Submarine Veteran Returns

[cynicalflyer]

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.

Do you honestly expect him to a) answer or b) answer with anything other than some contrivancce about a "conspiracy" of tax lawyers, judges and others?

[wserra]

Do you honestly expect him to a) answer or b) answer with anything other than some contrivancce about a "conspiracy" of tax lawyers, judges and others?

(a) No, I don't expect him to answer. Silence is revealing in itself, however.

(b) He won't even answer with some blather about a massive conspiracy involving every judge who ever ruled on a tax case. Why not? Because that answer would still amount to, "No, I don't agree that Petey is wrong" - even after the final judgment in his own case has said that he is. Neither UnderWater nor JJBlather can afford to say that, since that makes it clear that they don't have a good faith misunderstanding of the law, but rather a disagreement with it. UnderWater didn't cite Tommy Cryer for nothing, and - like Cryer - would doubtless attempt a Cheek if circumstances came to that. Just wait for the denial of cert - those few who stick with Hendrickson are going to resemble Christian Scientists with appendicitis.

BTW, I don't think I knew that he was a moderator at Lost Petey's until he posted it. Perhaps he can explain why posters there (unlike here) are censored and banned, and their posts deleted. I don't suppose that it could be that their crapola evaporates when exposed to the light of day, could it?

[grammarian44]

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.

Prove that the yellow object in the sky is the sun. It is merely a gigantic light-emitting object that provides heat and light to the earth.

Prove that the Pope is a Roman Catholic. Here is merely a regular practitioner of the Christian faith as embodied specifically at the Church of Rome.

Prove that dogs have four legs. They simply happen to have two pair of paws on which they walk.

Prove that I committed murder. I merely intentionally took another human life.

And I believe it was one of Ronald Reagan's cabinet members who said of Reagan's actions in Iran-Contra: "The President's actions were not unconstitutional. He merely chose to operate outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution in this matter."

[Submarine Veteran]

Please PROVE that my time at labor has a zero cost basis.

Please show me in the statute where this "zero cost basis" is specified.

WRT the question about people with "far more FRNs" - Many people in this category have investments producing much of their "income" and interest and dividends from these investments are taxable.

The issue is exclusively about privately contracted pay in exchange for labor.

BTW - the term "compensation" means "to be made whole again" - by the definition of the word, it is a payment made to restore the individual because the individual incurs a cost in the expenditure. There is no "gain" or "profit" in being "compensated". This is why "compensation for services" is NOT the standard common-word definition and is specifically defined in the statutory language.

Finally - Thanks for all the input. It's important to understand both sides of this argument.

[The Operative]

Please PROVE that my time at labor has a zero cost basis.

How much did you PAY for your labor? ZERO. See my earlier post.

Please show me in the statute where this "zero cost basis" is specified.

Don't have to because it is perfectly clear to the majority of people with common sense.

WRT the question about people with "far more FRNs" - Many people in this category have investments producing much of their "income" and interest and dividends from these investments are taxable.

Right, but there are also people who work a job that make a lot more than you. They pay taxes and don't use frivolous arguments.

The issue is exclusively about privately contracted pay in exchange for labor.

See above.

BTW - the term "compensation" means "to be made whole again" - by the definition of the word, it is a payment made to restore the individual because the individual incurs a cost in the expenditure. There is no "gain" or "profit" in being "compensated". This is why "compensation for services" is NOT the standard common-word definition and is specifically defined in the statutory language.

Compensation is also defined as "payment for a thing of value tendered or a service rendered."

Now, general and legal sources commonly define "income" to mean "any money that comes in," without regard to any related expenses incurred and without any requirement that the transactions producing the money result in a net gain. See, e.g., 5 Oxford English Dictionary 162 (1933). Your time is not an allowable expense. Nowhere in the statute does it allow an individual to deduct the value of their time. Therefore, your pay is income and is taxable.

Also see, http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

[Nikki]

Please PROVE that my time at labor has a zero cost basis.

Please show me in the statute where this "zero cost basis" is specified.
Wrong approach -- see below

WRT the question about people with "far more FRNs" - Many people in this category have investments producing much of their "income" and interest and dividends from these investments are taxable.

The issue is exclusively about privately contracted pay in exchange for labor.

BTW - the term "compensation" means "to be made whole again" - by the definition of the word, it is a payment made to restore the individual because the individual incurs a cost in the expenditure. There is no "gain" or "profit" in being "compensated". This is why "compensation for services" is NOT the standard common-word definition and is specifically defined in the statutory language.

Finally - Thanks for all the input. It's important to understand both sides of this argument.

"Cost basis" and all other deductions are specifically defined in 26USC.

26USC does not permit any deduction for the "cost basis" of an individual's labor in computing his tax liability.

Thus, legally with respect to income taxes, the alleged cost basis in labor does not exist.

Please feel free to correct me with appropriate citations to law demonstrating where such "cost basis in one's labor" is defined as a legitimate deduction.

[LPC]

“One’s gain, ergo his ‘income,’ from the sale of his labor is the entire amount received therefor without any reduction for what he spends to satisfy his human needs.”

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730, 734 (1978), aff'd 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added).

In affirming, the 8th Circuit adopted the “well-reasoned decision of the Tax Court” and specifically rejected the argument that “by disallowing deductions for those [living or family] expenses, Congress exceeded its authority to lay and collect income taxes under the 16th Amendment, and that income means the gain or income received less the expense of living.” 614 F.2d at 160.

[grammarian44]

Please PROVE that my time at labor has a zero cost basis.

There are three ways that this statement makes no sense.

First, the only thing that can have a cost basis is property. Labor is not property, either tangible or intangible. It's an activity that may produce property.

Second, even assuming that labor is property, if we apply the standard definition of cost basis in 26 USC section 1012 to labor ("the basis of property shall be the cost of such property"), then the basis of labor is zero, because it didn't cost anything in money actually to perform the activity. This is The Operative's point, above.

Third--and I think this is the most important thing that others seem to overlook--it's not up to someone who believes monetary compensation for labor is taxable to PROVE that labor has no cost basis or that it is taxable in general. The burden of proof clearly falls on the person who is arguing for change to the status quo, and the status quo is that all the courts, Congress, and the public generally accepts that income derived from compensation is taxable.

The burden of proof is on you, SubVet, to show that it's not taxable.

And while you're at it, please PROVE that if the courts adopted your view of the law, Congress would not simply change the law to assure that income derived from compensation is taxable.

[webhick]

Whoa, I'm totally getting a déjà Bulten vibe here. From a year and a half ago.

I hereby dub Submarine Veteran "Bulten Lite," due to his ability to channel the Great Bulten and simultaneously control the verbosity of his predecessor.

Now come kneel before me, so that you may be properly knighted. I hope you aren't terribly attached to your nose, because my hand-eye coordination is a little off today.

[Submarine Veteran]

My "labor" may not have a cost basis, but it is most certainly my property. Adam Smith said that one's labor was one's property, most sacred and inviolable, in "Wealth of Nations" a document that guided the founders in the generation of our constitution and quoted in the Hylton decision.

the cost basis for my "time" is non-zero, it is "indeterminate" as there is no knowing as to how much time one has to spend on this earth.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Remember, time is money."

We "spend" time but we cannot earn time. It is a commodity and its value is infinite and its cost indeterminate.



Thanks for all your help.

[The Operative]

My "labor" may not have a cost basis, but it is most certainly my property. Adam Smith said that one's labor was one's property, most sacred and inviolable, in "Wealth of Nations" a document that guided the founders in the generation of our constitution and quoted in the Hylton decision.

the cost basis for my "time" is non-zero, it is "indeterminate" as there is no knowing as to how much time one has to spend on this earth.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Remember, time is money."

We "spend" time but we cannot earn time. It is a commodity and its value is infinite and its cost indeterminate.

Thanks for all your help.

Wrong. Simple question. How much did you PAY for your time or your labor? You paid nothing for your labor or your time. Your time and labor may be infinitely valuable to you, but when determining income it is how much you paid for your time, not its value.

[Famspear]

My "labor" may not have a cost basis, but it is most certainly my property. Adam Smith said that one's labor was one's property, most sacred and inviolable, in "Wealth of Nations" a document that guided the founders in the generation of our constitution and quoted in the Hylton decision.

the cost basis for my "time" is non-zero, it is "indeterminate" as there is no knowing as to how much time one has to spend on this earth.

Benjamin Franklin said, "Remember, time is money."

We "spend" time but we cannot earn time. It is a commodity and its value is infinite and its cost indeterminate.



Thanks for all your help.

SubVet is saying, in other words: "I am clueless. I give up."

[Dr. Caligari]

SubVet is saying, in other words: "I am clueless. I give up."

SubVet has also not even attempted to defend PH's CTC theory, which is the only one allowed to be discussed on the LH site, and has instead relied solely on a different theory. Another nail in his Cheek coffin.

[Leftcoaster]

Adam Smith said that one's labor was one's property, most sacred and inviolable, in "Wealth of Nations" a document that guided the founders in the generation of our constitution and quoted in the Hylton decision.

Perhaps, but not to the extant where it will help you in your quarrelsome, quixotic quest, quickly leading to the quintessential quandary. Quiescence or quackery?

Uhgh...All the quips are making me queasy.

[Nikki]

QUIET

QUIT IT

[LPC]

My "labor" may not have a cost basis, but it is most certainly my property.

So what? Property is taxed all the time. And if the Hylton decision means anything, it is that Congress can tax property.

Adam Smith said that one's labor was one's property, most sacred and inviolable, in "Wealth of Nations" a document that guided the founders in the generation of our constitution and quoted in the Hylton decision.

Adam Smith also believed that a capitation when imposed on a laborer was in effect a tax on labor.

And the Constitution specifically recognizes that Congress can impose capitations as long as the capitations are apportioned, a requirement that became meaningless with the abolition of slavery (because slaves were counted as only three-fifths of a person).

Which means that, if you are correct about the founding fathers' understanding of "Wealth of Nations," then the founding fathers intended for Congress to be able to tax labor.

the cost basis for my "time" is non-zero, it is "indeterminate" as there is no knowing as to how much time one has to spend on this earth.

But our time is clearly limited. And yet the Supreme Court has noted that our limited life spans does not mean that our earnings are not taxable:

"t is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

[LOBO]

SubVet is saying, in other words: "I am clueless. I give up."

SubVet has also not even attempted to defend PH's CTC theory, which is the only one allowed to be discussed on the LH site, and has instead relied solely on a different theory. Another nail in his Cheek coffin.

Hendrickson will be ticked when he finds out that SubVet if promoting other crackpot theories behind his back.

[grixit]

Submarine, why can't you be true?
Oh Submarine, why can't you be true?
You've started back cheating on me with another guru.

[The Operative]

For all the lawyers here. Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the type of argument SubVet uses been roundly discredited and denied by the courts for somewhere around 75+ years. And the people who have tried in vain to use an argument like SubVet's have ended up paying the taxes, interest, penalties and additional fines?

If so, what SubVet is doing is taking sailing ships to fight the US 7th Fleet, using the same tactics that the French and Spanish used at Trafalgar.

You are not wrong. In fact, more than one court has said that the argument has been rejected so frequently that the mere raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

We "spend" time but we cannot earn time. ....

Thanks for all your help.

Sure you can. You can earn days of vacation or sabbatical. You can even earn time off a sentence in some jurisdictions.