Compensation for Services

[LPC]

The thread got locked shortly after I posted this, and I wanted to make sure that Bulten had an opportunity to evade^H^H^H^H^H respond.

Sorry, Quixote, I generally ignore cites with "TC" in them. Intended to ask for USSC cites.

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....” Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.” C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

“[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.” Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).

“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).” United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Later in the same opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the compensation received by the taxpayers as “the wages properly due them - wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable.” 504 U.S. at 241.

"It [I.R.C. section 104, relating to compensation for personal injuries] also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say, for lost wages, which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.” O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996).

“Even if we suppose that strike benefits are made to compensate in a sense for the loss of wages, the principle of payments in compensation does not apply because the thing compensated for, the wages, had they been received, would have been included in gross income.” United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 311 (1960).

Do you have the 8th circuit context by any chance?

Sure. What Quixote cited:

“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), affirmed 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980).

The 8th Circuit opinion affirming Reading was per curiam, and the complete text is as follows:

Taxpayers brought suit in the United States Tax Court contesting a deficiency assessment of $ 2,486.45 by the Commissioner for their 1975 federal income taxes. The deficiency assessment was based on (1) disallowing itemized deductions for housing, food, schooling, and medical expenses (not otherwise deductible under 26 U.S.C. § 213) because those expenses were nondeductible personal living or family expenses under 26 U.S.C. § 262, and (2) a determination that taxpayers owed self-employment taxes on reported self-employment income.

Before the Tax Court taxpayers conceded the disallowed deductions were for living or family expenses but they contended that by disallowing deductions for those expenses Congress exceeded its authority to lay and collect income taxes under the sixteenth amendment, and that income means the gain or income received less the expense of living. The Tax Court rejected taxpayers' claims but redetermined the deficiency to be $ 2,468.29, and on January 25, 1979, the court entered its decision for the Commissioner. On appeal taxpayers claim they had no income, for income tax purposes, and on appeal they challenge the constitutionality of the tax laws and Tax Court.

The standard of review on appeal from the Tax Court is whether the Tax Court's factual findings are clearly erroneous (See, e.g., Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 291, 80 S. Ct. 1190, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1218 (1960); Smith v. Commissioner, 608 F.2d 321, at 322 (8th Cir. 1979)), and "findings of fact are not clearly erroneous unless the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Smith v. Commissioner, supra, 608 F.2d 321, at 323, Citing United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 394-95, 68 S. Ct. 525, 92 L. Ed. 746, Rehearing denied, 333 U.S. 869, 68 S. Ct. 788, 92 L. Ed. 1147 (1948). The findings of the Tax Court that all except $ 78 [footnote 1] of the claimed deductions were not expressly deductible under the 1954 Internal Revenue Code and were thus nondeductible under 26 U.S.C. § 262, and that taxpayers owed self-employment income tax on their self-employment income was correct. We have repeatedly rejected attacks on the constitutionality of the income tax laws; taxpayers claims of unconstitutionality are without merit, and thus we adopt the well reasoned decision of the Tax Court filed August 21, 1978.

It is so ordered.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1. $ 78 for state gasoline tax was not otherwise claimed as a deduction and was held by the Tax Court to be deductible as a tax expense under 26 U.S.C. § 164.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Some others:

“[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation.” Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985); United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993), cert. den. 510 U.S. 1193 (1994).

"Taxpayers' argument that compensation for labor is not constitutionally subject to the federal income tax is without merit. There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors. [Citations omitted] Furthermore, § 61(a) of the Code defines gross income as "all income from whatever source derived, including . . . compensation for services." In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term "income" includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered. Taxpayers' argument that wages received for services are not taxable as income is clearly frivolous." Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982), affirming T.C. Memo. 1981-506.

[John J. Bulten]

The Supreme Court held in the Springer case that a tax on pay-for-work was an indirect tax, so once again you make inane claims with no legal support.

OK, I looked it up. The tax seems to be the tax of 1862, which of course was a tax on "salaries of officers [etc.]" (Section 86), and another tax on "gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from [etc.]" (Section 90). Neither is a tax on pay for work in itself, one is a tax on government pay for work, the other is a tax on the gain derived from pay for work. Either can be an indirect tax, but tax on pay for work in itself cannot be. If you think a different tax law was operative please advise, as the same principles will apply.

Yes, yes, you believe YOUR income can not be taxed without apportionment. But why? Whether or not you believe YOUR income is property does not preclude the fact that YOUR income was first INCOME. Whether or not you consider YOUR "pay-for-work" a source does not preclude the fact that YOUR pay was first derived from your work/labor (which clearly meets the definition of income "taxable by excise"). The courts have not distinguished between one type of income and another. ALL income is taxable without apportionment.

No, I don't believe my income cannot be taxed without apportionment; I agree all 16th amendment income can be taxed without apportionment. But pay derived from work/labor is not taxable by excise IN ITSELF, because work is a fundamental right and can only be taxed (in itself) by apportionment, so it's not 16th amendment income. Indirect tax like the income tax can only apply to activities associated with the work, such as the voluntary acceptance of federal status. Please keep working until you understand my position, and you will be able to respond better.

I wanted to make sure that Bulten had an opportunity to evade^H^H^H^H^H respond.

Glad your sense of humor is back. And thanks for the new cites, I like to keep sharp.

Stratton's: Since there had been no individual income tax law since Pollock, and since the context is the corporate tax of 1909, it clearly refers to the earnings corporations receive by working, and to some extent exhausting, the brain and hand. These earnings are income taxable to corporations.

Lucas: The same paragraph you quote contextualizes the tax as actually on "the net income of every individual including 'income derived from wages'", and further implies that its subject is income when denying that it taxes "only income beneficially received". Since the same paragraph speaks of taxing income and taxing salaries, it cuts both ways and can support either position. (But if you'll pardon me, I think the shorthand "tax salaries" is a synecdoche.)

Smith (for my notes, the full cite is 324 US 177, 181): The benefit conferred as compensation was stock options, and Smith was taxed on the gain from that compensation (which, being derived from stock, was calculated as price difference). Smith was NOT taxed on the full price received for the stock as if it was ALL income. And just as he was only taxed on the gain portion of his stock compensation, the tax law also requires that he be only taxed on the gain portion of his normal pay. So, though they literally said to "include in taxable income" the whole "benefit", what they actually did was to include in taxable income only the gain. This suggests they mean, in context, "include in calculation of taxable income", which is not a synecdoche but a metonymy.

Lukhard: Even without the context, it is clear that if one had lost statutory "wages", one would have had gain from their replacement, because "wages" always derive gain.

Burke: Of course since Respondents stipulate the settlement awards are gross income (the next sentence after the quote is "See Brief for Respondents 9-10"), the remainder is moot. But to deal with it separately, it simply repeats that income means accessions to wealth within Congressional taxing power. By the Banana v Fruit principle, "any 'accessio[n] to wealth'" is automatically limited to the taxing power of Congress anyway, even if it were not explicitly stated. So this case also cuts both ways. And of course wages are taxable, and the TVA is hardly a private workplace.

O'Gilvie: I must be missing the point of these cites, because this one just says damages are excluded from taxation even though "wages" are taxed. The exclusion of some compensation from taxation (if it were otherwise taxable) says nothing to me about what other compensation is taxed (besides "wages").

Kaiser: This one upholds a jury finding that strike benefits were a nontaxable gift even though "wages" are gross income. Sounds fine; but there are almost too many negatives to follow Dan's logic here. Since wages are income, I suppose one might infer from this snippet that compensation in lieu of wages is also income. I don't know about that, because that's not the kind of compensation we're talking about. I do know that compensation which is pay for work and not statutory "wages" (or otherwise reported to be "income") does not derive income.

Reading: In TC the taxpayers did not seem to dispute reports of "self-employment income", and seemed to claim deductions which could only be made if Constitutional "income" had been received; so TC is free to conclude it was income. And since TC applies only to the taxpayer and year, when they say "one's gain" it only applies to Reading's gain, and the 8th Circuit adopting this "well reasoned" decision does not extend that application to anyone else. So Reading's gain might well be, because of his admissions, the entire amount for sale of labor without reductions.

Denison: The courts which state that wages are income have been cited so many times that to bring more of them would be superfluous to the point of danger.

Funk: Yes, compensation is Constitutionally subject to income tax without apportionment. Yes, 61(a) and its statutory background say that sources of income include compensation. Yes, income includes compensation among its sources, which is the only kind of inclusion that can operate given 61(a) and its statutes. And yes, wages are income.

Is it probable that every one of these judges kept the constitutional meaning of income firmly in mind while writing every sentence about income? Not hardly. Many of them were probably confused to slight or serious degrees, and may have believed that income was more expansive than I claim. But a judicial intent that transgresses the Constitution is null by operation.

In fact, since it's definite that judges err frequently (proven every time one is overturned), it's unquestionable that some judges have erred without being overturned, even in the USSC. So even if you find your silver-bullet cite (let's say Chamberlain v Krysztof or US v Hendrickson), one that makes a statement I see no way to agree with, it's just an academic exercise, as it will only show that an unconstitutional intent rests somewhere, either with me or with the judge, without answering which. In such a rarefied case every man can only review and follow truth and logic, which will resolve every dispute if patiently applied.

[Joey Smith]

So why is it that not a single credible or accredited legal or constitutional scholar come out in support of the CtC method? Is the poorly educated fool who once blew up a postal worker right, and all the very highly educated scholars wrong?

Hmmmmmmmm.

And look at the "CtC Warriors" -- not a lot of rocket scientists there. In fact, when they are not hanging out at LostHeads, you can probably find them at a pro wrasslin' meet. After all, that is just as real as the CtC junk.

[natty]

No, I don't believe my income cannot be taxed without apportionment; I agree all 16th amendment income can be taxed without apportionment.

Then you either believe:
a) your income can be taxed without apportionment,
b) your income can not be taxed with or without apportionment,
c) your income means something different than "16th amendment income", or
d) you don't know what you believe.

But pay derived from work/labor is not taxable by excise IN ITSELF, because work is a fundamental right and can only be taxed (in itself) by apportionment, so it's not 16th amendment income.

Do you understand that a tax on work/labor is different than a tax on pay derived from work/labor? In other words, a tax on income is not dependent on its source unless you are trying to revert back to the erroneous principle applied in Pollock?

Indirect tax like the income tax can only apply to activities associated with the work, such as the voluntary acceptance of federal status.

There is no such thing as "federal status", but it is fantasies like that that keep tax protester nutjobs in business.

Please keep working until you understand my position, and you will be able to respond better.

Please remove the picture of the pompous ass from your posts. It is really annoying.

[wserra]

So why is it that not a single credible or accredited legal or constitutional scholar come out in support of the CtC method?

That's where the "conspiracy" part comes in, you see.

Yes, all of them.

[Cpt Banjo]

The Supreme Court held in the Springer case that a tax on pay-for-work was an indirect tax, so once again you make inane claims with no legal support.

OK, I looked it up. The tax seems to be the tax of 1862, which of course was a tax on "salaries of officers [etc.]" (Section 86), and another tax on "gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from [etc.]" (Section 90). Neither is a tax on pay for work in itself, one is a tax on government pay for work, the other is a tax on the gain derived from pay for work. Either can be an indirect tax, but tax on pay for work in itself cannot be. If you think a different tax law was operative please advise, as the same principles will apply.

The 1862 Act taxed "annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere", which clearly includes pay-for-work. In fact, Mr. Springer's income (the tax on which was held to be an indirect tax) included pay he received for working, so not only does your theory still have no support, it is contradicted by the Court.

[webhick]

Please remove the picture of the pompous ass from your posts. It is really annoying.

1) Download Firefox (IE sucks anyway)
2) In your menu bar, click Tools
3) Then click Options
4) At the top of the dialog box, click the content icon
5) Next to "Load Images Automatically", click the Exceptions button
6) In the "Address of website" text box, type losthorizons.com
7) Click the Block button
Click the Close button
9) Click the OK button

No more annoying image. MWHAHAHA.

Edit: I forgot to note that it'll also block images from LH when you visit their site. It didn't affect me much when I did it. I can still browse their site without a problem. Your mileage may vary.

[Imalawman]

Thanks, never thought of doing that. Much better.

[wserra]

I can still browse their site without a problem.

You're lucky. Each time I do it, I can't stop laughing for days.

[Quixote]

It isn't clear to me that everyone understand's Bulten's position. That's not surprising given his reluctance to reveal his position. His position seems to be that he has no income, because his compensation must be reduced by his costs of providing labor. It is essentially the same position taken by Reading and rejected by the Tax Court and the 8th circuit. That explains why Bulten wants to ignore the Reading case.

Bulten seems to think the Reading case was decided on a point of law. I disagree. The court's holding hinged on a factual point: living expenses are not direct costs of providing labor. So even if Bulten could ignore the Reading case, he still has to prove something that is demonstrably false, that his living expenses are a direct cost of producing his labor.

[jg]

Hendrickson's conclusions (bold portions on the home page) at losthorizons.com :

So, federal capitations (taxes on normal, private-sector earnings) are prohibited...

So, the tax is an excise on the exercise of privilege, not a tax on money...

So, working, earning money, being paid, etc., in the private sector are NOT privileges...

So, the 16th Amendment has nothin' to do with nothin' about any of the foregoing...

Just so. What is called "income" in the internal revenue laws (that is, what is taxed under those laws) is NOT "money" or "receipts" or "earnings", etc.. It is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise. Thus, it is only receipts resulting from the exercise of federal privilege that are relevant to those laws and the related taxes.

There is, of course, no legal basis that only receipts from the exercise of a privilege are subject to the income tax. Apparently, the twisted basis is that the description of an excise given by the Supremes in discussing the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 (which, btw, was not an income tax) is forced into use to restrict the items that are subject to the income tax.

This are several frivolous arguments that Hendrickson employs and lumps atop the fundamental error that one self determines the facts of transactions when applying the income income tax law in his ploy to file false returns and get erroneous refunds.

[John J. Bulten]

Natty, thanks for your consideration!

Then you either believe:
a) your income can be taxed without apportionment,

Correct, my income can be taxed without apportionment.

Do you understand that a tax on work/labor is different than a tax on pay derived from work/labor? In other words, a tax on income is not dependent on its source unless you are trying to revert back to the erroneous principle applied in Pollock?

"Pay" (compensation, a source) and "income" (a derival) are not the same. Tax on labor is not fundamentally different from tax on pay, but it is fundamentally different from tax on income. But yes, tax on income is not dependent on its source, it's dependent on how much income is derived from the source. I'm still looking for the law that says compensation derives positive income even when unlinked to any taxable activity.

There is no such thing as "federal status",

Shorthand catchall for various excisable statuses such as 3401(c) employee status.

[John J. Bulten]

The 1862 Act taxed "annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere", which clearly includes pay-for-work. In fact, Mr. Springer's income (the tax on which was held to be an indirect tax) included pay he received for working, so not only does your theory still have no support, it is contradicted by the Court.

Banjo, that first part is what I said, that the tax was on income derived from sources like professions, and it was not on the sources themselves. For example, it was not a tax on property but on gains derived from property. It was not a tax on dividends as attached to their investments, but a tax on gains derived from dividends, gains which in that case happen to equal the whole value of the dividends. The all-inclusive language requires you to determine in each case what portion of the source was the gain portion, which differs from source to source.

If Springer was taxed on income derived from professions, that tax was not on pay for work, because a professions tax operates rather on the licensed nature of Springer's attorney work. The tax on income derived from pay is here called tax on income derived from salaries, not professions; and in that case each person was left to calculate their own gain from pay for work.

[jg]

It is the exercise of federal privilege, which is measured, for purposes of determining the tax, by the receipts brought in by that exercise. Thus, it is only receipts resulting from the exercise of federal privilege that are relevant to those laws and the related taxes.

I'm still looking for the law that says compensation derives positive income even when unlinked to any taxable activity...
Shorthand catchall for various excisable statuses such as 3401(c) employee status.

Indirect tax like the income tax can only apply to activities associated with the work, such as the voluntary acceptance of federal status.

Where, except in your imagination, is there any legal basis for "federal privilege", "excisable statuses", "voluntary acceptance" or "personal determination of the facts" as limiting the scope of the income tax or as excluding payments from being included in "gross income" under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code?

This language and anything similar does not ever appear in court decisions deciding the scope of the income tax or the determination of "gross income" and is certainly not in the written law.

[Randall]

Please remove the picture of the pompous ass from your posts. It is really annoying.

I second that motion.

[jg]

In fact, since it's definite that judges err frequently (proven every time one is overturned), it's unquestionable that some judges have erred without being overturned, even in the USSC. So even if you find your silver-bullet cite (let's say Chamberlain v Krysztof or US v Hendrickson), one that makes a statement I see no way to agree with, it's just an academic exercise, as it will only show that an unconstitutional intent rests somewhere, either with me or with the judge, without answering which. In such a rarefied case every man can only review and follow truth and logic, which will resolve every dispute if patiently applied.

So we return to the gist- that no matter what any court says I can self decide if, and how, the law applies to me.

You may self decide; but you do so in direct opposition to the Constitution which grants judicial power to the courts.
You may self decide; but if you act on those decisions you can and will be subject to the penalties and enforcement provided for in the law.
You may act on your self decided law; but you do so at the risk of your (and your family's) wealth and well being.

Of course, if each of us could have judicial power the law would then be a shape shifting indeterminate nullity without any meaning.

But why stop at tax law? Why do we not each drive the roads in any manner we choose? Why do we not each just be a law unto ourselves? That is the logical extension of those that would ignore the judicial system established by the Constitution.

Tax deniers pretend to be for the principles upon which the country was founded; but do not accept that judicial power rests solely with the courts.

[John J. Bulten]

It isn't clear to me that everyone understand's Bulten's position. That's not surprising given his reluctance to reveal his position.

That sounds like projection, because sly Quixote so rarely reveals a position himself. My position is simply CtC, and every tax position espoused at losthorizons.com excluding its forum. Pete and I are no slackers in stating our position.

In this context, my position is I have negligible income because there is no body of evidentiary facts which support any legal determination of significant income. There is a single fact which, without context, might so support: a W-3 jurat affirming that I and other folks made "wages". But this disputed affirmation is mistaken because completely counter to whether the other undisputed facts fit the definitions of statutory "wages".

The undertone question "why didn't your compensation derive income equal to its value?" contains a faulty premise, that compensation always derives income equal to its value. As Dan has pointed out, some compensation, such as stock options, derives income equal to only a portion of its value, the gain portion.

Any similarity between my and Reading's view of cost of labor is incidental to the difference between their admissions of income and the evidence in my case of only negligible income. No view of cost of labor is necessary to explain why the evidence is what it is, but I have provided one just for completeness. But since Quixote thinks the cost of labor was the hinge of either court's decision, and that cost of labor is a factual matter, I'm interested in the explanation of that.

[Duke2Earl]

All I can say is if this person actually did spend years researching the law then he has well and truely wasted his time for he has learned less than nothing.

[Cpt Banjo]

The 1862 Act taxed "annual gains, profits, or income of every person residing in the United States, whether derived from any kind of property, rents, interest, dividends, salaries, or from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere", which clearly includes pay-for-work. In fact, Mr. Springer's income (the tax on which was held to be an indirect tax) included pay he received for working, so not only does your theory still have no support, it is contradicted by the Court.

Banjo, that first part is what I said, that the tax was on income derived from sources like professions, and it was not on the sources themselves.

You're partly right -- the tax was on income derived from any employment carried on, which obviously included pay for work.

It was not a tax on dividends as attached to their investments, but a tax on gains derived from dividends, gains which in that case happen to equal the whole value of the dividends. The all-inclusive language requires you to determine in each case what portion of the source was the gain portion, which differs from source to source.

This gibberish makes no sense.

If Springer was taxed on income derived from professions, that tax was not on pay for work, because a professions tax operates rather on the licensed nature of Springer's attorney work. The tax on income derived from pay is here called tax on income derived from salaries, not professions; and in that case each person was left to calculate their own gain from pay for work.

You know as well as I that Springer's occupation played no role whatsoever in the Court's decision; it was so completely irrelevant that the Court never mentioned what it was. Had Springer been a ditch digger the result of the case would have been the same, because the Court would still have ruled that the tax was not a direct tax. You might as well argue that the ruling in Springer applies only to a taxpayer whose name begins with "S".

[John J. Bulten]

Tax deniers pretend to be for the principles upon which the country was founded; but do not accept that judicial power rests solely with the courts.

We were founded by tax deniers. The Boston Tea Party and the Battle of Lexington and Concord were proudly fought by those who rejected the authority of their government to enact certain taxes.

So we return to the gist- that no matter what any court says I can self decide if, and how, the law applies to me.

Yes, this is the concept of civil disobedience, the principle (which our founders used) that it is possible the government may be wrong and, when one is thoroughly convicted of this wrong, that one should disobey the government in that limited case. (Of course one is responsible to self-decide rightly and to deal with the consequences of self-deciding wrongly. And BTW I don't have any issues on which I am near practicing civil disobedience at this time.) The alternative to the principle of civil disobedience is the principle of absolute monarchy, that one should always obey the government without exception, which is the principle our founders rejected.

You may self decide; but you do so in direct opposition to the Constitution which grants judicial power to the courts.

Not at all. Are courts immune from correction of abuse of their power?

You may self decide; but if you act on those decisions you can and will be subject to the penalties and enforcement provided for in the law. You may act on your self decided law; but you do so at the risk of your (and your family's) wealth and well being.

If I'm obeying the law, I have nothing to fear from the law. If I'm disobeying a correct interpretation of the law, I have everything to fear. But if I'm disobeying an incorrect interpretation of the law, then the law is my refuge from the error. If the law should become contradictory at a low level (a Catch-22 where a judge truly rules in contradiction to statutory or fundamental law), I cannot take refuge in such law, but only in the higher laws like the Constitution and the still higher principles from which that law is drawn, known to all honest men; but even there I remain secure.

Wealth and well being, and misapplied penalties and enforcement, were nothing to this country's founders. Sorry you don't understand that. Every week Pete's newsletter ends:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." —Samuel Adams, Architect of the American Revolution