Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

[SteveSy]

Dear idiot of the week,

After practicing tax law for a few years I am now getting a post-law degree in taxation. I study under some of the most well known tax scholars in the US. I spend on average about 60 hours a week or more studying the tax code and nothing else. Tell me sir, what motive do I have to keep hidden a secret truth? How about one law professor who is advocating getting rid of the income tax as we know it - what is his incentive for hiding the truth? Don't you realize how rich I could become if were to discover the secret phrase in the IRC that exempts 95% of the population? I could retire in less than 4 years! The sad fact is that not a single tax professor or non-delusional tax professional has ever agreed with your fantasy.

I don't think he thinks you are hiding a secret, even if he says so. I think you believe what you say but the reason you believe it is not because you are looking at it logically but you're simply appealing to a higher authority. Your belief is based on, "It is that way because they said its that way and anyone who has challenged that thought process has been hurt so therefore it must be true".

The tax code isn't just cumbersome its moronic if what you believe is true. You can't on the one hand say something is totally obvious like "any person" obviously include all people and the the code frigging itself lists specific people as if it wasn't obvious "any person" might not include them. The code itself is clearly showing by example its possible someone could see "any person" doesn't include every single person otherwise why list specific people. Are federal employees not persons? I mean, come on geesh.

Now on the includes or including nonsense.

If I were to ask you to define the term "Brownie mix" and I started off and said brownie mix includes: <fill in the blank>

Would you just put eggs or would you list every ingredient? Certainly brownies include more than eggs. Its funny how putting things in the proper perspective turns your many of your (this groups) silly assertions on their head.

[Cpt Banjo]

Most Americans assumed that paying the Victory Tax and Paying normal income taxes were the same thing and they were led to that belief by guess who, the veracious IRS and Treasury.

Since this chowderhead has just admitted that the IRS and Treasury are truthful, we can ignore the rest of his inane screed.

[Famspear]

I think you believe what you say but the reason you believe it is not because you are looking at it logically but you're simply appealing to a higher authority. Your belief is based on, "It is that way because they said its that way and anyone who has challenged that thought process has been hurt so therefore it must be true".

Well, we've already been through this. In law, the reason we "appeal to a higher authority" is because that's the way law works. Law is not "you get to decide for yourself what the law is, based on your own idea of what logic is." Law is what the courts rule the law to be, not what SteveSy or somebody else wishes the law were.

We are indeed using logic when we analyze the law -- it's just that we're using the objective, formal logic of legal discourse, not the pseudo-logic, the idiosyncratic "logic" of tax protesters.

Steve, you may be right that the new guy is hung up on the "any person" language. The Sixteenth Amendment doesn't include the verbiage "any person." Again, the purpose of the Amendment was not to bring "any person" within the ambit of federal income tax law. All U.S. citizens and U.S. residents were already within the ambit of the power of Congress to tax prior to the Amendment's ratification -- regardless of whether they were government employees, etc., or not. As already explained above, certain kinds of income were at one time deemed to be not subject to taxation -- but not because of what the Sixteenth Amendment did or did not do. Go back and read the earlier posts.

You can't on the one hand say something is totally obvious like "any person" obviously include all people and the the code frigging itself lists specific people as if it wasn't obvious "any person" might not include them. The code itself is clearly showing by example its possible someone could see "any person" doesn't include every single person otherwise why list specific people. Are federal employees not persons? I mean, come on geesh.

I'm not sure whether you're correct that we can't say whatever it is you're saying we can't say, because I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say here. I'm not trying to be a wisea**; I'm just not sure what you mean here.

Now on the includes or including nonsense.

If I were to ask you to define the term "Brownie mix" and I started off and said brownie mix includes: <fill in the blank>

Would you just put eggs or would you list every ingredient? Certainly brownies include more than eggs. Its funny how putting things in the proper perspective turns your many of your (this groups) silly assertions on their head.

Steve, the problem is that your Brownie mix argument does not work for section 7701 of the Internal Revenue Code. In section 7701, the Congress is not using the term "includes" the way you are using it in the Brownie mix example. We've already been over that a million times here in Quatloos. There is nothing that you or anyone else can do about the point that under U.S. law, the term "includes" as used in the Code means what the courts have ruled it to mean, and not what Peter Hendrickson or some other tax protester tries to argue it means.

Dead issue.

[funwithsafety]

Most Americans assumed that paying the Victory Tax and Paying normal income taxes were the same thing and they were led to that belief by guess who, the veracious IRS and Treasury.

Since this chowderhead has just admitted that the IRS and Treasury are truthful, we can ignore the rest of his inane screed.

What a joke you people are...

It has always been more profitable to support the CROWN against the people.

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in actual tax monies are in play.

Question: Why did the scholastics in the dark ages continue teaching their superstitious cannon while the light of the renaissance was clear for all to see?

Answer: their cannon was their power over the people. If the people could actually read for themselves, the scholastics would lose their elevated place in society.

You guys are terrified of losing your positions as priests of the CODE.

You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.

[fortinbras]

I assume that the Public Salary Act of 1939 was enacted, at least in part, to decisively settle any arguments over whether federal money paid to people working in federal offices was reachable by state taxes and vice versa (especially considering that this money represented taxes already paid by other people). There had been considerable litigation over this in previous years and, although the courts tended to view this money as taxable, Congress probably thought it was better to make the statutes very unambiguous on the issue.

The California Law Review had an article on this Act shortly after passage: Lucien W. Shaw,
The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939, 27 Cal.L.Rev. 705-711 (1939). It said:

The impetus for legislation of this kind was furnished by a message to Congress from the President {FDR}, date April 25, 1938, recommending that legislation be enacted removing the reciprocal exemption of salaries of public employees and also the reciprocal exemption of interest on public bonds. The Public Salary Tax Act carries out only the first of the President's recommendations. Shortly after this presidential message the Supreme Court decided in Helvering v. Gerhardt {(1938) 304 US 405} that compensation of employees of the Port of New York Authority was subject to federal income tax. This case indicated that perhaps the Court was willing, in an appropriate case, to reconsider the century-old doctrine of intergovernmental immunity of public salaries which had been assumed, without much question, to be the law ever since the historic cases of Dobbins v. Comm'rs of Erie County {(1842) 16 Pet. (41 US) 435} and The Collector v. Day {(1870) 11 Wall. (78 US) 113}. As a result of the Gerhardt decision many state officers and employees who, in good faith, had believed their compensation to be exempt from federal taxation might be subjected to liability retroactively for as many as twelve years. Because of the hardships and inequities that would result from the enforcement of such retroactive liability the President recommended to the Congress that legislation on the subject of taxing public salaries include express provisions exempting state and local officers and employees from federal income taxation for prior years."

[Cpt Banjo]

It has always been more profitable to support the CROWN against the people.

Which explains why attorneys working for the IRS and DOJ earn so much more than those in private practice who represent taxpayers.

Question: Why did the scholastics in the dark ages continue teaching their superstitious cannon while the light of the renaissance was clear for all to see?

Answer: their cannon was their power over the people.

If I had a cannon I'd feel pretty powerful, too. ("If I had a cannon, I'd bombard in the morning, I'd bombard in the evening all over this land....")

[funwithsafety]

Here are some a neat comments on why the Public Salary Act was passed which may clear up Dan Evan's confusion as to whether 1938 comes before 1939! The congress were simply trying to strong arm the Supreme Court into reversing itself as to the constitutionality of the tax!
And to lend to the 16th amendment and the IRC "a presumption of constitutionality". At best that is all you can say about current IRS and Treasury practices. They have a presumption of constitutionaly without the REALITY!

Congressional Record-Senate, April 4, 1939, page 3765, Senator Brown of Michigan:
“The Senator from Vermont for himself may certainly make that reservation; but there is no question, under the accepted practice here and in the courts, that the fact that we pass the bill will lend to it a presumption of constitutionality.”

Congressional Record-House, February 9, 1939, page 1321, Congressman Reed of New York:
“I repeat that the purpose of this bill is not to raise revenue, for it is conceded that it will not produce more that $16,000,000, a sum insufficient under the present spending program to run the Federal Government two-thirds of 1 day.
The purpose is to bring congressional pressure upon the Supreme Court to destroy the fundamental principle that one sovereign power shall not destroy the functions of another sovereign power through the power of taxation, which is the power to destroy.
…We know the evil at which the sixteenth amendment was directed. The Court had held that you could not impose a tax upon the income from real estate or from personal property without apportionment. The people wanted an amendment that would have the effect—and all the debates here has brought out that this was the understanding of the States when they ratified that amendment—of making it possible for the Federal Government to tax the incomes from these two sources without apportionment. That is all in the world the sixteenth amendment did.”funwithsafety
Swabby


Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:34 pm
Private message

[Famspear]

What a joke you people are...

It has always been more profitable to support the CROWN against the people.

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in actual tax monies are in play.

Question: Why did the scholastics in the dark ages continue teaching their superstitious cannon while the light of the renaissance was clear for all to see?

Answer: their cannon was their power over the people. If the people could actually read for themselves, the scholastics would lose their elevated place in society.

Actually, it was usually the King who used the cannon to retain power over the people. The scholastics, at least the church scholastics, mostly used the canon.

You guys are terrified of losing your positions as priests of the CODE.

Oh, yes, we're quaking in our boots.

You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.

D***! You're right! I can't rebuild a car engine! I'm totally clueless about automobile mechanics. Man, what a bummer; that invalidates everything I know!

Oh, wait a second. As a lawyer, I could always practice another area of law if all taxes were repealed. And as a CPA, I could always go back to financial accounting and auditing if taxes were repealed. And as a former broadcast news director and talk show host, I could always go back to that if need be. And let's see, I used to do some roofing for my uncle, who was a contractor. Oh, and I was a stock boy in a warehouse. I also worked as a gardener. I used to be pretty handy with a garden hose..... Oh, and for a while I worked as ......

[Judge Roy Bean]

Steve, the problem you're dealing with is a typical one when laymen take it upon themselves to become experts on any given subject.

I've sometimes suggested that anyone willing to engage in this kind of thing should take up do-it-yourself surgery or start learning to fly by climbing into a high-performance helicopter without an instructor.

You can read and study all you want, but either one of the above will bring about serious pain, injury and probable death. Interpretation of tax law on the other hand, doesn't hold almost instantaneous life-threatening risks so you'll see far more people dabbling in it, even to the degree that they'll risk their financial future and even incarceration on their lay opinion. Some will even promote themselves as experts and try to make money with contrarian theories and interpretations.

Eventually, the promoter of the overly-simplistic or nonsensical view must rely on yet another mythology - the deliberate and obviously coordinated ignorance of thousands of CPA's and attorneys (including those who specialize in the tax law), hundreds of past and current magistrates and judges at multiple levels and finally the Justices of the Supreme Court. They are all somehow blinded by the dazzling footwork of the Treasury Department into lock-step compliance with a specious set of laws and regulations. Or, they're all on the take. Or they're all just really ignorant about legal stuff. Or as a consequence of their status, they dare not disrupt the status quo (that's a favorite for the conspiracy-nut job trolls like funwithsafety).

As cynical as I am, I don't buy it, but fun guy and confused people like him everywhere thrive on it and spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to get more easily confused people to rise up. Then when they run into people who actually know something about the issue, the wander all over the place with even more bizarre assumptions and self-realized theories.

Fun guy needs to go play doctor on himself. Or maybe he already has.

[LPC]

Here are some a neat comments on why the Public Salary Act was passed which may clear up Dan Evan's confusion as to whether 1938 comes before 1939!

Anyone have any idea what FWS keeps going on about? Is it just the tax-denier-normal lack of reading comprehension and logic skills, or is there some cerebral accident, neurological condition, or congenital defect that might explain his disconnect from coherent discourse?

Needless to say, both Famspear and I have been casting pearls before swine, and all we're getting back are grunts. Perhaps it's time to exercise the "ignore" feature.

[funwithsafety]

I think you missed the point or just gloss over it.

If "from whatever source derived" is as clear as all of you claim it is, there wouldn't be a need to include federal or state employees. I can't count the number of times people like Dan try and claim people are stupid because they don't accept "from whatever source" to mean any source whatsoever no matter who you are. Clearly if it were that obvious and the 16th truly amendmended the constitution to allow for an all encompassing income tax and that was its purpose then clarifying it includes federal or state workers would be idiotic right? Are we to assume that it was unclear that "from whatever source" might not include the government's ability to tax itself? How many times have all of you claimed its common sense? Surely "any person" includes federal workers right? Why would they need to list federal workers if "any person" means any person whatsoever? You are on the one hand making fun of people for not reading the "any person" part but then right after that it lists specific people. Ummmm I thought any person means all people why list anything, its obvious right?

Maybe its no so obvious after all, apparently not.....but you simply are claiming it is in order to portray people who question it as merely stupid so no one will listen.

Hip Hip Hooray! Finally a sane comment!

To the others - FREE THE PEOPLE NOW!

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.

I can. I can also state with complete certainty even in the absense of a law and/or accounting degree that your "arguments" amount to nothing more than apprentice-level trolling and pigeon milk.

[Nikki]

Here are some a neat comments on why the Public Salary Act was passed which may clear up Dan Evan's confusion as to whether 1938 comes before 1939! The congress were simply trying to strong arm the Supreme Court into reversing itself as to the constitutionality of the tax!

Is it possible that funwithhimself COMPLETELY skipped every Civics course in his short educational cycle?

Could it be at all possible that he is totally unaware that the ONLY ways to 'trump' the Supreme Court are to get it to reverse itself or to pass a constitutional amendment?

Could he have missed the lessons and all the historical decisions where the Court overruled (trumped?) Congress?

Perhaps he was too busy rebuilding an engine at the time.

BTW funnyboy, the last engine I rebuilt was a 1962 Rambler station wagon which lost a few teeth on its timing chain causing the valves to smack into the pistons. Although I have to admit that you are one up on me. I've never cleaned a pool in my life.

[Imalawman]

Gibberish.....

Maybe its no so obvious after all, apparently not.....but you simply are claiming it is in order to portray people who question it as merely stupid so no one will listen.

Hip Hip Hooray! Finally a sane comment!

To the others - FREE THE PEOPLE NOW!

Keyboard warning please!!!

...don't know how to rebuild an engine...

Damn skippy I know how. Well, not my Hybrid Camry. But give me a small block 350 and I can rebuild it faster than you'd believe.

But, you see this is the point in education - it is fungible. I have spent more time on myself than my career, so if we ever live in a world with no taxes, I will practice some other type of law or maybe start a business...ditto famspear. But, I really don't get your point except you're out to prove yourself an idiot. Have fun saying, "you want fries with that?" or "welcome to walmart".

Steve, I'm more intelligent than you. I know the law better than you. I know the tax code better than you. Don't try to tell me that you're correct about the tax law and I'm mistaken. At least pretend that you're trying to think.

[Cpt Banjo]

Is it possible that funwithhimself COMPLETELY skipped every Civics course in his short educational cycle?

Since he spells at a second-grade level, I don't think he got far enough in school to take civics.

[funwithsafety]

IMAlostMAN WROTE:

Steve, I'm more intelligent than you. I know the law better than you. I know the tax code better than you. Don't try to tell me that you're correct about the tax law and I'm mistaken. At least pretend that you're trying to think.

Steve - this self-important nutjob just proved your point. If you refute them, the name calling begins. "ACCEPT ME AS THE SUPERIOR INTELLECT AND I WON"T CRUSH YOU! (with my fatbody)".

HAHA.

Anyway, the fact that this debate always devolves to invective with these jokers is clear enough. They have no answers except illogical and circular arguments.

The fact that IMaLOSTman wants you to accept him as your superior is proof of my point that the reason this INCOME TAX FICTION continues is because of the ego driven hubris of an "educated" pseudo -priesthood of the code.

BOW DOWN or BE BLASTED (by their fraudulent farts!)... Hold your breath Steve I smell a bad one comin'.

[funwithsafety]

IMaLOSTman wrote:

Keyboard warning please!!!

Fart blast warning please:
Hip Hip Hooray - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaOct 22, 2008 ... Hip Hip Hooray (Hooray may also be spelled and pronounced Hurrah, Hurray etc.) is a notable expression in the English speaking world. ...

Controlling others isn't the same as being in control, if you know what I mean o flatulent one! HOLD YOUR BREATH STEVE!

[Judge Roy Bean]

The typical devolution of a troll....eventually his age becomes apparent.

Bye fun guy.

[funwithsafety]

The typical devolution of a troll....eventually his age becomes apparent.

Bye fun guy.

Why, you going somewhere?

[Gregg]

What a joke you people are...

You guys can't do anything else for a living, can you? Do any of you know how to rebuild a car engine? Probably not.

You really need to be careful what you step in, you know. Since you didn't do any more research on what some of us do for a living than you did about the law, I'm sure you didn't realize that I for one work for Ford and in powertrain operations, so not only do I know how to rebuild a car engine, I have also designed automatic transmissions....

you just have bad luck in addition to being a fool.