Once More Into the Breach

[Nikki]

Nikki, of course compensation for services is income. I also said above that pay for work is not always compensation for services.

Please elucidate.

[Brian Rookard]

This forum has been unable to provide me with that potential disproof.

The more accurate statement would be that you will not accept any proof that contradicts your beliefs.

As for the $50 bucks ... you wouldn't want federal reserve notes anyway ... they're worthless ... and besides, you have "been unable to provide with that potential disproof" that would show that you didn't fall for it.

[John J. Bulten]

Uh, Nikki, elucidate what? It's obvious that compensation for services is income. It's obvious that I said (and then quoted), "My friend Dr. Caligari-Werden thinks 'money you received for working for a particular workplace' is section 61 'compensation for services'. I disagree, but will wait to hear Dr. C's evidence."

It's also commonsense and demonstrated above that terms do not necessarily have the common meaning of the words used to form the term. E.g., after I said, "I happen to be a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3121(d)(2) employee .... I'm not a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3231(b) employee," jkeeb agreed, "So, you don't work for the railroad. You are not an employee under IRC 32xx." And LPC agreed, "The list of states in 2902(10) omits not only Oklahoma, but also Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and a number [16] of other states, all of which have something in common, which is that they do not have any coastline on any ocean, gulf, or great lake, and so have no estuaries." Since terms do not necessarily have the common meaning of the words used to form the term, "compensation for services" does not necessarily have the common meaning "pay for work".

I know you're logical enough to follow that, so would you elucidate where you want to go with it?

Somebody's webpage: “Employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees.

[Duke2Earl]

The current drivel means nothing. It doesn't matter one fig what this person thinks. The one and only thing that matters is what the courts think. And I would be willing to bet that he has about as much chance in court with these "arguments" as a snowball in hell.

[Nikki]

Uh, Nikki, elucidate what? It's obvious that compensation for services is income. It's obvious that I said (and then quoted), "My friend Dr. Caligari-Werden thinks 'money you received for working for a particular workplace' is section 61 'compensation for services'. I disagree, but will wait to hear Dr. C's evidence."

It's also commonsense and demonstrated above that terms do not necessarily have the common meaning of the words used to form the term. E.g., after I said, "I happen to be a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3121(d)(2) employee .... I'm not a technical statutory employee, meaning a 3231(b) employee," jkeeb agreed, "So, you don't work for the railroad. You are not an employee under IRC 32xx." And LPC agreed, "The list of states in 2902(10) omits not only Oklahoma, but also Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, and a number [16] of other states, all of which have something in common, which is that they do not have any coastline on any ocean, gulf, or great lake, and so have no estuaries." Since terms do not necessarily have the common meaning of the words used to form the term, "compensation for services" does not necessarily have the common meaning "pay for work".

I know you're logical enough to follow that, so would you elucidate where you want to go with it?

Somebody's webpage: “Employee” includes what you would normally think of as employees.

You specifically stated (which I quoted to give you a clue as to my reference) "pay for work is not always compensation for services."

Please explain the instances where pay for work is not compensation for services.

[Dr. Caligari]

Uh, Nikki, elucidate what? It's obvious that compensation for services is income. It's obvious that I said (and then quoted), "My friend Dr. Caligari-Werden thinks 'money you received for working for a particular workplace' is section 61 'compensation for services'. I disagree, but will wait to hear Dr. C's evidence."

The Supreme Court has ruled, many times, that the words in tax statutes should be used in their ordinary, everyday meaning, unless Congress has defined them differently. Citations are here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ordinarymeaning

The ordinary, every day meaning of "compensation for services" is money you get for working. If Congress has defined those words differently for purposes of section 61, please show me where.

[rachel]

Uh, Nikki, elucidate what? It's obvious that compensation for services is income. It's obvious that I said (and then quoted), "My friend Dr. Caligari-Werden thinks 'money you received for working for a particular workplace' is section 61 'compensation for services'. I disagree, but will wait to hear Dr. C's evidence."

The Supreme Court has ruled, many times, that the words in tax statutes should be used in their ordinary, everyday meaning, unless Congress has defined them differently. Citations are here:
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#ordinarymeaning

The ordinary, every day meaning of "compensation for services" is money you get for working. If Congress has defined those words differently for purposes of section 61, please show me where.

Go look at 3121(b)! There you'll see that the term "employment" is a "service" of whatever nature for the purpose of Title 2 Social Security.

[LPC]

The ordinary, every day meaning of "compensation for services" is money you get for working. If Congress has defined those words differently for purposes of section 61, please show me where.

Go look at 3121(b)! There you'll see that the term "employment" is a "service" of whatever nature for the purpose of Title 2 Social Security.

When do we get to start talking about the ordinary, every-day meaning of words like "fool" and "nut-job"?

[rachel]

The ordinary, every day meaning of "compensation for services" is money you get for working. If Congress has defined those words differently for purposes of section 61, please show me where.

Go look at 3121(b)! There you'll see that the term "employment" is a "service" of whatever nature for the purpose of Title 2 Social Security.

When do we get to start talking about the ordinary, every-day meaning of words like "fool" and "nut-job"?

Well.... Danny boy Evens take a look for yourself!
(b) Employment

For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed
(A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,

Now if you look at title 42 (Social Security) it will say:

Sec. 410. Definitions relating to employment

For the purposes of this subchapter--

(a) Employment

The term ``employment'' means any service performed after 1936 and
prior to 1951 which was employment for the purposes of this subchapter
under the law applicable to the period in which such service was
performed, and any service, of whatever nature, performed after 1950 (A)
by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the
citizenship or residence of either

I suppose if I looked up "fool" or "nut-job" it would probably have a picture of you.

Anyway what was your point of your post LPC?
Were you trying to say that "employment" is not a service or are you just showing everyone here that you are someone untrustworthy?
You are openly demonstrating incompetence.
Dan, can you explain how providing food for the family dinner table is considered a "service" for the 3101 and 3111 excise tax?
Since when can anyone tax someone for the mere right to live and maintain life?

[LPC]

Since when can anyone tax someone for the mere right to live and maintain life?

Not "anyone," just governments.

And the answer is: Always.

Throughout all of recorded human history, the governments that have imposed taxes have imposed those taxes on people doing nothing more that exercising "the mere right to live and maintain life."

[rachel]

Since when can anyone tax someone for the mere right to live and maintain life?

Not "anyone," just governments.

And the answer is: Always.

Throughout all of recorded human history, the governments that have imposed taxes have imposed those taxes on people doing nothing more that exercising "the mere right to live and maintain life."

Since when can the "government" label "life" as an excise to tax it?

[rachel]

Ohh.. thats right! They can for the purpose of health care called Social Security. But again Social Security isnt mandatory.

[Quixote]

Since when can anyone tax someone for the mere right to live and maintain life?

Not "anyone," just governments.

And the answer is: Always.

Throughout all of recorded human history, the governments that have imposed taxes have imposed those taxes on people doing nothing more that exercising "the mere right to live and maintain life."

Since when can the "government" label "life" as an excise to tax it?

First, an excise is a tax, not something that is taxed. Second, a tax on life, i.e., a tax for merely existing, would be a capitation, not an excise. The income tax is not a tax on life. It's a tax on income. And don't come back with that tired old argument that you cannot live without income. Many people live without income as that word is interpreted by the courts. Many more live without gross income and still more without taxable income.

[.]

First, an excise is a tax, not something that is taxed. Second, a tax on life, i.e., a tax for merely existing, would be a capitation, not an excise. The income tax is not a tax on life. It's a tax on income. And don't come back with that tired old argument that you cannot live without income. Many people live without income as that word is interpreted by the courts. Many more live without gross income and still more without taxable income.

Stop it. You'll confuse rachel.

[John J. Bulten]

Nikki, Dr. C, and JG (in another thread) have all asked essentially the same question, which at great risk I will combine as: "Why do income and compensation not have their ordinary meaning?" My answers of last year are unavailable in forum archives unless someone can help provide them.
Unfortunately, the time it will take to retype the answers will require a commodity in short supply around here, known as "patience". The reason for this is that I don't have the text of CtC in digital form, and out of respect for Pete I don't like to quote whole pages of his book without saying it in my own words. But you could buy the book.

In the meantime you can fight over the bones. Whenever people ask this question I know I've already won because they've given up on the wages question and that's the only one that comes up in court. Have fun picking back at that one too.

Dan's question is much easier. He is asking for the VERY FIRST definition in the entire US Code. The Congress sure knows its priorities.

1 USC 1 The words "insane" and "insane person" and "lunatic" shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis.

[jg]

What the Supremes use to determine what is included in "gross income" is (again): In the absence of a specific exemption, payments are income within the meaning of section 61 when, like the payments involved in Glenshaw Glass Co., the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the respondent has complete dominion.

Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?

That is my question.

[Quixote]

Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?

That is my question.

On another thread John wrote that he would answer, God willing. It's obvious that God is not willing to let John answer. Clearly, there are some things Man was not meant to know.

[rachel]

Again, it bears noting that out of all of these horsesh*t "TP" theories, none are used by people running successful mid-cap and large-cap companies, who are drawing high 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries.

I mean, you never heard Sam Walton using any of these failed theories as he was building his little company. Ditto for the owners of Starbucks, or Mrs. Fields, or OP, or.....well the list is long.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the folks who draw huge salaries (or even just big salaries) know something the "TPs" don't and that is that all the "TP" theories and gyrations are, at best, a zero sum game, with a good probability that it is actually a losing proposition.

So, in terms of role models, a person can follow the paths of people who founded companies like Oakley, or Nike, or Home Depot (all of whom seem to be living quite well), or live the small, sad, mean little lives of many "TPs", with the added bonus of facing possible prison time.

Sorry, ALL of the "TPs" and their useless arguements are a gigantic waste of my time. Time that I can better spend improving my skill sets, so I can get an even better job and potentially double my salary. Sounds like its a lot more fun that spending my life hiding money, or going through audits, or being a guest of the Federal penal system.

All the "TPs" out there can drink the kool-aid, but you do so having been warned that your plan will likely get you screwed, so when you do get hammered by the government, don't come crying to me about it, because I will tell you to p*ss off. Good luck, you're going to need it - eventually.

Hahahaha!!!
This is like the little boy who says "stop pushing me around or I will throw my candy bar in the trash"....hahahaha!
Or....I'm warning you if you dont stop argueing, I'll stop listening......hahahaha!

[Imalawman]

Again, it bears noting that out of all of these horsesh*t "TP" theories, none are used by people running successful mid-cap and large-cap companies, who are drawing high 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries.
....
All the "TPs" out there can drink the kool-aid, but you do so having been warned that your plan will likely get you screwed, so when you do get hammered by the government, don't come crying to me about it, because I will tell you to p*ss off. Good luck, you're going to need it - eventually.

Hahahaha!!!
This is like the little boy who says "stop pushing me around or I will throw my candy bar in the trash"....hahahaha!
Or....I'm warning you if you dont stop argueing, I'll stop listening......hahahaha!

....While sitting in front of her computer located in the living area of her double wide, the tax protestor laughed out loud with glee at what she concluded was a quatlosian temper tantrum born out of frustration at her sound, legal arguments. She clapped her hands together and decided she would write her success story on a tax protestor website. Her felicity quickly vanished as she realized that tomorrow she'd need to go find another job or else she'd find herself living under a bridge again. At that moment the power went out. "damn! I thought they were going to give me another week to pay the power bill", she cursed loudly. As she gazed forlornly out her window, she watched intently as a group of "sheeple" cheerfully played golf at the local country club and sipped cold refreshments. "What a bunch pathetic losers" she muttered, "I'm so glad that I know the truth and am not a slave to fear". The door bell rang, she froze in terror, was this it? Was this the time the feds were coming to get her? Pensively, she peeked through her faded curtains, relieved to see it was only her fellow tax protestor from the double wide next door. "whew, that was close, but this really is the life".

[rachel]

Again, it bears noting that out of all of these horsesh*t "TP" theories, none are used by people running successful mid-cap and large-cap companies, who are drawing high 6, 7 and 8 figure salaries.
....
All the "TPs" out there can drink the kool-aid, but you do so having been warned that your plan will likely get you screwed, so when you do get hammered by the government, don't come crying to me about it, because I will tell you to p*ss off. Good luck, you're going to need it - eventually.

Hahahaha!!!
This is like the little boy who says "stop pushing me around or I will throw my candy bar in the trash"....hahahaha!
Or....I'm warning you if you dont stop argueing, I'll stop listening......hahahaha!

....While sitting in front of her computer located in the living area of her double wide, the tax protestor laughed out loud with glee at what she concluded was a quatlosian temper tantrum born out of frustration at her sound, legal arguments. She clapped her hands together and decided she would write her success story on a tax protestor website. Her felicity quickly vanished as she realized that tomorrow she'd need to go find another job or else she'd find herself living under a bridge again. At that moment the power went out. "damn! I thought they were going to give me another week to pay the power bill", she cursed loudly. As she gazed forlornly out her window, she watched intently as a group of "sheeple" cheerfully played golf at the local country club and sipped cold refreshments. "What a bunch pathetic losers" she muttered, "I'm so glad that I know the truth and am not a slave to fear". The door bell rang, she froze in terror, was this it? Was this the time the feds were coming to get her? Pensively, she peeked through her faded curtains, relieved to see it was only her fellow tax protestor from the double wide next door. "whew, that was close, but this really is the life".

No, you have it all wrong, I do pay my taxes. I'm just trying to weed the truth from communistical slavery of taxation of idiots like you and the tp's.
The door bell rang because the pizza guy is here.
I take it you've been to that country club? You must play cheap golf at a cheap course if you are writing about a trailer park next door to a golf course.