Challenge to Ducky

[LPC]

Taken from the previous thread, which has drifted out of control:

As far as the contention raised over the Murdock case, I will concede that the text is out of context in the sense that the “freedoms” do not refer to the right to earn a living. Upon reading the Murdock v. Pennsylvania, I found however, that the context of the case was quite relevant to the discussion. The main point of the supreme courts decision is that it is unconstitutional for a tax to impinge on one’s basic rights, in this case, the rights garaunteed by the first ammendment

Then you didn't read the decision very carefully.

The Supreme Court in Murdock specifically explained that the states can tax the *incomes* from activities even if they cannot regulate or prohibit the activities generating the incomes. The Supreme Court stated that "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” and IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE stated that “Thus, it [the state] may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (citation omitted), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that nondiscriminatory taxes can apply to newspapers and other publications protected by the First Amendment. (“It is beyond dispute that the States and the Federal Government can subject newspapers to generally applicable economic regulations [including taxes] without creating constitutional problems.” Minneapolis Star & Tribune v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 581 (1983). See also, Arkansas Writers’ Project v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 228 (1987) (“a genuinely nondiscriminatory tax on the receipts of newspapers would be constitutionally permissible”); Grosjean v. American Press, 297 U.S. 233, 250 (1936) (“It is not intended by anything we have said to suggest that the owners of newspapers are immune from any of the ordinary forms of taxation for support of the government.”). Similarly, the Supreme Court has upheld an obligation to withhold Social Security taxes from the wages of employees even when the withholding violates the religious beliefs of the employer. United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982).

So the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the imposition of taxes on incomes even when the incomes are derived from the exercise of constitutional rights.

The inevitable and inescapable conclusion is that Congress CAN tax incomes from the exercise of "fundamental rights," and so Congress CAN tax wages and salaries from labor even if it is considered a "fundamental right." And there is NOTHING in the Constitution or any court decision under the federal Constitution that says anything different.

I think this is consistent with the argument of CTC, which basically holds that the tax on income is constitutional, but a tax on all that comes in, which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be unconstitutional.

"Consistent" in the sense that it allows you to continue to hold the beliefs you want to hold, unsupported by any facts or law.

You continue to state your conclusion that "a tax on all that comes in, which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be unconstitutional" but have yet to point to anything in the Constitution itself, or anything in any court decision in the history of the United States, that would confirm or support that conclusion.

Please read through "Cracking the Code" and find ONE citation to ONE decision by any federal judge in the history of the United States who in any way even suggested that a tax on incomes "which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be unconstitutional."

[Quixote]

Bumping this, so Ducky won't miss it. And to note that the premise that only certain income can be taxed is the foundation of CTC. Without it CTC collapses like the house of cards it is.

[webhick]

Bumping this, so Ducky won't miss it. And to note that the premise that only certain income can be taxed is the foundation of CTC. Without it CTC collapses like the house of cards it is.

Moderators can bump topics without posting replies by viewing the topic (like you are now), scrolling the the bottom of the page, and clicking "Bump Topic".

I now return you to Ducky's thread.

[LPC]

Moderators can bump topics without posting replies by viewing the topic (like you are now), scrolling the the bottom of the page, and clicking "Bump Topic".

I don't see "Bump Topic" as an option at the bottom of the page.

[webhick]

Moderators can bump topics without posting replies by viewing the topic (like you are now), scrolling the the bottom of the page, and clicking "Bump Topic".

I don't see "Bump Topic" as an option at the bottom of the page.

Forgot to mention that there's a time requirement. Currently, it looks like you can't bump a topic within ten days of it's last bump or post. It's currently set to 10 days...which seems a bit long, since only >=moderators can bump. It can be changed through the ACP, though.

Sorry.

[wserra]

[Demosthenes]

Forgot to mention that there's a time requirement. Currently, it looks like you can't bump a topic within ten days of it's last bump or post. It's currently set to 10 days...which seems a bit long, since only >=moderators can bump. It can be changed through the ACP, though.

Hint taken.

I set it to 1 hour.

[Red Cedar PM]

That is a very nice call you have there, but I prefer a cheaper and just as effective crooner, the P.H.A.T. Lady by Primos:



This baby seems to bring 'em in just as well as those $100 calls and you don't mind too much if you drop it in the mud.

I wouldn't go holding my breath waiting for Ducky to come back. Any rational observer who looked at the other thread would be able to determine that he didn't have a leg to stand on. It became pretty clear pretty quickly that he could not (or did not wish to) give BS answers to the standard Quatloosian smell test questions, like why rich people with huge tax liabilities or leading CPA firms / attorneys don't use the CtC Method. Hopefully he at least learned that CtC is a bunch of nonsense and decided not to file that way or will try to correct any previous CtC filings.

[grixit]

You people are all so desthpicable!

[Ducky]

Please read through "Cracking the Code" and find ONE citation to ONE decision by any federal judge in the history of the United States who in any way even suggested that a tax on incomes "which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be unconstitutional."

This can’t be done because IRC as written, IS Constitutional. Therefore the “income” tax IS also constitutional. Yes, Dan, even when the income generated by a fundamental right is taxed. I am apparently not articulating myself well enough. So I will try to simplify the concepts I attempted to lay out using a scenario:

Let’s use a painter as an example, as this is obviously a job of common right.

Harry, A lifelong painter took a different path from his good friend and first business partner, Cristopher. After a few years in the business of painting, Cristopher’s and Harry’s business, ran into some hard times. Competition was tough, and they weren’t able to maintain incoming work in a consistent manner, which deeply worried Harry, who had to support a family. After a brief period of “no work” Harry and Cristopher amicably decided to dissolve their painting partnership. Harry applied for a much more secure job at his local VA hospital as a painter, and got it. Cristopher on the other hand, liked the independence of working for himself and started a new painting business. Harry just loved working for the government, he had consistent on time pay, he didn’t have to think about insurance, getting jobs, invoicing, and all the other woes that come from working for oneself. Contrarily, Cristopher did not enjoy many of these advantages since he maintained working for himself, but he persevered, he developed a good reputation as a painter and saw many jobs come his way. Enough so that he was able to invest some of the money he made into stocks. Harry also saw the idea of investing as a good way to make a little income, incidentally, he invested in the same stocks has his friend Cristopher did.

Using this scenario I would assert that the “income” tax applies to both Harry and Christopher, the difference is simply in the scope of application. Harry, since he is in the employ of the federal government, and enjoys the advantages thereof, IS subject to the “income” tax being imposed on his salary. Christopher on the other hand, enjoys no benefit or privelege from the federal government, in other words he is completely disconnected from the federal gov’t. Therefore, his basic right to earn a living and the money that he receives for the work he has completed DOES NOT fall within the realm of the income tax. It cannot constitutionally. However, the money he has made he decided to invest, and the gain he derived from this money IS within the scope of the income tax, but not the original investment money. Likewise, Harry’s gain from investment is also taxable.

My qoute, which you have taken out of its original context, is consistent with what I just wrote. Here is the original.

I think this is consistent with the argument of CTC, which basically holds that the tax on income IS constitutional; but a tax on “all that comes in“, which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be UNconstitutional. Thus the question is broached as to whether “income” and “all that comes in” are synonymous?
Answers to this question anybody.

Ok, Dan, since I have fairly and squarely answered to your request I have one of my own that I would like you to respond to, that request is.

Will you endorse: that making money from working a non-federally connected job(independent of any gain derived from this money) is completely within the scope of the income tax and is constitutional, and furthermore that this scope of taxation is afforded by the written code( known as the IRC).

If you feel the need to change the wording please provide definition’s to any words you may use that do not have common meanings. I would like it to be a formal endorsement one that is legally binding, I figure if there is no doubt of truth to the statement I have put forth there should be no dispute to your formal endorsement.

Thanks,

Ducky

PS

I started drafting my responses to the last barrage of posts in the “starring ducky thread” so I will throw those in next. I just couldn’t rationalize sitting in my office, and researching/responding when the weather was so nice out, that’s why it has been a little bit. Don’t worry I am not confused as LPC put it, not feeling trapped, or retreating, just enjoying life out in the elements. I really love wind and water.

Anyway, I congratulate all of you for winning “the most off topic” award, that was truly the quintessential “off topic” digression I have ever seen. Well, I guess that I am partially to blame(10%), for pointing out the use of “they” in a singular context.

To comment on that , since I never did. I don’t really have a problem with using “they” in that context, I think it is a common colloquial usage. Personally, I prefer writing he/she, when it comes to conversation I am sure that I am guilty of using “they” in the singular. Sorry, for insinuating that you meant to say something that you did not Grixit. BTW this isn’t an invitation to hijack this thread. Oh yeah, don’t hold your breath waiting for me to respond it may take me a few days sometimes a week.

That’s all folks

[Ducky]

Ducky, I'll just respond to part of your comments right now.

I believe LPC's comment about a couple of cases not being U.S. Supreme Court cases was a comment in response to what you or someone else had written, which was that the two cases in question were "Supreme Court" cases, or maybe "U.S. Supreme Court" cases. What LPC was pointing out was that the cases were Tennessee and Arkansas cases, not United States Supreme Court cases. In other words, not FEDERAL cases. I think you missed the point: Tennessee and Arkansas state courts are not the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sorry this was confusing. I was well aware that the snippets came from non Supreme Court cases, and qualified it before I wrote them by saying “other courts”. I didn’t mean to mislead anybody, who would be otherwise ignorant.

Separate point: State courts generally do not decide federal tax issues. If you want to litigate a question that will decide a point of federal tax law, you generally have to do that in a case against the federal government, AND the case has to be litigated in a federal court, not a state court.

Since we were discussing excises and direct taxes in general, and the ability to tax natural rights, I think it is fair to say that court cases from other levels of government would be admissible. The fact that “other” courts have heard cases which involve the two elements of taxation and natural rights, seems to me, that they would be relevant in a discussion. As far as litigation, I am not an attorney and do not know the proper rules of engagement when it comes to court proceedings and usage of precedence.

You would be correct in saying that there is no requirement that a point of federal law has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in order to really be "the law." All federal courts decide question of law. LPC was not saying that a point has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court to be the law. He was responding to the erroneous use of state court cases in trying to argue a point about federal law that those state court cases did not address.

I thought he was responding to the actual snippet more so than the fact that they were not from US Supreme court cases.

[Ducky]

Section 86 has a provision for withholding by paymasters that is not in section 90. The specificaton of salaries of government workers is to identify the amount from which to "deduct and withhold the aforesaid duty of three per centum". So, it is not redundant even if some of the wording is repetitive. Hendrickson draws the wrong conclusion and ignores the substantive difference of deducting and withholding on the government workers salary.

The specification of “all salaries of officers or payments to…” is not incorporated to identify the amount from which to deduct, but rather, it is clearly incorporated to identify upon what the duty is imposed, in Section 86. You cannot conflate part one, where the upon whom and what is laid out, with part two, where the “how we are going to collect this tax” is laid out.

The point still remains the same that, as posited in the two separate sections, the basis for the tax is quite different. Section 86 bases the tax on “salaries and payments to.” Section 90 bases the tax on “gains, profits, or income”

So if I understand your logic correctly, the basis for the tax, although clearly different, really means the same thing. The authors just wrote the two as such because they needed to specify how the tax would be collected in section 86, which was going to be different than the planned method of collection for 90. Instead of wording the basis for the tax the same in both, resisted this temptation because __fill in the blank_______________.

I am going to go with “salaries and payments” doesn’t mean the same thing as “gains, profit and income”

Let me ask you a fairly simple and direct question, so we don’t have to beat around the bush.

Do you think that “salaries, or payments” can be interchanged with “gains, profits, or income” or vice versa?

Although it is unclear why we are discussing a revenue act that has long been replaced with more current statutes, there is available a copy of the 1862 tax return at http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings. ... _page1.jpg

Because, technically, the concept of “income” has not changed since the inception of the “income” tax.

[grixit]

Ok, it looks as if the linchpin of CTC has been identified:

Is "income" synonymous with "all that comes in"?

It's succinct, concise, in a word, it's just ducky.

Well not quite, actually. "all that comes in" could include loan repayments. So maybe it should be:

Is "income" synonymous with "all that comes in and is earned"? or maybe:

Is "income" synonymous with "all that comes in, in exchange for goods or services"?

But let's assume that Ducky isn't planning any semantic wriggles on us.

So, counter question to Ducky:

If it can be demonstrated that the answer is "yes", will you agree that CTC is refuted?

[wserra]

Harry, since he is in the employ of the federal government, and enjoys the advantages thereof, IS subject to the “income” tax being imposed on his salary. Christopher on the other hand, enjoys no benefit or privelege from the federal government, in other words he is completely disconnected from the federal gov’t. Therefore, his basic right to earn a living and the money that he receives for the work he has completed DOES NOT fall within the realm of the income tax.

Prove it.

Out of the tens of millions of workers who, since the enactment of the income tax, have "enjoyed no benefit or privilege from the federal government", cite one instance of a court finding that such a person's income is not subject to tax for that reason. Please allow me to define what I am looking for. I am not interested in any case from which you infer that this is what the court would have said if presented with the issue. I am looking for a case in which the actual holding supports your proposition.

Don't look too hard, since there are none. To a rational observer, this void in the face of innumerable opportunities means that you're wrong. I'm not sure what it means to you. Every judge who ever sat is part of a conspiracy to end all conspiracies? None of those innumerable opportunants used the magic words in the correct order? The moon wasn't in the seventh house?

It cannot constitutionally.

Prove it.

The Supreme Court in Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), said, "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right." In the face of such real law, please cite one instance of a court finding it unconstitutional to tax such a person's income for that reason. Please allow me to define what I am looking for. I am not interested in any case from which you infer that this is what the court would have said if presented with the issue. I am looking for a case in which the actual holding supports your proposition.

Don't look too hard, because there are none. Are you getting the picture here?

Ok, Dan, since I have fairly and squarely answered to your request

I think Dan had in mind that you provide proof, not just your unsupported opinion.

Will you endorse: that making money from working a non-federally connected job(independent of any gain derived from this money) is completely within the scope of the income tax and is constitutional, and furthermore that this scope of taxation is afforded by the written code( known as the IRC).

I can't speak for Dan, but I would be happy to answer any question written in English. That one doesn't appear to be.

But I have one for you - the same one I asked you before, and Bulten, and UnderWater, never to receive an answer. Assume that the Sixth Circuit affirms the injunction against Hendrickson, and the Supreme Court denies cert. Will you then accept that he is wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice. You, like most of the CtC guys, will blather endlessly about painters Tom, Dick, Harry, Mario and Luigi, but can't say "yes" or "no".

[LPC]

Please read through "Cracking the Code" and find ONE citation to ONE decision by any federal judge in the history of the United States who in any way even suggested that a tax on incomes "which is generated or realized by a most basic right, the right to earn a living, would be unconstitutional."

This can’t be done because IRC as written, IS Constitutional.

The IRC as written applies to "all income," specifically including compensation for services. See IRC section 61(a)(1).

That's game, set, and match.

Thanks for playing.

Ok, Dan, since I have fairly and squarely answered to your request

No, you didn't.

I asked for ONE citation to ONE decision by a federal judge in the history of the United States to support your nonsense, and I got none.

What I got instead was your usual ruminations on your usual regurgitated cud.

[Quixote]

Therefore the “income” tax IS also constitutional. Yes, Dan, even when the income generated by a fundamental right is taxed.

Christopher on the other hand, enjoys no benefit or privelege from the federal government, in other words he is completely disconnected from the federal gov’t. Therefore, his basic right to earn a living and the money that he receives for the work he has completed DOES NOT fall within the realm of the income tax. It cannot constitutionally.

I am apparently not articulating myself well enough.

Yes, contradictory statements within the same post would seem to indicate that.

[Quixote]

Is "income" synonymous with "all that comes in and is earned"? or maybe:

Is "income" synonymous with "all that comes in, in exchange for goods or services"?

But let's assume that Ducky isn't planning any semantic wriggles on us.

So, counter question to Ducky:

If it can be demonstrated that the answer is "yes", will you agree that CTC is refuted?

That's a moot point, because the answer is "no". Money, goods or services received in exchange for nothing at all also result in income. Trying to derive a closed form definition of "income" is either a waste of time or re-inventing the wheel. Whether X was income was the issue before the Supreme Court in the majority of the income tax related cases in the 20's and 30's. If you believe the Court succeeded in defining "income", use their definition. If you believe the Court failed, what makes you think you'll do any better?

In deciding if most CTC warriors have income we don't need to know the definition of income. We need only know that the Supreme Court has held that income includes "accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. (348 U.S. 426 (1955). That is not, of course, a definition of income, because the Court has held that income has resulted even when the taxpayer had little or no dominion over the accession to wealth.

The take home pay of any employee, federal or otherwise, is an accession to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayer has complete dominion. The rest of his pay, to the extent it is not specificall excluded by the IRC, is also income, but not all covered by Glenshaw Glass. That doesn't matter, because the CTC contention is that some take home pay is not income. PH has yet to clarify exactly which is and which is not. Suffice it to say that every CTC warrior knows his is not. The SC obviously disagrees.

[Cpt Banjo]

Ducky: If "enjoying a federal privilege" is constitutionally required for the income tax, how do you explain the taxation of illegally-obtained income, where no such privilege is present?

How do you explain the fact that "enjoying a federal privilege" isn't required for any other type of federal tax?

And if you rely on the "right to earn a living", then please explain how the right to own private property can be taxed (see the Hylton case) and the exercise of a right of private property (e.g., a gift) can be taxed (see the Bromley case).

[Ducky]

The IRC as written applies to "all income," specifically including compensation for services. See IRC section 61(a)(1).

That's game, set, and match.

Thanks for playing.

I only have a couple minutes here, so I will just ask nicely again.

Ok, Dan, I have a request that I would like you to respond to, that request is.

Will you endorse: that making money from working a non-federally connected job(independent of any gain derived from this money) is completely within the scope of the income tax and is constitutional, and furthermore that this scope of taxation is afforded by the written code( known as the IRC).

(BTW, how is this statement difficult to understand, It's not English, HUH? does everbody concur that this is difficult to understand)

Dan, would you just copy and paste what I have written in italics above, and Say, I Dan Evans, and attorney at Law, legally endorse the above italicized stamenent as completely true.

This should be easy right.

To tell you the truth, if you do exactly that I will feel as though there is no reason to continue. If you can't I will just continue as planned.

Thanks,

Ducky

You guys have to remember I am just trying to play devil's advocate here, as such, I will start up on chap "the Supreme Court and the Meaning of Income" I will try to answer as many responses that have been posted as I can. Thanks

[LPC]

Ok, Dan, I have a request that I would like you to respond to, that request is.

Will you endorse: that making money from working a non-federally connected job(independent of any gain derived from this money) is completely within the scope of the income tax and is constitutional, and furthermore that this scope of taxation is afforded by the written code( known as the IRC).

No, I won't.

If you have something to say, then say it. If you have nothing to say, then leave.

I have written extensively about the federal income tax, both in my FAQ (about 132,000 words) and in this forum (6,250 messages over 5 years), and I write what I want and when I want to. I don't take dictation from semi-literate crackpots.