http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewt ... 3060#13060Of course there are Pollock and Brushaber for the most prominent to be noted. The cases do not have to have to specifically be about “personal income”, because the IRC does not prescribe a separate definition for such class of tax, regardless the same rules apply, it is the same subject matter and scope of law. Ergo, the ‘income tax’, is the ‘income tax’, period. The terms within the IRC depend mostly upon established legal definitions which are found in legal dictionaries, that is your supporting evidence. As well as legal traditions, statutory construction, etc. You want to better understand something you always go to the source and to get to the source you rollback to the past, the truth is always found in the past… deeply rooted and entrenched. However, pristine its condition will remain.
Weston? Weston? Earth calling Weston.... Are you there? Weston, pay attention. The topic of the day is Cracking the Code. Look for a U.S. federal court case where a taxpayer made Peter Eric Hendrickson's arguments about the U.S. federal income tax and the court ruled in the taxpayer's favor on that issue. Stop beating around the bush, Weston.
OK, I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. Make up your own joke.Now mind you going off such illogical findings in the process of destroying your own so-called evidence, you have simultaneously destroyed their evidence as well. For if you have found that your own cited cases have become invalidated because there are none which apply, the effect would twofold, thereby destroying those cases which were used to refute your own.
Weston, you should really leave Weston World once in a while and spend some time at Quatloos.Being that you now consider yourself a staunch legal mind, do you not wonder why the IRS and Quackloss depend so much on citing lower court cases and tax court cases, as if they mean anything or have some effect on the mass populous? Surely, if there were any kernel of truth to their contentions they could muster some really nice SCOTUS cases for us all, or hell how about a CRS Report now and then right?
And Weston: Aside from the fact that we cite Supreme Court cases over and over and over and over and over and over..... My response would be: Why do you cite the same old cases we cite -- cases like Brushaber? Neither the Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever ruled in favor of the arguments that Hendrickson makes.
Do you ever ponder why tax protesters keep citing these old mining and railroad company cases, when the courts in those cases did not rule the way you say they ruled, Weston?No, no the best they can do is twist the context of Pollock and Brushaber and bark aloud at the moon as to how we are depending on outdated court cases that are almost 100-years old! As if the age of the case itself matters a bit, 100, 200, 500 years old, unless overturned, the age of the case, it matters not! BTW, do you never ponder why so many of these cases have to do with mining and railroad companies?
Again, I have no idea where Weston zoomed off to on this one. Make up your own joke.Also, why can’t they properly address the issue from President Truman’s letter to Congress, about how the rapid increase in taxypayer’s in the early 1940’s, prior to that it was less then 8% annually, (usually being between 3-4% annually)?
I count 24 specific references to the phrase "compensation for services" in The Tax Protester FAQ by Daniel B. Evans. Weston, maybe a little more lucidity in your complaint would be helpful, here.In the greater perspective, debating topics such as the meaning or purpose “includes”, the value of ones labor v. the exchange, the correct usage of IRS Pubs, Manuals, Forms, et al are of little consequence and serve as more of a distraction than anything else. The meat and potatoes of the argument is, was, and always has been ‘compensation for services’ and ‘earned income’. Does Dan’s FAQ even address such issues? [I just glossed through and was UTL, but I faithfully doubt he does.]
Ah, the old "everything that comes in" argument. Ever notice how tax protesters love this phrase? Yet you almost never see it used by the tax professionals.The logic of the “tax professions” regarding income means everything that comes is one of fallacy.
OK, you're off into the weeds, again Weston. The topic is Cracking the Code, remember? Cracking the Code. Can we say this now, all together???: Just go look for a case where a taxpayer made Peter Hendrickson's arguments and the court ruled that those arguments were correct.For if that was the true intention our Nation’s Framers [to tax "everything that comes in"], they would have simply created one category of taxation with several classes therein. As there would be no need, nor even any application for the Direct Category of taxation, (they could have set the apportionment requirement for Representatives without the reference to any categories of taxation, just as they referred to Direct Taxes without any specific reference to Representative in Article I, Section 9). If a capitation tax is a tax in consideration of your labor, the only thing an income tax can thereafter exist as is a tax in consideration of your profit from your labor.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to a brick wall? Or maybe just a brick? Weston! Weston! Snap out of it, buddy! Just go look for a case where a taxpayer made Peter Hendrickson's arguments and the court ruled that those arguments were correct.[Direct Taxes – capitation and other direct taxes (hence more than one, i.e. assessments, head, personal, subsidy, local, and poll)]
[Indirect Taxes – aid, tribute, franchise, gabel, privilege, license, inheritance, legacy, succession, tallage, transfer, toll, sinking fund, duties, occupational, imposts, excises, estate, detraction, and the ‘income tax’ (which was another class of tax born at a later date)]
See more about tax classes here: http://defendindependence.org/whatistaxation.html
Weston! Weston! Snap out of it!Similarly we could just as well compare the current misapplication of the federal government’s right to establish a militia for the defense of the county, by making it appear that the SSS process is for the purposes of the “armed forces” to fight offensively or more aptly proactively in foreign lands. Also we could compare the complete discarding by the states of Article I, Section 10, Clause I by the Legislature of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 regarding our Nation’s monetary policies.
I'm gonna go get another cup of caffeine-laden bean sludge derivative, and I need one bad. Just watch him while I'm gone, and make sure he doesn't hurt himself.And would could even compare the Legislatures abuse of their taxing powers, being that taxation is to be conducted for specific and defined purposes those being: “to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”.
It just doesn't ever get any better, does it, Weston?Regarding Mr. Dan’s FAQ, that monstrosity only pertains to actual frivolous arguments and no others. CtC is not listed officially as a frivolous argument and it cannot be, because the moment it is the entire IRC becomes unconstitutional, so far as it related to Subtitles A and C.
No. It doesn't.Perhaps you should have a reading from the Annotated Constitution in regards to the XVI Amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/ ... amdt16_hd8
Thank you for sharing that with us, Weston.If that does not clear up your misconceptions than I do not know what will. Though if you are looking for a small school project to grope all over here you can start by proving these cases wrong:
http://defendindependence.org/scotuscases.html
Now, go look for a U.S. federal court case where a taxpayer made Peter Eric Hendrickson's arguments about the U.S. federal income tax and the court ruled in the the taxpayer's favor on that issue.
