Submarine Veteran Returns

[Submarine Veteran]

Hello again LOSERS!

Read your comments with much enjoyment. Reason for not being back - The stench on this forum is worse than when sanitary tanks are vented. LOL

• Article I, § 9, cl. 4 prohibits direct taxation without apportionment according to representation. Here, despite the constitutional prohibition, it appears that the IRS has misapplied an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments comply with Article I, § 9, cl. 4?

• In Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Amendment XVI does not treat a tax on income as a direct tax. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916), the Court affirmed its decision in Brushaber. Here, despite the Supreme Court’s explicit guidance, it appears that the IRS is operating under color of the Sixteenth Amendment to misapply an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments conform to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment?

• Identify the activity that I engaged in to acquire federally taxable receipts in an amount sufficient to incur a federal tax liability;
• Identify the statute that names that activity as the subject matter of the tax; and,
• Logically explain how the government applied that statute as an indirect tax on my earnings, in compliance with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, and the Sixteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brushaber.

Come on Quatlosers - here's your chance to shine (or not)...

[wserra]

Hello again LOSERS!

Hello again, brave anonymous patriot. How's the tax lien coming? Please remember to tell your kids that my kids' water glasses need filling.

Read your comments with much enjoyment. Reason for not being back - The stench on this forum is worse than when sanitary tanks are vented. LOL

Easily solved. Just make yourself a note not to vent the tank into your single-wide.

• Article I, § 9, cl. 4 prohibits direct taxation without apportionment according to representation. Here, despite the constitutional prohibition, it appears that the IRS has misapplied an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments comply with Article I, § 9, cl. 4?

1. The income tax is not a direct tax except as to income from property. And, insofar as it is a direct tax, "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." Perhaps you recognize the language.

2. Yes.

• In Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Amendment XVI does not treat a tax on income as a direct tax. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916), the Court affirmed its decision in Brushaber. Here, despite the Supreme Court’s explicit guidance, it appears that the IRS is operating under color of the Sixteenth Amendment to misapply an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments conform to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment?

1. Poster's first proposition: under Brushaber et al., the income tax is not a direct tax. Poster's second proposition: the tax on my income is a direct tax. Conclusion: poster is special.

2. Yes.

• Identify the activity that I engaged in to acquire federally taxable receipts in an amount sufficient to incur a federal tax liability;

I don't know that you do have income sufficient to incur tax liability. I could readily believe that you don't. If you do, the activity in which you engaged to acquire such liability is receiving compensation for goods or services.

• Identify the statute that names that activity as the subject matter of the tax;

26 USC sections 1, 63 and 61.

• Logically explain how the government applied that statute as an indirect tax on my earnings, in compliance with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, and the Sixteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brushaber.

You wouldn't recognize a logical explanation if it slapped your ass and called you Sally.

[Famspear]

Well, well, Submarine Veteran returns! What a non-event!

On 29 May 2008, you issued a challenge to us here at Quatloos. Among your assertions:

If taxing as an excise, it [the excise] must be related to a taxable event or activity – it must have a nexus to the federal government.

[ . . . ]

Working to feed and clothe my family is not tied to any privileged activity and is therefore not taxable as an excise.

On May 29 and 30th, various Quatloos regulars responded with citations to numerous cases where the courts ruled that there is no requirement that a federal income tax have a nexus to the federal government, or to the exercise of a “privilege” or a “privileged activity.” For example, embezzlement, an illegal activity, is not tied to any privileged activity (federal or otherwise), and yet the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the federal income tax can be validly imposed on the embezzler, even though the embezzler is required to return the funds to their rightful owner.

Now, 106 days after your last post on May 30th, you return! How unimpressive!

And you not only did not come up with any court cases to support your argument (there are none), you did not even respond.

Sorry, SubVet. You had your chance to "shine," as you put it. Back in May, you blew in here, appearing brash and confident – demanding that others prove you wrong, essentially. But when the law was immediately thrown in your face, you quickly folded and slipped away, without so much as a “fare-thee-well.”

That’s a pretty flaccid performance, SubVet – even for one of Peter E. "Blowhard" Hendrickson’s Crackheads. And you refer to the Quatloos regulars as "losers"!

No, SubVet, you don’t have the Keimdrüsen to play this game. You are not a player. You, SubVet, are a loser.

[Nikki]

• Article I, § 9, cl. 4 prohibits direct taxation without apportionment according to representation. Here, despite the constitutional prohibition, it appears that the IRS has misapplied an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments comply with Article I, § 9, cl. 4?
There is no tax on your earnings. There is, however, a tax on your income. Since the Constitution was amended as follows "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" thereby making an income tax, be ir direct, indirect, or anyhting else, valid under the Constitution.

• In Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S. Ct. 236 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that Amendment XVI does not treat a tax on income as a direct tax. In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113 (1916), the Court affirmed its decision in Brushaber. Here, despite the Supreme Court’s explicit guidance, it appears that the IRS is operating under color of the Sixteenth Amendment to misapply an income tax codified in Title 26 as a direct tax on my earnings. Do the government’s assessments conform to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Sixteenth Amendment?
Again, there is no tax on your eranings, there is a Constitutional tax on your income.

• Identify the activity that I engaged in to acquire federally taxable receipts in an amount sufficient to incur a federal tax liability;
The activity which is taxed is the recript of income or the accession to wealth in come cases.
• Identify the statute that names that activity as the subject matter of the tax; and,
26USC contains the codified laws which relate to the income tax. As to the particular statute which enacted those laws, does it really matter?
• Logically explain how the government applied that statute as an indirect tax on my earnings, in compliance with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, and the Sixteenth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Brushaber.
You keep getting hung up on an indirect tax on earnings. You really need to focus on the Constitutional tax on income.
Come on Quatlosers - here's your chance to shine (or not)...

Should the time ever come that you comprehend the clear meaning of the 16th amendment, plese come back and discuss things. Until then, you have painted yourself into a logical corner with your misplaced reliance on direct and indirect taxes anmd the distinction between your earnings and income.

In any case, this is not a good forum for you. You really should concentrate your efforts where they might pay off, such as in an IRS Appeals office or in Tax Court. However, given your present mind set, I don't forsee much luck for you there either.

[Trippy]

Blah blah blah

{YAWN} Go away, little troll -- we've all got better things to do. Shoo -- get on, now. You're stinking up my space.

[Nikki]

Come on people, play nice. Give him a chance to actually say something before starting the insults.

[The Operative]

You shouldn't pick on the tax protesters. After all, there needs to be somebody to do the jobs that illegal aliens don't want to do.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Well, well, Submarine Veteran returns! What a non-event!

If nobody had pointed out to me that he had returned I wouldn't have noticed.

[grixit]

Once again, the Savage Submariner fails to astonish.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Hello again LOSERS!
....
Come on Quatlosers - here's your chance to shine (or not)...

Hey, bubblehead - if indeed you were one, thank you for doing what not all that many people can qualify for and then put up with. A lot of pilots owe their lives to guys like you.

Having said that, how the hell did a guy like you fall for the conspiracy and TP crap?

[grixit]

Once again, the Savage Submariner fails to astonish.

Prince Namor was always a big douche-nozzle........

20 cents-- mid 70's. I was thinking of the previous version, actually.

[Submarine Veteran]

Hey, bubblehead - if indeed you were one, thank you for doing what not all that many people can qualify for and then put up with. A lot of pilots owe their lives to guys like you.

Having said that, how the hell did a guy like you fall for the conspiracy and TP crap?

I appreciate the civility JRB. Yes, I really spent a few years under the deep blue sea defending our Republic during the cold war. Unfortunately, it seems that many on this forum are really just plain mean people - I guess it comes with the territory, you know, spending all day exacting money from hard-working Americans to support an ever-expanding Socialist rule.

WRT your question, I guess it was just reading history, the congressional record, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the statutes, etc. My history on this topic somewhat follows that of Tommy Cryer. A friend was telling me about what he discovered and I went out to prove him wrong. What I found was distressing to say the least. Well, foolish me. I figured I'd simply go right to the source and ask the IRS a few questions to help clear my friend (and now myself) up on the matter. My response to my questions from the "Service" were little more than threats. Well, I don't take kindly to threats and so I continued to inquire. I went all the way to the IRS commissioner and I contacted my congressman and senators. All I got was the same anonymous document "The truth about frivolous..." Nothing responsive to some probing questions. Well, that is no way for an honest government to deal with an American. So, like a few earlier Americans (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.), I too became a "Tax Protestor" - only instead of standing up to King George, I face a nameless, faceless entity that has consistently failed to provide a responsive reply to a single question I have asked of them. So the IRS continues to apply the "Law of Force" and refuses to simply show me the law.

As Nikki indicates, there is no tax on "earnings", there is a tax on "income" in the form of "gains" and "profits". My "earnings" for my time at labor is an exchange - some of my heartbeats applied in specialized labor in exchange for a "medium of exchange" (FRNs), a zero-gain transaction. If I wasn't working for another, I'd maintain my own landscaping, resurface my own pool (okay, maybe leave that to the professionals), tend my food crops and livestock, etc., but industrialization resulted in specialization and specialization mandates a system of currency as a medium of exchange for specialized labor.

So wserra says Sections 1, 61, and 63 name the activity I engage in that makes my pay for labor liable to the tax. Section 1 imposes a tax on my "taxable income", Sections 61 and 63 define "gross income" and "taxable income". But it seems that Nikki differentiates between "earnings" and "income" and "earnings" isn't included in Section 61. "Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that seems to have its roots in the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 where Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the definition of “gross income”) is amended by inserting after the words “compensation for personal service” the following: (“including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing)”.

So it seems that "earnings" is not "Compensation for Services" is it? So where do "earnings" become "income"? The definition of "income" during the period when the 16th was being ratified is different than today's use, likely thanks to a government-controlled public education system. The "income tax" in Black's 2nd refers only to "a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices", not gross receipts for labor (see page 612 of Black's 2nd Edition).

Similarly, "Income" is defined as "The return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit or private revenue...'Income' means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while 'profits' generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. 'Income,' when applied to the affairs of individuals, expresses the same idea that 'revenue' does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation."

Adam Smith had this to say, “Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor….” The 16th did not change A1S9C4 of the USC and a tax on my pay for labor (my earnings) is a capitation, which must still be apportioned by representation albeit that apportionment among the states is no longer required subsequent to the 16th. A1S9C4 still demands apportionment by representation, a subtle but very important distinction as a tax on my earnings would be a capitation, a direct tax, and still subject to apportionment in some form.

Additional supporting evidence of the deliberate misapplication of the law is clear from the level of "deductions" in the early tax system. To be "made liable" for the tax in 1913, one would have to have brought in six times the average household income in America at that time. The political cartoons surrounding the ratification of the 16th are also testamentary as they clearly show the "idle rich" getting on the treadmill, whereas the average American was footing the bill of government through the then-existing lawful taxes. Were our grandparents so stupid so as to authorize the federal government to directly tax our very sweat and blood? I think not.

Needless to say, there is a significant amount of study that drove me to this stand JRB, and I did not venture here lightly. I fully realize what may be at stake. I ventured where few have gone before and there was a solid reason for it, I believed I was defending the American Republic and our Constitution, and the risk was worth the potential harm. I am in this fight today for a similar reason. It is not about the money, it is about ensuring that my children and theirs retain their freedoms as sovereign Americans and have an open and honest SERVANT government. The arrogance and abuse I have received in response to honest inquiry was sufficient for me to recognize that there was something wrong with the current tax system. What I have discovered is a web of lies and deceit.

I'm sure that there are many of you here that will enjoy seeing another life torn up by this systematic misapplication of the law and a collaborative effort with the judges who are no longer unencumbered by the Executive, through the IRS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1.

When I report this NFTL on Monday, bogus as it really is, it is sure to have an adverse impact on my professional life. But as one early American said, "I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received?

Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlement assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation.

There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength but irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extentuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

I too will survive.

[ASITStands]

Welcome back, 'Submarine Veteran!' And, thanks for your service.

Whatever your argument, and I see you have one though I might disagree, if you've just received the Notice of Federal Tax Lien and Your Opportunity for Hearing Under IRC 6320, make sure you ask for a Collection Due Process Hearing within the prescribed time.

Otherwise, you forfeit all opportunity to make your argument.

I see an inconsistency in your argument which I'll mention here:

Similarly, "Income" is defined as "The return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit or private revenue...'Income' means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while 'profits' generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. 'Income,' when applied to the affairs of individuals, expresses the same idea that 'revenue' does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation."

I've emboldened the one word you mention in the first but not in the second definition.

It's perfectly logical that if "income" is defined as "The return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested," it would include that which you call "earnings" from labor.

It's illogical not to include "earnings" from labor. It's really just a play on words.

I'll leave the wranglings over whether the tax on wages is a direct or indirect tax to others. It's indirect, by the way, and I'll leave the wranglings over why it's not a capitation to them as well, but I'll mention here, that, other than those who agree with your position, such as Peter Hendrickson, you'll find nothing in case law or statute to support it.

And, I'd think that should give you cause for concern.

I hope you will serious consider the points of law discussed as this thread progresses, as it's so very important, not only to you, but those with whom you have some influence. Cheers.

[Red Cedar PM]

Whew, what a load of crap. I don't think I've ever seen someone take so many words to get their point across (albeit poorly). SubVet - here is a much simpler response - if you did work and got paid, you owe tax. No amount of your wordsmithing is going to change that - just ask the judge when your civil suit comes up. I do want to respond to one specific point in your post though.

I appreciate the civility JRB. Yes, I really spent a few years under the deep blue sea defending our Republic during the cold war. Unfortunately, it seems that many on this forum are really just plain mean people - I guess it comes with the territory, you know, spending all day exacting money from hard-working Americans to support an ever-expanding Socialist rule.

Awwww, we're being mean? This coming from the same guy who said:

Gee Danny Boy!

You are certainly not verbose in this reply however you are clearly not erudite!

You are a MORON and will soon be unemployed...l

And

Asbestos is for PUSSIES like JJ McNab...

Wow, God forbid people on this board would be less than nice to you after having called two of the forum regulars a pussy and a moron.

[wserra]

it seems that many on this forum are really just plain mean people

Yeah, you really should clean up your act.

You may or may not include me with those "mean people". If so, please note that, when you were here a few months ago, I responded to you twice - here and here. Both times were perfectly polite. (After you disappeared without answering, I posted a couple more times, directed to the group rather than you.) You then return with out-of-the-blue name-calling ("LOSERS") and comments about "the stench of this forum". What do you expect, "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"

I guess it comes with the territory, you know, spending all day exacting money from hard-working Americans to support an ever-expanding Socialist rule.

While I realize that delusions can be comforting, you should realize that the livelihoods of many of the people here (including me) have absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

there is a tax on "income" in the form of "gains" and "profits"

Wrong.

Y'know, while my livelihood has nothing to do with taxes, it has a lot to do with the law. Statements like that with no authority to back them up are worth no more than the electrons it takes to transmit them. If learning the truth about how income is not only "gains" and "profits", and how receiving wages in exchange for services is not an equal (non-taxable) transaction, read United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356 (9th Cir. 1980), or Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1985), or any one of a hundred other cases. I'll be glad to post them for you.

So it seems that "earnings" is not "Compensation for Services" is it?

Yes, it is. On one side: every court that ever ruled on the issue. On the other side: you guys. Any questions?

When I report this NFTL on Monday, bogus as it really is, it is sure to have an adverse impact on my professional life.

A $147K FTL will do that. Wait until the levies start (if they haven't already).

But as one early American said,

You too can copy and paste.

It isn't noble to stand fast on the tracks staring at the oncoming locomotive, secure in the belief that it's your property and the train is trespassing. It's delusional. Hopefully you will realize this before doing permanent damage to yourself and (if applicable) your family.

[RyanMcC]

[self-righteous spew]

Taxes aside, you should be arrested for indecient exposure after stroking yourself in public like that.

I would address some of the factual errors in your post as others already have, but you wouldn't read it, and I have better things to do than talk to a brick wall.

One day you might realize the posters here were trying to help you but you were to hard headed to listen. You should be grateful they consider you worth the time, I don't.

[The Operative]

As Nikki indicates, there is no tax on "earnings", there is a tax on "income" in the form of "gains" and "profits". My "earnings" for my time at labor is an exchange - some of my heartbeats applied in specialized labor in exchange for a "medium of exchange" (FRNs), a zero-gain transaction. If I wasn't working for another, I'd maintain my own landscaping, resurface my own pool (okay, maybe leave that to the professionals), tend my food crops and livestock, etc., but industrialization resulted in specialization and specialization mandates a system of currency as a medium of exchange for specialized labor.

Wages you receive in return for your labor IS A GAIN to you. A gain is calculated as the difference between the amount for which something was bought and the amount for which that something was later sold. It is not the difference between what something is worth and for what it is sold. For example, if you find a diamond ring in your backyard that is worth $4,000 and you sell it to your neighbor for $3,000. Do you have a loss? No. You have a $3,000 gain or the difference between the amount for which you sold the ring ($3,000) and the amount you paid for the ring ($0). Now, if your neighbor then sells the ring to another for $3,500. Your neighbor has a $500 gain ($3,500 - $3,000). It is the same with your labor. If you sell your labor to your employer for $10 an hour, when you get paid for that labor, the entire amount is a gain to you. You have paid nothing for your labor. Your labor might be worth something to you, but you did not pay for your labor.

[Famspear]

SubVet, instead of coming here, creating a new thread, and immediately insulting others by calling them "losers" (and then, stupidly, complaining because you receive insults in return), why don't you try to pick up where we left off back in May? You posed challenges, which were answered by the Quatloos regulars with citations to actual court decisions. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you simply disappeared for several months.

Now you are back with your insults.

That is not impressive.

As we stated back in the original thread you created in May, we have cited several federal court decisions where the courts ruled FRIVOLOUS the argument that the W-2 wages are not taxable unless connected to some government privilege. I and others cited two United States Supreme Court decisions where receipts in the form of money extorted or embezzled (i.e., money obtained in a crime) were taxable as income to the wrongdoer, even though the wrongdoer is required to return the money to its rightful owner. Illegal income is not income realized in connection with a government privilege or a privileged activity.

We have cited case after case where the courts SPECIFICALLY ruled the way we say the courts ruled. And by the way, per the actual texts, the following cases SPECIFICALLY and expressly involved "Form W-2 wages or other compensation":

Sullivan
Kelly
Coleman
May
Olson

The full citations are listed in the thread called "A Reality Check for this August Group" that you created back in May.

Yes, it's a reality check all right. A reality check for you.

As I stated before, you, SubVet, have found not one single federal court case where the text shows that an individual went into court and specifically argued that because he was not engaged in some sort of privileged activity or was not enjoying some government privilege (in whatever variations of language you want to use) his W-2 wages were not taxable - AND the court ruled in his favor. The reason you have not found one single such case (even assuming you tried to look) is that there is no such case. Not even one.

It does you no good to ignore our May 2008 responses regarding your comments about Brushaber -- and to then come back here, create a new thread with an insult right out of the gate, and re-cite Brushaber with the pretense that you somehow did not ignore our May 2008 responses.

We are not here to prove ourselves to you SubVet. In the real world, as in Quatloos, we are winners on the subject of federal income taxation. And in the real world, as in Quatloos, you are a loser on the subject of federal income taxation.

You are the one who has the burden of proving that you are not just another phony.

Yes, there is some deception here. The deception is on your part, and on the part of ex-cons like Peter Hendrickson. You are deceiving yourself. All you have demonstrated to us here so far is that you, SubVet, are just another phony: all hat and no cattle.

[Nikki]

WRT your question, I guess it was just reading history, the congressional record, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the statutes, etc. My history on this topic somewhat follows that of Tommy Cryer. A friend was telling me about what he discovered and I went out to prove him wrong. What I found was distressing to say the least. Well, foolish me. I figured I'd simply go right to the source and ask the IRS a few questions to help clear my friend (and now myself) up on the matter. My response to my questions from the "Service" were little more than threats. Well, I don't take kindly to threats and so I continued to inquire. I went all the way to the IRS commissioner and I contacted my congressman and senators. All I got was the same anonymous document "The truth about frivolous..." Nothing responsive to some probing questions. Well, that is no way for an honest government to deal with an American. So, like a few earlier Americans (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.), I too became a "Tax Protestor" - only instead of standing up to King George, I face a nameless, faceless entity that has consistently failed to provide a responsive reply to a single question I have asked of them. So the IRS continues to apply the "Law of Force" and refuses to simply show me the law.

As Nikki indicates, there is no tax on "earnings", there is a tax on "income" in the form of "gains" and "profits".
Don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to twist the facts. I said absolutely nothing about gains and profits. Thay's your spin.

My "earnings" for my time at labor is an exchange - some of my heartbeats applied in specialized labor in exchange for a "medium of exchange" (FRNs), a zero-gain transaction.
Your opinion, unfortunately, is contrary to the law. In specific, compensation for services is a component of income. It's not a zero-gain transaction

If I wasn't working for another, I'd maintain my own landscaping, resurface my own pool (okay, maybe leave that to the professionals), tend my food crops and livestock, etc., but industrialization resulted in specialization and specialization mandates a system of currency as a medium of exchange for specialized labor.

So wserra says Sections 1, 61, and 63 name the activity I engage in that makes my pay for labor liable to the tax. Section 1 imposes a tax on my "taxable income", Sections 61 and 63 define "gross income" and "taxable income". But it seems that Nikki differentiates between "earnings" and "income" and "earnings" isn't included in Section 61. "Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that seems to have its roots in the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 where Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (relating to the definition of “gross income”) is amended by inserting after the words “compensation for personal service” the following: (“including personal service as an officer or employee of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing)”.

So it seems that "earnings" is not "Compensation for Services" is it? So where do "earnings" become "income"? The definition of "income" during the period when the 16th was being ratified is different than today's use, likely thanks to a government-controlled public education system. The "income tax" in Black's 2nd refers only to "a tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices", not gross receipts for labor (see page 612 of Black's 2nd Edition).

Similarly, "Income" is defined as "The return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit or private revenue...'Income' means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while 'profits' generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account. 'Income,' when applied to the affairs of individuals, expresses the same idea that 'revenue' does when applied to the affairs of a state or nation."

Adam Smith had this to say, “Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labor….” The 16th did not change A1S9C4 of the USC and a tax on my pay for labor (my earnings) is a capitation, which must still be apportioned by representation albeit that apportionment among the states is no longer required subsequent to the 16th. A1S9C4 still demands apportionment by representation, a subtle but very important distinction as a tax on my earnings would be a capitation, a direct tax, and still subject to apportionment in some form.

Additional supporting evidence of the deliberate misapplication of the law is clear from the level of "deductions" in the early tax system. To be "made liable" for the tax in 1913, one would have to have brought in six times the average household income in America at that time. The political cartoons surrounding the ratification of the 16th are also testamentary as they clearly show the "idle rich" getting on the treadmill, whereas the average American was footing the bill of government through the then-existing lawful taxes. Were our grandparents so stupid so as to authorize the federal government to directly tax our very sweat and blood? I think not.

Needless to say, there is a significant amount of study that drove me to this stand JRB, and I did not venture here lightly. I fully realize what may be at stake. I ventured where few have gone before and there was a solid reason for it, I believed I was defending the American Republic and our Constitution, and the risk was worth the potential harm. I am in this fight today for a similar reason. It is not about the money, it is about ensuring that my children and theirs retain their freedoms as sovereign Americans and have an open and honest SERVANT government. The arrogance and abuse I have received in response to honest inquiry was sufficient for me to recognize that there was something wrong with the current tax system. What I have discovered is a web of lies and deceit.

I'm sure that there are many of you here that will enjoy seeing another life torn up by this systematic misapplication of the law and a collaborative effort with the judges who are no longer unencumbered by the Executive, through the IRS, pursuant to Article III, Section 1.

When I report this NFTL on Monday, bogus as it really is, it is sure to have an adverse impact on my professional life.

.....

As part of your research, did you consult with any attorneys, CPAs, professors in Masters of Taxation programs, or did you just concentrate on the tax-evasion via the Internet course?

You have yet to answer the simple question which we put to all our truth-seeking visitors (and none of them can answer):

If you have managed to discover this wonderful truth about the income tax system, why wasn't it discovered earlier by the thousands of attorneys and CPAs who get paid to reduce their clients' tax burden? Why, since it's been published all ovet the Internet, aren't people like Gates, Buffet, and so on using it?

If you can come up with a valid answwer to the above, we will listen to you. Until then, you are wasting electrons.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

WRT your question, I guess it was just reading history, the congressional record, Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations", the statutes, etc. My history on this topic somewhat follows that of Tommy Cryer. A friend was telling me about what he discovered and I went out to prove him wrong. What I found was distressing to say the least. Well, foolish me. I figured I'd simply go right to the source and ask the IRS a few questions to help clear my friend (and now myself) up on the matter. My response to my questions from the "Service" were little more than threats. Well, I don't take kindly to threats and so I continued to inquire. I went all the way to the IRS commissioner and I contacted my congressman and senators. All I got was the same anonymous document "The truth about frivolous..." Nothing responsive to some probing questions. ....

I too will survive.

No, it was quite likely perfectly responsive to your often-asked "probing questions," but it didn't match with your pre-conceived notions and was thus rejected.

Unfortunately, this same scenario plays out with even more dire consequences when one relies on self-education in other areas, i.e., medicine, explosives and flight.

I have a relative who is the classic hypochondriac but has a couple of real chronic conditions that require periodic renewals of a set of prescriptions she has to have. Thanks(?) to the Internet, she has managed to convince herself that she just needs to find the right doctor who will "understand her," as in agree with the theories she's read about and adopted. Consequently, she comes up with various complaints and talks another family member or friend into taking her to yet another new doctor. She blames the entire medical profession for her conditions and has a shelf full of books with a blizzard of sticky-notes sticking out of them. Some of this will be self-correcting because she's going to run out of money in a couple of years at this pace.

I think you're willing to risk your economic life for a legal mythology promoted by the kinds of people who don't have anything better to do than argue with doctors.

Cloaking it in patriotism may make you feel better but it won't change the outcome.