income" is "gains and profits from the use of federal privilege". The income tax is an excise tax, this means that if you don't participate in the use of federal privilege, then you also don't participate in being taxed upon the use of federal privilege.

In regards to the 16th Amendment:
"The income tax... ...is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.” and, "[T]he amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty..."
House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, p. 2580, testimony of former Treasury Department legislative draftsman F. Morse Hubbard

"[T]he sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. 45 Cong. Rec. 2245-2246 (1910); id. at 2539; see also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U.S. 17-18 (1916)"
South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988), fn 13

The 16th Amendment says that Congress can tax the "gains and profits from the use of federal privilege" from whatever source derived. Those sources could be a federal job, being in the military, collecting Social Security or disability, or capital gains and dividends from stock in a federal corporation, entity, or municipality such as federal banks or railroads. It could also be from rent that is collected from the use of federal property/land.

What this breaks down to in simple terms is this:
1) if you have a private sector job, then your earnings are not "income"
2) if you work for yourself in the private sector, then your earnings are not "income"
3) if you work for the federal government or one of it's many entities, then you do have "income"
4) if you make your living from trading stocks, options, futures, etc., that are not federally connected, then you have no "income". If you trade in federal treasury bills and made a gain or profit from them, then you do have "income"

"The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice White, first noted that the Sixteenth Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article I of the Constitution, quoted above. Direct taxes were, notwithstanding the advent of the Sixteenth Amendment, still subject to the rule of apportionment..."
Howard M. Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney of the American Law Division of the
Library of Congress (1979)

"The Sixteenth Amendment does not permit a new class of a direct tax... The Amendment, the [Supreme] court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong."
Cornell Law Quarterly, 1 Cornell L. Q. pp. 298, 301 (1915-1916)

"In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. C. J. White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is "indirect," rather than... an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned."
Harvard Law Review, 29 Harv. L. Rev., p. 536 (1915-1916)

[Pottapaug1938]

Uilliam: since you are such a great legal scholar, look up the case of Crain v. Commissioner. You will see the reasons why your mined quotes and sketchy legal conclusions do not deserve serious consideration, here or anywhere else; and I doubt that anyone here will want to take the time to play Law Professor for you.

But again -- since you are a great legal scholar, show us half a dozen of the appellate court cases in which the holding -- not th dicta -- of the cases support your assertions.

[Burnaby49]

Here we go again.

[Uilliam]

Uilliam: since you are such a great legal scholar, look up the case of Crain v. Commissioner. You will see the reasons why your mined quotes and sketchy legal conclusions do not deserve serious consideration, here or anywhere else; and I doubt that anyone here will want to take the time to play Law Professor for you.

But again -- since you are a great legal scholar, show us half a dozen of the appellate court cases in which the holding -- not th dicta -- of the cases support your assertions.

How in anyone's world does a Circuit Court case involving someone wanting to deduct a loss from a previous year have any bearing on what I wrote? The case makes no mention of what income is or isn't. Heck, we don't even know to whom his company sold the cotton.

Please enlighten me as to how your much heralded case rebuts what I wrote. If you say something like, "figure it out for yourself", then we will all know you don't know what you are talking about.

[Pottapaug1938]

Easy. The Crain case explains why the courts, and we here on Quatloos, often don't bother going into detail as to why tax protestor rhetoric does not merit a rebuttal. Here is the text of Crain, in full:

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Crain appeals from the dismissal of his Tax Court petition challenging the constitutional authority of that body and defying the jurisdiction of the Internal Revenue Service to levy taxes on his income. Crain asserts that he "is not subject to the jurisdiction, taxation, nor regulation of the state," that the "Internal Revenue Service, Incorporated" lacks authority to exercise the judicial power of the United States, that the Tax Court is unconstitutionally attempting to exercise Article III powers, and that jurisdiction over his person has never been affirmatively proven.

We perceive no need to refute these arguments with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit. The constitutionality of our income tax system — including the role played within that system by the Internal Revenue Service and the Tax Court — has long been established. We affirm the dismissal of Crain's spurious "petition" and the assessment of a penalty imposed by the Tax Court for instituting a frivolous proceeding. 26 U.S.C. § 6673.

The government asks us to assess penalties against Crain for bringing this frivolous appeal, as is authorized by Fed.R.App.P. 38. In Parker v. C.I.R., 724 F.2d 469, 472 (5th Cir. 1984), we sounded "a cautionary note to those who would persistently raise arguments against the income tax which have been put to rest for years. The full range of sanctions in Rule 38 hereafter shall be summoned in response to a totally frivolous appeal."

We are sensitive to the need for the courts to remain open to all who seek in good faith to invoke the protection of law. An appeal that lacks merit is not always — or often — frivolous. However, we are not obliged to suffer in silence the filing of baseless, insupportable appeals presenting no colorable claims of error and designed only to delay, obstruct, or incapacitate the operations of the courts or any other governmental authority. Crain's present appeal is of this sort. It is a hodgepodge of unsupported assertions, irrelevant platitudes, and legalistic gibberish. The government should not have been put to the trouble of responding to such spurious arguments, nor this court to the trouble of "adjudicating" this meritless appeal.

Accordingly, we grant the government's request. The United States shall recover from appellant Crain twice its cost of this appeal. Additionally, we assess against Crain a damage award of $2000 in favor of the appellee United States.

AFFIRMED.

The Crain case is often cited as precedent in other appellate litigation. Then, there is also Wnuck v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, which sets forth five excellent reasons why courts give no serious consideration to contentions like yours. Here is a link to the case:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5 ... 493422e8be

Finally, if I or anyone else says "figure it out for yourself", that's because none of us has the time to do what the courts in Crain and Wnuck declined to do. A simple reading of the case will allow you to "figure it out for yourself".

[Famspear]

[ . . . ] "income" is "gains and profits from the use of federal privilege".

Completely false. That "quote" is not found in the United States Constitution, in the Internal Revenue Code, or in the holding of any U.S. Federal court.

The income tax is an excise tax, this means that if you don't participate in the use of federal privilege, then you also don't participate in being taxed upon the use of federal privilege. [ . . . ]

Completely false. That's the frivolous "federal privilege" tax protester argument, which has been rejected every single time it has been raised in court.

The earliest known case is United States v. Buras. In that case, the argument that the taxpayer can be subject to an excise tax (specifically, the federal income tax) only if he benefits from a "privilege extended by a government agency" was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980). John E. Buras, the protester in that case, continued his tax protester activity, referring to himself as a "Public Minister" in the "World Prayers Answered Ministry." See, e.g., Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-168 (2008).

See also Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 320 (D. Minn. 1983) (...."the plaintiffs' position that they are entitled to a complete [federal income tax] refund because they received no governmental privileges during the tax year is without merit....")

See also Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

See also Holker v. United States, 737 F.2d 751 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

See also Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ("This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous [ . . . ] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege.")

See also May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985) (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he "enjoys no grant of privilege or franchise", he is not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected. A penalty was imposed for engaging in frivolous litigation.)

See also Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) (Taxpayer's argument -- that an excise such as the federal income tax may be imposed only on "government granted privileges" was rejected.)

See also Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (Taxpayer's argument -- that because he was a "natural individual and unenfranchised freeman" who "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", he was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

See also Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986) (Taxpayer's argument -- that because she "neither requested, obtained, nor exercised any privilege from an agency of government", she was not liable for federal income tax -- was rejected.)

And terms such as "wages" do NOT have "narrow legal meanings exclusively involving, and applying to, certain privileged activities".

".....individuals must pay federal income tax on their wages regardless of whether they avail themselves of governmental benefits or privileges." McLaughlin v. Commissioner, 832 F.2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987) (per curiam).

In a case involving payroll taxes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated:

.....appellants are neither historically nor etymologically correct in their claim in substance that excises are limited to taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges only. It is true that taxes of the kind referred to are excise taxes but it is also true, as was held in Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, that the excises which congress has power to impose are not limited to vocations or activities which may be prohibited altogether[,] or to those which are the outcome of franchise, but extend to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. The term "excise" is and was before and at the time of the adoption of the Constitution a term of very wide meaning.

--from Abney v. Campbell, 206 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 346 U.S. 924 (1954).

The federal privilege argument also fails for the reason that the income tax can be imposed on illegal income. An illegal activity, a criminal activity, is not an activity in which the criminal is exercising a "privilege", federal or otherwise. Under the James Doctrine, as explained in a U.S. Supreme Court decision over fifty years ago, the receipt of money by an embezzler is included in the income of that embezzler under the Internal Revenue Code, even though the money does not belong to the embezzler, and even though he is required to return the money to its rightful owner. James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1961). As the Supreme Court has stated, "An unlawful gain, as well as a lawful one, constitutes taxable income when its recipient has such control over it that, as a practical matter, he derives readily realizable economic value from it." Rutkin v. United States, 343 U.S. 130 (1952).

The argument that the federal income tax can be imposed only on amounts received while the individual is engaged in an activity in connection with the exercise of a federal privilege is also incorrect for the simple reason that an indirect tax (an "excise") does not need to relate to an activity at all. One of the points made by the U.S. Supreme Court in explaining its holdings in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, no. 11-393; no. 11-398; no. 11-400 (slip opinion, U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012) is: The Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. See page 41 of the slip opinion.

[Uilliam]

Easy. The Crain case explains why the courts, and we here on Quatloos, often don't bother going into detail as to why tax protestor rhetoric does not merit a rebuttal. Here is the text of Crain, in full:

Your text in bold type in the Crain case still has no bearing on my original post. It in no way refutes what I stated in my original posting. You are trying to use the Crain case because you don't have an answer that isn't full of rhetoric, holes, and out-of-context sound-bites.

The Crain case is often cited as precedent in other appellate litigation. Then, there is also Wnuck v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, which sets forth five excellent reasons why courts give no serious consideration to contentions like yours. Here is a link to the case:

Those 5 points in Wnuck v. Commissioner are related to frivolous arguments. I agree that someone making frivolous arguments has no case. However, it has no bearing on my original post because I wasn't making any frivolous arguments. I thought this was a forum for discussion?

What Mr. Wnuck seemed to fail to do was to properly rebut the meaning of "wages". Let me be very clear, "wages" as defined in the tax laws ARE "income". I have never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, on a different post at this site I clearly laid out what exactly "wages" are defined as by the tax laws.

If you don't agree with my position, then show me where I am wrong - don't just try and brush it off as being a frivolous argument. If you can't do that then just be a grown-up and say so.

Now, since you brought up those 5 points from Wnuck, they are overall good but they are not without error.

At C(5) he says

Mr. Wnuck's argument that the "United States" excludes the States has been rejected in cases going back 30 years. See Tinnerman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2010-150 (citing cases).

The judges argument is too general of a statement. What is true in one context, can be completely not true in another context. The Tinnerman case is not based upon a residency argument and no judgement in regards to that was even made. The judge is really pulling at straws when he uses the Tinnerman case as a point of "rejection":

By way of example, petitioner's brief sets out his premises as follows:

The case stems from I.R.C. section 1368(b) distributions to Petitioner of earnings and profits for which Petitioner did not file an individual income tax return. Pursuant to I.R.C. section 1363(b) and (c), the distributing corporation determined that the I.R.C. section 1366(a) and (b) character and source of the separately stated Form 8825 property was neither "national" (federal) nor "alien" (foreign) income. Based on that determination and on Petitioner's non-excise, individual circumstance (i.e. Petitioner acquired citizenship without legislative act, and Petitioner was domiciled within one of the 50 United States), the corporation classified the distribution for federal income tax purposes as items of exempt income subject to the expense provisions of I.R.C. section 1.265-1. Pursuant to I.R.C. section 6037(a) and (c)(4), the corporation issued to Petitioner a Form K-1 identifying the distribution as just described. Respondent never has challenged the corporation's statutory requirement to make a corporate level determination of the distribution's exempt status, nor has Respondent ever challenged the accuracy of the information that the corporation reported on the Form K-1.

Tinnerman v. Commissioner, No. 21270-08L. (T.C. Jul. 13, 2010)

The Supreme Court believes that Congress may have purposely left out certain things in one definition of a word and in another definition of that word they may have included other things instead.

[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statue but omits it in another..., it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.
Russello v. United States, 464 US 16,23,78 L Ed 2d 17, 104 S Ct. 296 (1983) (Quoting United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F. 2d 720, 722 (CA 1972))

Here is an example from Title 26 where Congress DOES INCLUDE the 50 States:

U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle D › Chapter 38 › Subchapter A › § 4612 - Definitions and special rules
(a) Definitions For purposes of this subchapter—
(4) United States
(A) In general
The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(emphasis mine)

Do you see the explicit difference?

At C(6) the judge points to a pdf that supposedly lists and dismantles frivolous arguments. Unfortunately, those frivolous arguments do not relate to what the Commissioner has posted as the real frivolous arguments. To his credit, he does cite where the real frivolous arguments can be found at Notice 2010-33,2010-17 I.R.B. 609.

Here is a link to the IRS pdf: https://www.irs.gov/pub/taxpros/frivolo ... h_2018.pdf
Here is the link to the official frivolous arguments: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-33.pdf

If you compare and study the two, you'll find that they are quite different and the only one that holds any weight in law is the official list.

I think that is clear enough for anyone to see that this judge was being deceptive.

Now, let's clear up the judges misunderstanding of the meaning of "includes".

Judge Gustafson stated the following at Point E(1)(a)

"Includes" does not mean "includes only".
Section 7701(c) provides that "includes" "shall not be deemed to exclude other things."

The judges arrogance shows through in a disturbing way when he says,

'Anyone fluent in English knows that the word "includes" cannot be assumed to mean "includes only"...'

I wonder why the judge only quoted the first part of the definition, was it to help save on paper and ink costs? The judge has already admitted that "includes" is a defined term by stating that it can be found at Section 7701(c). The judge also knows that a defined term loses it's everyday common meaning and ONLY means what the definition says it means.

Here is the definition in full:

U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 79 › § 770 - Definitions
(c) Includes and including
The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

That is really quite a different meaning than what the judge was trying to show. Leaving out part of a definition or taking one completely out of context is not uncommon with these activist judges.

The judge continues in his arrogant statement with,

- especially when such a meaning would have the ludicrous result of excluding from "United States" all 50 States. No tax research at all is necessary to conclude that Mr. Wnuck's position is frivolous.

What is ludicrous is the judge's statement. He knows darn well that what he said wasn't true.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

These rulings from activist judges often have omissions, misquotations, out-of-context statements, and outright lies in them to try and keep the fraud going.

Finally, if I or anyone else says "figure it out for yourself", that's because none of us has the time to do what the courts in Crain and Wnuck declined to do. A simple reading of the case will allow you to "figure it out for yourself".

What I hear you saying is that if you don't have a good answer, you'll just call the statement frivolous and try and pass it off as such. Exactly how the IRS attempts it's shenanigans, which in the end do not prevail against anyone who knows the law.

If you are going to use citations from court cases and such, then please use ones that directly speak to the statement that is trying to be refuted, and that aren't full of glaringly obvious "errors".

[Cpt Banjo]

As a matter of fact, on a different post at this site I clearly laid out what exactly "wages" are defined as by the tax laws.

No, what you posted had to do with what "wages" are subject to withholding. It was pointed out to you that this has nothing to do with what is included in gross income. In fact, there are many types of compensation that aren't subject to withholding but are nevertheless included in gross income under §61. So your reference to the definition of "wages" under Chapter 24 is hopelessly irrelevant.

The judge also knows that a defined term loses it's everyday common meaning and ONLY means what the definition says it means.

§7701(c) says just the opposite; you do not exclude the ordinary meaning of the defined term. I suggest you read U.S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985), which characterized your misinterpretation as "inane" and "a preposterous reading of the statute".

[Duke2Earl]

Ulliam....

Here's the actual deal. No one needs to address or discredit the enormous pile of cow droppings you think is an "argument."

You are the one who thinks that wages are not income. The burden of proof is on you and that bull manure you have been sprouting proves exactly nothing,...and it indeed stinks as well. What you have to post is one little thing. You have to post a single federal court case that HOLDS that wages are not income subject to federal income tax. Just one case. Seeing this point has been litigated dozens of time in federal courts you would think it would be easy. But you can't do it...because there isn't any such case. Until and unless you can cite a federal court case that holds that wages are not income...there is literally nothing to discuss.

[Famspear]

Those 5 points in Wnuck v. Commissioner are related to frivolous arguments. I agree that someone making frivolous arguments has no case. However, it has no bearing on my original post because I wasn't making any frivolous arguments. I thought this was a forum for discussion?

Yes, this is a forum for discussion, and yes, you were making frivolous arguments -- and you are still making frivolous arguments.

What Mr. Wnuck seemed to fail to do was to properly rebut the meaning of "wages". Let me be very clear, "wages" as defined in the tax laws ARE "income". I have never said otherwise. As a matter of fact, on a different post at this site I clearly laid out what exactly "wages" are defined as by the tax laws.

No, you didn't. You laid out a typical frivolous tax protester argument about how wages are defined in the tax laws.

If you don't agree with my position, then show me where I am wrong - don't just try and brush it off as being a frivolous argument. If you can't do that then just be a grown-up and say so.

Yes, we can brush your argument off as frivolous -- and we can be grown-up at the same time. The rest of the world - including the regulars in this forum -- has no obligation to treat you seriously.

That aside: You have already been shown that you are wrong. You simply refuse to accept it. That is standard operating procedure for each and every tax protester who has ever come here to this forum. That's part of the problem for you people. You're not looking for the truth, and you're not interested in the truth. You've already made up your mind, and you copy and paste tax protester literature in an attempt to spread your nonsense.

Here is an example from Title 26 where Congress DOES INCLUDE the 50 States:

U.S. Code › Title 26 › Subtitle D › Chapter 38 › Subchapter A › § 4612 - Definitions and special rules
(a) Definitions For purposes of this subchapter—
(4) United States
(A) In general
The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

(emphasis mine)

Do you see the explicit difference?

Yes. One important difference: Here, the Congress uses the word "means" instead of "includes." You need to grasp the difference between the meanings of these two terms as they are normally used in the Internal Revenue Code.

I think that is clear enough for anyone to see that this judge was being deceptive.

No, but you are being deceptive.

The judges [sic] arrogance shows through in a disturbing way when he says,

'Anyone fluent in English knows that the word "includes" cannot be assumed to mean "includes only"...'

No, the judge is not being arrogant. You need to pull out a good dictionary and look up the meaning of the verb "to arrogate" and the meaning of the adjective "arrogant." Don't just throw terms around. (More on this below.)

That is really quite a different meaning than what the judge was trying to show. Leaving out part of a definition or taking one completely out of context is not uncommon with these activist judges.

The judge continues in his arrogant statement with,

- especially when such a meaning would have the ludicrous result of excluding from "United States" all 50 States. No tax research at all is necessary to conclude that Mr. Wnuck's position is frivolous.

What is ludicrous is the judge's statement. He knows darn well that what he said wasn't true.

No. What the judge says is correct. His statement is not ludicrous.

Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th edition.

You are making the same mistake that Peter Hendrickson makes. If I had a dime for every time one of you people tries to pontificate on the legal doctrine of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, I guess I'd be rich. Oh, wait. I already am rich. Well, I'd be even richer.

These rulings from activist judges often have omissions, misquotations, out-of-context statements, and outright lies in them to try and keep the fraud going.

Baloney. See how easy it is for me to refute what you write?

You see, you people are always saying "prove it to me" and "show me the law." You falsely claim that the government is perpetrating a "fraud" by asserting that you owe Federal income tax. You are wrong.

You don't want to listen when you're given the law by people who actually study the law and who know the law. And worse, you copy and paste statutory texts -- and then try to argue that the texts mean something that the texts do not mean.

What I hear you saying is that if you don't have a good answer, you'll just call the statement frivolous and try and pass it off as such. Exactly how the IRS attempts it's shenanigans, which in the end do not prevail against anyone who knows the law.

Baloney. And, yes in one sense you DO KNOW the law. You know the law in the sense that you are AWARE of what the law is. You simply refuse to accept that it is the law. You falsely claim that the law is something else.

If you are going to use citations from court cases and such, then please use ones that directly speak to the statement that is trying to be refuted, and that aren't full of glaringly obvious "errors".

Baloney. You're not interested obtaining citations to court cases that show you are wrong. And you're in no position to determine what is or is not erroneous.

YOU are the one who is being arrogant.

What do I mean? I mean that YOU are falsely claiming to have knowledge and ability that you do not have. That's what the process of arrogating is. To arrogate is to claim something without justification. You are falsely claiming to "know" the judges are wrong, etc., etc. You are in no mental or intellectual state to be able to do that.

You are arrogant and presumptuous. You presume to lecture others about the subject of Federal tax law. You don't know what you are talking about. And you are wrong about what the law is. You are arrogant in that you falsely claim to be right.

[Famspear]

“Uilliam” wrote:

[ . . ] The IRS wants you to think that "income" is "all that comes in from whatever source", but that is far from the truth.

No, the Internal Revenue Service does not want you to think that “income” is “all that comes in from whatever source”. That claim is based on a deliberate mis-reading of some verbiage from a judge in a court case from many, many years ago, that Hendrickson and others have taken out of context. In that case, the IRS was not really claiming that income is “all that comes in,” and the IRS is not doing that today, either.

For example, if you receive a Christmas gift, the receipt of that gift is not taxable as income to you -- because of Internal Revenue Code section 102. If the IRS agrees that it is a gift, the IRS is not going to claim that the gift is taxable to you. If you receive life insurance proceeds by reason of the death of the insured person, that receipt is not income taxable to you -- because of Code section 101. If the IRS agrees that it is such life insurance proceeds, the IRS is not going to claim that the receipt is taxable to you. If you receive a sum in settlement on account of a personal physical injury or physical sickness, that receipt is not income taxable to you -- because of section 104(a)(2). If the IRS agrees that the receipt is on account of personal physical injury or physical sickness, the IRS is not going to claim that the receipt is taxable to you. The IRS does not claim that income means “all that comes in.” That quote has been taken out of context over and over again.

However, US federal income tax law is solely based upon your receipt of "income", and "income" is "gains and profits from the use of federal privilege". The income tax is an excise tax, this means that if you don't participate in the use of federal privilege, then you also don't participate in being taxed upon the use of federal privilege.

Again, that is utterly false. And, no Federal court has ever stated that income, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, means "gains and profits from the use of federal privilege". There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution or in any Federal tax statute that says that. It is a fake quote.

The "privilege" argument is a form of one of the frivolous arguments reported in the Buras case (see below) back in 1980. Other tax protesters picked up on this phony argument -- and litigated it again and again. It was rejected in court every single time. Peter Hendrickson was already a dedicated tax protester before he began using the same argument in formulating his "Cracking the Code" tax evasion scam. Indeed, he was already an ex-con with a prior Federal tax conviction before he set up the scam.

As I noted earlier in this thread, every single Federal court that has been presented with this goofy argument has rejected it. No exceptions. And, I listed many court decisions to that effect. See generally: United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980); Hawkins v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-168 (2008); Nichols v. United States, 575 F. Supp. 320 (D. Minn. 1983); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9208 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003 (9th Cir. 1985) (per curiam); May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 85-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9156 (8th Cir. 1985); Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986); Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9343 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Kelly v. United States, 789 F.2d 94, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9388 (1st Cir. 1986).

Further, committing a crime is not the exercise of a privilege; it is precisely the opposite. It is not the exercise of a Federal privilege; it is not the exercise of a state law privilege.

In American law, the term “privilege” has various meanings, but exercising a “privilege” is not properly used in American law to describe the activity of committing a crime.

Where an amount is received in connection with the commission of a crime, there is no provision of American law that provides an exception from that rule for the recipient on the basis that the receipt of that amount is illegal. There is no provision of the Code that magically turns illegal income into something that is received in connection with the exercise of a Federal privilege, or any other kind of privilege.

If the "federal privilege" argument were correct, then an amount received through the criminal activity of embezzlement (a type of theft) would not be income to the thief for Federal income tax purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the amount received IS income to the thief -- even though the money does not belong to the thief, and even where the thief returns the money to its rightful owner. Embezzlement is not the exercise of a Federal privilege, or of any other privilege.


“Uilliam”, like Peter Hendrickson, conveniently fails to provide any Federal court ruling that because an amount was received in an activity connected to the exercise of a Federal privilege, that amount is not income for Federal income tax purposes. Instead, he spouts more nonsense.

No, “Uilliam”, you are not being taken seriously.

[Famspear]

Because our latest victim's arguments are based in essence on the Peter Hendrickson Cracking the Code scam, let's recall what happened to Hendrickson himself in the case for his second Federal criminal tax conviction:

After a three-day jury trial, Hendrickson was found guilty on October 26, 2009, on all 10 counts. [ . . . ] Among other things, the judge rejected Hendrickson's challenges to the instructions given to the jury on the meanings of “wages” and “employee,” the court stating that Hendrickson “was not entitled to jury instructions reflecting his own views as to the purported meanings of the terms 'wages' and 'employee' under the Internal Revenue Code” because “the courts have uniformly held that the ordinary remuneration received by privately employed workers qualifies as taxable 'wages' under the Internal Revenue Code.” The court also pointed out that the judgment against Hendrickson [ . . . ] [in a previous Hendrickson case] [ . . . ] was an “explicit rejection” of his position. United States v. Peter Hendrickson, 2010 TNT 81-15, n. 5, No. 2:08-cr-20585-DML-DAS (U.S.D.C. E.D. Mich. April 26, 2010), affirmed in part and reversed in part, No. 10-1726 (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2012) (per curiam) (conviction affirmed but sentencing vacated and remanded for re-sentencing without two upward departures that the appeals court found to have been improper), cert. denied, U.S. Sup. Ct., Dkt. No. 11-1345 (June 11, 2012).

--From Daniel Evans, Tax Protester Dossier for Peter Hendrickson (edited as to form, and emphasis added), at:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/peter-hendrickson

[Pottapaug1938]

Uilliam, you still don't get it.

My quotes from Crain and Wnuck were put forth for one reason: mainly, I see no reason to dignify your mined quotes, copypasta word salad, and fake quotes with any serious attempt to respond. As was said in Crain, to attempt to refute your allegations might imply that there is any merit to them. As was said in Wnuck, if I spend time trying to refute your arguments with citations of court holdings and relevant quotes from applicable laws, that might make you think that, since it took so long for me to devise my reply, there must be something of value in your assertions. It would be like my demanding that you elicit proof that I am not the Emperor of Massachusetts, by virtue of secret Constitutional amendments, and then proclaiming that your failure to rebut my statements means that they are true.

But, enough fiddling and diddling from you. I'm calling your hand. Show me the HOLDINGS in appellate cases which support your assertions, and then we'll talk. Until then, don't waste your time or mine.