Submarine Veteran Returns

[LPC]

More linguistic gymnastics and rhetorical bombast from Subvet. How surprising.

[Submarine Veteran]

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.

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

I was not putting words in your mouth. You said that earnings were not taxable, income was. Income is defined as "gains" and "profits" - it was a substitution on my part.

WRT asking lawyers - Let's see do lawyers benefit by solving cases or by letting them drag on in appeals and the like? I can get $10,000. from this guy for closing this case right now or I can get $100,000 by getting him into an appeal situation and bill him for the next 5 years!!! What is the motivation for a tax lawyer to end the tax system? There is an entire industry built around this and those who benefit have little desire to see it go away. It was for this reason - the grabbing of power - that we restricted the federal government though the constitution. Did you ever walk out of most auto inspections without needing SOMETHING replaced/repaired?

[Submarine Veteran]

SubVet is a fool. After all, his earnings when he was in the Navy were taxed and I am sure he did no labor. So, if no labor can be taxed, then labor can be taxed also. And if he did labor while in the Navy, then his own Navy career dooms his arguement.

Amazingly enough CK - There used to be this thing during the Cold War called the "FBM Deduction" - All my withheld federal income taxes were returned as 52% of my time was away from my "tax home". Besides - it is clear that serving on an FBM submarine is a "federally-connected" activity.

[Submarine Veteran]

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.

So this is what you all believe?

That the government owns you just like slaves were "owned" in early times?

This is what our ancestors fought for?

To be freed from the slavery being imposed by Parliament under King George to substitute it for slavery under King George W. and his successors?

Well, that certainly gives me comfort.

What about the "costs" for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, maintenance, etc. associated with generating that labor? No consideration should be given to the $5./gallon gas you need for your auto to get you to/from that job. No consideration for the cost of sustenance, shelter, health care, clothing, etc. Those are not proper business expenses and are excluded from consideration. Why???

[Famspear]

Let's see do lawyers benefit by solving cases or by letting them drag on in appeals and the like? I can get $10,000. from this guy for closing this case right now or I can get $100,000 by getting him into an appeal situation and bill him for the next 5 years!!! What is the motivation for a tax lawyer to end the tax system? There is an entire industry built around this and those who benefit have little desire to see it go away. It was for this reason - the grabbing of power - that we restricted the federal government though the constitution. Did you ever walk out of most auto inspections without needing SOMETHING replaced/repaired?

A typical tax protester argument.

This argument is, essentially, that the reason that virtually none of tax lawyers, CPAs, judges, law professors, etc., agree with the tax protesters is that the aforementioned classes are using their vested economic interest in the "outcome" (i.e., the imposition of the legally valid federal income tax) to hide, from the public's view, the supposed invalidity of the tax, etc., etc., etc.

First, this tax protester argument, like all the others, is delusion.

Second, the argument proves too much. The same form of reasoning can be used to say that the tax protesters are using their vested economic interest in the outcome they desire -- namely the non-existence of a federal income tax -- to affect their ability to reason clearly about the validity of the system we have.

The difference is that the former argument is a tax protester delusion, while the latter point is very much the actual case for some (but perhaps not all) tax protesters.

In SubVet's case, like the cases of many protesters, he is allowing his anti-government feelings and emotions to adversely affect his ability to think rationally. Notice the rhetoric: "to be freed from slavery".

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

What about the "costs" for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, maintenance, etc. associated with generating that labor? No consideration should be given to the $5./gallon gas you need for your auto to get you to/from that job. No consideration for the cost of sustenance, shelter, health care, clothing, etc. Those are not proper business expenses and are excluded from consideration. Why???

Ah, the more deductibles theory. That argument, taken then to its logical extent implies that anyone who spends as much as they make shouldn't pay income taxes. Individuals aren't businesses that operate on a profit or loss basis. There may be legitimate reasons for deductibles, but the potential for mischief in setting them is rampant and all it does is shift the load.

[Nikki]

SubVet:

You still haven't answered the question regarding why people who have a lot more FRNs at risk than you do haven't adopted your strategies or theories.

Everything you have posted has been on the Internet for years.

Why hasn't anyone who matters adopted it?

[RyanMcC]

So this is what you all believe?

That the government owns you just like slaves were "owned" in early times?

This is what our ancestors fought for?

To be freed from the slavery being imposed by Parliament under King George to substitute it for slavery under King George W. and his successors?

Well, that certainly gives me comfort.

They fought against taxation without representation, not taxation. Dan's Tax Protester FAQ cites numerous court cases rejecting the notion taxation=slavery.

What about the "costs" for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, maintenance, etc. associated with generating that labor? No consideration should be given to the $5./gallon gas you need for your auto to get you to/from that job. No consideration for the cost of sustenance, shelter, health care, clothing, etc. Those are not proper business expenses and are excluded from consideration. Why???

Unless I'm mistaken if you itemize deductions and all those things are directly business related you probally could write alot of that off. Gas to/from work (provided you save reciepts, keep mileage records, ect), wear and tear on vehicle used solely for business, some health realted expenses, some travel expenses, ect. But I don't itemize deductions so I don't know much about it consult a CPA or tax professional if you would like to learn more.

[wserra]

So this is what you all believe?

That the government owns you just like slaves were "owned" in early times?

I somehow don't recognize that paraphrase from what The Operative posted.

This is what our ancestors fought for?

My recollection is that among the things for which they fought was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation". Remember George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion?

Well, that certainly gives me comfort.

I'll be sure to let you know the next time I see a preamble to federal legislation which lists as one of its purposes "To give Submarine Veteran comfort".

What about the "costs" for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, maintenance, etc. associated with generating that labor? No consideration should be given to the $5./gallon gas you need for your auto to get you to/from that job. No consideration for the cost of sustenance, shelter, health care, clothing, etc. Those are not proper business expenses and are excluded from consideration. Why???

Because, right or wrong, that's what the law says. There are lots of laws I don't like. What about "Take it up with Congress" gives you such a brain freeze?

BTW, the last time you were here, you ducked out before answering a pretty basic question - just like JJ Blather. Let's repeat it, shall we? Since you were last here, of course, the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the injunction against Hendrickson. When the Circuit denies rehearing, and the Supreme Court denies cert., will you then agree that he is wrong about the law?

Beware of the consequences a "no" answer will have to a Cheek defense.

[The Operative]

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.

So this is what you all believe?

That the government owns you just like slaves were "owned" in early times?

Where in my post do you find that it equates to slavery? I pay taxes so the government can provide services that either wouldn't exist or I would have to pay for otherwise.

This is what our ancestors fought for?

To be freed from the slavery being imposed by Parliament under King George to substitute it for slavery under King George W. and his successors?

Well, that certainly gives me comfort.

You don't know what slavery really is.

What about the "costs" for clothing, food, shelter, transportation, maintenance, etc. associated with generating that labor? No consideration should be given to the $5./gallon gas you need for your auto to get you to/from that job. No consideration for the cost of sustenance, shelter, health care, clothing, etc. Those are not proper business expenses and are excluded from consideration. Why???

Because most of those expenses would be incurred by you whether you had a job or not. They are, therefore, not expenses associated with your job. While fuel costs back and forth to work are a work related expense, it is not deductible because the properly elected representatives have not made it so.

[RyanMcC]

While fuel costs back and forth to work are a work related expense, it is not deductible because the properly elected representatives have not made it so.

Okay, fuel isn't deductable per se, but mileage apparently is (as an itemized deduction). Which would be de facto a deduction for fuel/wear & tear.

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2008 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2008, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

50.5 cents per mile for business miles driven;
19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes; and
14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations.

...

A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS), after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle, for any vehicle used for hire or for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/newsroom/art ... 30,00.html

[The Operative]

While fuel costs back and forth to work are a work related expense, it is not deductible because the properly elected representatives have not made it so.

Okay, fuel isn't deductable per se, but mileage apparently is. Which would be de facto a deduction for fuel/wear & tear.

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today issued the 2008 optional standard mileage rates used to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical or moving purposes.

Beginning Jan. 1, 2008, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) will be:

50.5 cents per mile for business miles driven;
19 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes; and
14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations.

...

A taxpayer may not use the business standard mileage rate for a vehicle after using any depreciation method under the Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System (MACRS), after claiming a Section 179 deduction for that vehicle, for any vehicle used for hire or for more than four vehicles used simultaneously.

http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/newsroom/art ... 30,00.html

Last time I looked at this, commuting between home and a person's place of employment is a personal, nondeductible expense. There are exceptions. For example, an employee who would normally walk to work but is required to drive because they transport heavy tools in their vehicle, is allowed a deduction. However, that deduction is limited to the extra expense incurred to transport the heavy tools. Another exception is when an employee has a second job. The expenses of getting from one job to another are deductible. If an employee is required to drive between work stations, that mileage is deductible. Likewise, if an employee is required to drive to a temporary work place, that mileage is deductible, even if it is shorter trip than the normal trip to the permanent work place.

An example:
Employee drives to office where they normally work - not deductible.
Employee drives to client's office from employee's office - deductible.
Employee drives from first client's office to second client's office - deductible.
Employee drives home from second client's office - not deductible.

[Submarine Veteran]

I moderate on the forum not because I am a Pete follower, but because it is, from my own analysis of the issue, the proper procedure to follow and obey the law as it is written.

The Internal Revenue Manual at section 4.2.2.4.4(E) identifies that BAD PAYER DATA exists based on income that is not taxable.

The original statutory language imposing the tax provides for income not taxable under the constitution.

When a company, misguided as to the characterization of my pay for labor reports it as "taxable income", a record of that attestation is provided to the IRS. My correcting the report of the payor and attesting to it constitutes my self-assessment and it is included on my return. I have sworn to the accuracy of this based on my knowledge and belief.

"Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that has 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)”.

Prove that I engage in "compensation for service" - I merely expend my time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency, worthless except in voluntary trade with others. If others choose to make this trade with me, we all benefit. The company I work for bills roughly three times what they pay me to others for my service. They are receiving gain derived from labor, my labor. I receive no such gain.

[The Operative]

When a company, misguided as to the characterization of my pay for labor reports it as "taxable income", a record of that attestation is provided to the IRS. My correcting the report of the payor and attesting to it constitutes my self-assessment and it is included on my return. I have sworn to the accuracy of this based on my knowledge and belief.

And your knowledge and belief is wrong. The courts have told Pete that his beliefs are wrong. If the government decides to take it that far, they will tell you that you are wrong too.

"Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that has 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)”.

Prove that I engage in "compensation for service" - I merely expend my time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency, worthless except in voluntary trade with others. If others choose to make this trade with me, we all benefit. The company I work for bills roughly three times what they pay me to others for my service. They are receiving gain derived from labor, my labor. I receive no such gain.

Whether or not you believe your pay is "compensation for services" or not is actually irrelevant. Section 61 states, in part, "gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:..."
which means that there are items of income that are not listed. Your wages are a GAIN to you, which means it is INCOME. INCOME is taxable. You can reduce the amount of income which is subject to tax if you have allowable deductions. However, proclaiming that your wages earned are not income is wrong.

[LPC]

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.

So this is what you all believe?

That the government owns you just like slaves were "owned" in early times?

Are you conceding then, that payments for labor are income that is subject to tax?

Let's not introduce a new silly argument until we've disposed of the original silly argument.

[RyanMcC]

Prove that I engage in "compensation for service" - I merely expend my time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency, worthless except in voluntary trade with others. If others choose to make this trade with me, we all benefit. The company I work for bills roughly three times what they pay me to others for my service. They are receiving gain derived from labor, my labor. I receive no such gain.

“In effect, Ms. Sumter attempts to claim that the deduction (her total salary) was a necessary expense for the production of that same salary. She provides no support or credible justification for her untenable position. Ms. Sumter tries to cite case law in support of her “even exchange” argument; however, none of the cases she cites justify her position. In fact, the cases are contrary to her .position. [Discussion of cases omitted] Thus, courts have clearly rejected the “even exchange” argument, which erroneously asserts that no taxes are owed on employment wages, since the income from the services rendered was a fair market value and, therefore, no profit or gain occurred as a result of the work performed.”

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 518 (2004).

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

[Famspear]

I moderate on the forum not because I am a Pete follower, but because it is, from my own analysis of the issue, the proper procedure to follow and obey the law as it is written.

The Internal Revenue Manual at section 4.2.2.4.4(E) identifies that BAD PAYER DATA exists based on income that is not taxable.

The original statutory language imposing the tax provides for income not taxable under the constitution.

When a company, misguided as to the characterization of my pay for labor reports it as "taxable income", a record of that attestation is provided to the IRS. My correcting the report of the payor and attesting to it constitutes my self-assessment and it is included on my return. I have sworn to the accuracy of this based on my knowledge and belief.

"Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that has 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)”.

Prove that I engage in "compensation for service" - I merely expend my time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency, worthless except in voluntary trade with others. If others choose to make this trade with me, we all benefit. The company I work for bills roughly three times what they pay me to others for my service. They are receiving gain derived from labor, my labor. I receive no such gain.

No, you are quite wrong. You have no tax basis in your own labor.

There are a couple of reasons for this.

First, tax basis is a concept that applies to property. You yourself are not your own property. Yes, there is some very old case law with quotations to the effect (I'm paraphrasing) that a man's right to work is his "property," but that's not what the tax law means when it refers to "property."

Second, the costs that you incur that WOULD go into your "basis" in your labor (if there were such a thing) are essentially personal or living expenses, not capital expenditures. And, despite the protestations to the contrary over at losthorizons.com, there is indeed a statute that specifically states that personal or living expenses are non-deductible expenses.

Not only is the statute itself against you, but the courts are against you, too. You are making the same old arguments that have been rejected over and over and over, as I and others have noted in another forum:

The provisions of the U.S. Constitution authorizing Congress to impose taxes, duties, imposts and excises contain no express exceptions for taxes on wages or labor, or for taxes on income from labor. The courts have consistently rejected arguments that "wages" or "labor" (whether denominated as "labor property" or not) cannot be taxed under the Internal Revenue Code. For example, see Sisemore v. United States, 797 F.2d 268, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9576 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 274 (1986) (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the federal district court properly dismissed taxpayer’s frivolous lawsuit based on taxpayer’s tax return position that wages do not represent a taxable gain because wages are a source of income and are received in equal exchange for labor).

Another tax protester argument is that income from labor should not be taxable because any amount the worker receives in exchange for his or her labor is received in an exchange of "equal value," although an exchange in any true "arm's length" fair market value transaction is, essentially by definition, an exchange of equal value. See, for example, the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 81-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9126 (9th Cir. 1980), in which the taxpayer's theory -- that wages were not taxable because (1) "only profit or gain, such as that from the sale of a capital asset, constituted income subject to federal tax" and (2) "[w]ages could not constitute gain or profit because wages merely represent an equivalent exchange for one's labor" -- was rejected.

See also the decision of the United States Tax Court in Link v. Commissioner, CCH Dec. 56,565(M), T.C. Memo. 2006-146 (2006), where the taxpayer's argument -- that pension income is "labor property" and that when taxpayer receives his pension income from his former employer for whom he once performed services (or labor), any amount he receives in exchange for his labor is a nontaxable exchange of equal value -- was rejected.

Further, under the U.S. federal tax laws, even if labor were considered "property" the gain or income from "labor property" would be defined as the excess of the amount realized (for example, the money received) by the taxpayer over the amount of the taxpayer's "adjusted basis" in the "property" (see 26 USC 1001). Since the taxpayer can have only a zero "basis" amount in his or her own labor -- Cullinane v. Commissioner, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, T.C. Memo 1999-2, CCH Dec. 53,203(M) (1999), the personal living expenses incurred to generate labor being both non-capitalizable and, under 26 USC 262, non-deductible -- the "gain" would thus be equal to the amount of compensation received by the taxpayer.

Compare Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 86-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9279 (9th Cir. 1986), where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated: "The assertion that proceeds received for personal services cannot be given a 'zero-basis for the purpose of the assessment of taxation,' is frivolous. This is a variation of the 'wages are not income' theme, which has been rejected repeatedly by this court."

See also Reading v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument -- that gain from labor of self-employed individual cannot be determined until the "cost of doing labor" has been subtracted from the amount received -- was rejected; validity of 26 USC 262, disallowing deductions for personal living expenses, was upheld). 70 T.C. 730, CCH Dec. 35,354 (1978), aff’d per curiam, 614 F.2d 159, 80-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9162 (8th Cir. 1980).

See also Burnett v. Commissioner (taxpayer's argument -- that wages represent an equal exchange of property and, therefore, are not taxable income -- was rejected). 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 811, T.C. Memo 1994-475, CCH Dec. 50,139(M) (1994).

Now, SubVet, give us a full citation to an actual U.S. federal court case involving U.S. federal income taxes in a dispute between an individual and the government, where the individual made the argument you are making, and the court ruled in favor of that individual on that argument. Hint: There is no such case.

Either be man enough to admit you are wrong or, because of your empty, delusional rhetoric and your uncalled-for insults, continue to suffer the indignities you are suffering here.

[LPC]

The original statutory language imposing the tax provides for income not taxable under the constitution.

Even if we assume that there is some kind of income that is not taxable under the Constitution, what makes you believe that the income you receive is one of those kinds of income?

From my Tax Protester FAQ:

There have been a few Supreme Court decisions that have found incomes that Congress did not have the power to tax. However, all of those decisions arose out of considerations of federalism (i.e., the relationship between the federal and state governments) or the separation of powers within the federal government, and all of those decisions were over-ruled by later decisions and are no longer good law. For example:

* In Collector v. Day, 78 U.S. 113 (1870), it was held that Congress could not tax the salary of a state employee. That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938).

* Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920), held that the compensation received by federal judges could not be subject to income tax because Article III of the Constitution states that the compensation of judges ‘shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.’ Evans v. Gore was over-ruled by O’Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

* In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, (1895), the Supreme Court held that interest on the debts of state and local governments could not be taxed. That holding was reversed in South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).

* In Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393 (1932), it was held that the income from land owned by a state and leased to a private corporation could not be taxed if the lease was part of a “governmental function.” That holding was reversed by Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp., 303 U.S. 376 (1938).

So, over the years, the Supreme Court has considered the possibility that certain types of income from government-related activities might be constitutionally exempt from income tax, but eventually decided that no such exemptions existed. Tax protesters sometimes find and quote those decisions, not realizing (or not caring) that the decisions represent relatively short-lived experiments in inter-governmental immunities and are simply not relevant to federal taxes on incomes unrelated to any governmental activity.

If you can find ANY court decision holding that a kind of income you receive is constitutionally exempt from income tax, I would like to see it. But there is no such decision.

"Compensation for Services" is included in Section 61 and that has 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)”.

As explained above, the Supreme Court first held in 1870 that Congress could not tax the salaries of state employees. When Congress decided to challenge that decision, it made the tax absolutely explicit so that the courts would have to address the issue and could not avoid the issue by interpreting the statute to exclude state employees.

The Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of taxing state salaries, stating:

“The challenged taxes laid under section 22, Revenue Act of 1932, c. 209, 47 Stat. 169, 178, 26 U.S.C.A. 22, are upon the net income of respondents, derived from their employment in common occupations not shown to be different in their methods or duties from those of similar employees in private industry. The taxpayers enjoy the benefits and protection of the laws of the United States. They are under a duty to support its government and are not beyond the reach of its taxing power. A nondiscriminatory tax laid on their net income, in common with that of all other members of the community, could by no reasonable probability be considered to preclude the performance of the function which New York and New Jersey have undertaken, or to obstruct it more than like private enterprises are obstructed by our taxing system.”

Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405, 420 (1938) (emphasis added).

A couple of points that should be emphasized:

1. This decision would have been unnecessary if if Congress did not have the power to tax wages and salaries generally. The decision was necessary only because the Supreme Court already knew that it was constitutional to tax the compensation of a private business and so the issue was whether state employees should be treated differently. The Supreme Court initially held that state employees should be treated differently, but then eventually reversed itself and concluded that the same taxes should be paid by state employees as any other employee.

2. Tax protesters like yourself have things 180 degrees backwards, because you think that Congress cannot tax wages earned in the "private sector," but can tax the salaries of state employees. But the history of the income tax is the opposite story. Congress has ALWAYS had the power to tax wages earned in the private sector, but for a number of years (from 1870 to 1938) the Constitution was interpreted to mean that Congress could NOT tax the salaries of state employees.

Prove that I engage in "compensation for service" - I merely expend my time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency, worthless except in voluntary trade with others.

"Expending your time at labor for another in exchange for a specified amount of fiat currency" IS "compensation for service." We don't need to prove what you've just admitted.

And changing the words to describe what you do doesn't change the legal or economic reality of what you do. It's not a defense to murder to claim that you didn't kill anyone, but just "terminated their vital signs with extreme prejudice." Similarly, it's not a defense to tax evasion to say that you didn't receive "compensation for services" but "expended your time at labor for another in exchange for a specifid amount of fiat currency."

[ASITStands]

Careful, Dan! That makes too much sense.

A clearer explanation of what happened and why is seldom found anywhere, and I suspect 'Submarine Veteran' will find it hard to respond. In fact, I suspect he will not respond.

He tends not to respond to posts that display any substantive logic. Instead, he wishes to argue around the edges of some suspected definition he's found somewhere sometime.

Very little more need be said to disprove his position, but we'll see.

[Nikki]

The simplest question is still outstanding, SubVet.

You will keep getting reminders until you answer it or the thread expires.

SubVet:

You still haven't answered the question regarding why people who have a lot more FRNs at risk than you do haven't adopted your strategies or theories.

Everything you have posted has been on the Internet for years.

Why hasn't anyone who matters adopted it?