Compensation for Services

[John J. Bulten]

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.

No, I didn't know that. That's why I gave the case "if" it was income derived from professions (which is the part you emphasized). I also explained the case if it was income derived from salaries.

[Quixote]

Quixote wrote:

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.

I understand now. Your position varies according to context. That would explain why it changes with wind direction.

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.

Wrong. That is false in any context. Actually, that is gibberish in any context. How does an "evidentiary fact" diifer from a fact? How are "evidentiary facts" relevant to reality? A legal determination that you have income, whatever that might mean in your fantasy world, is not needed for a factual determination that you have income.

A woman in my office likes to read tabloids. When asked if she believes the nonsense found in them, her usual reply is "It's true until they sue." That sounds like you, JB? Are you going to stick to your fantasies until they sue, or wait until after you're indicted?

[rachel]

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.

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.

In so many words yes!
All U.S. statutes are "civil law" and not common-law as how the U.S. Constitution is written.
I can declare myself to be under the protection of U.S. Constitution and not under "statutory" civil-law with only limited protection and subject to the code.
The civil-law "statutes" or codes are repugnant to the Constitution under Marbury v Madison.
The U.S. Constitution doesnt recognize "civil-law" it recognizes the common-law.

[Quixote]

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.

Are you completely ignorant of history, too, or just a liar?

[Duke2Earl]

Here we have it. The tax deniers all have the right and power to self decide law. Well, I guess they do until they get caught. You know, Einstein was right... insanity is doing the same experiment over and over and expecting different results.

It is absolutely and totally impossible to have a discussion about the law with those who do not recognize the concept and power of the courts.

[John J. Bulten]

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?

Personal determination is a principle going back to Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 and present in all its subsequent legislation. It's the principle that keeps the IRS from filling out the 1040 themselves as you know.

The principle that the income tax can only excise things which have excisable status is self-evidently the same as the principle that the income tax is an excise, which was stated in Eisner and many other times. One of the decisions I quoted previously also said that if it's some other indirect tax, it's irrelevant; you get the same results as calling it an excise. The other two are just the excise principle restated and do not intend to add anything to it.

[John J. Bulten]

You know, Einstein was right... insanity is doing the same experiment over and over and expecting different results.

Is that why everyone keeps attributing this to Einstein and Ben Franklin? The best Google hit was:

“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” — Sudden Death by Rita Mae Brown, Bantam Books, New York, 1983, p. 68.

http://rodgerv.wordpress.com/2007/02/10 ... t-results/

[Duke2Earl]

That would be you.... worrying about who to attribute the quote to while ignoring the fact that most of your posts are complete gibberish and that if you believe much of what you say (to the limited extent that English speakers can understand it) you are demonstrably insane, a liar and real danger to those who foolishly give you the time of day..

[rachel]

Here we have it. The tax deniers all have the right and power to self decide law. Well, I guess they do until they get caught. You know, Einstein was right... insanity is doing the same experiment over and over and expecting different results.

It is absolutely and totally impossible to have a discussion about the law with those who do not recognize the concept and power of the courts.

So why dont you please explain how the Constitution can allow someone to be forced to get a ssn and participate in Social Security?
Nobody has yet to explain this.
I'll start with you Duke...........please explain away!

[Quixote]

Personal determination is a principle going back to Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 ...

Hendrickson makes an interesting statement in CTC. He writes that the Income Tax of 1862 was "essentially voluntary". He seems to base that absurdity on the act's reporting requirement. (As with much in CTC, the actual rationale is never stated.) If one filed a statement stating one made less than $600, no tax was due. The only way to reach Hendrickson's conclusion that the tax was voluntary would be to assume that there was no requirement to tell the truth about how much income one made. That is, if lying will get you out of paying, the tax is voluntary, because only the suckers who told the truth would be subject to the tax.

[Quixote]

Here we have it. The tax deniers all have the right and power to self decide law. Well, I guess they do until they get caught. You know, Einstein was right... insanity is doing the same experiment over and over and expecting different results.

It is absolutely and totally impossible to have a discussion about the law with those who do not recognize the concept and power of the courts.

So why dont you please explain how the Constitution can allow someone to be forced to get a ssn and participate in Social Security?
Nobody has yet to explain this.
I'll start with you Duke...........please explain away!

You may be waiting a while for Duke to respond.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes ..." Art I, section 8. The constution isn't that long. Try reading it some time.

[Duke2Earl]

Quixote is correct. I don't answer nonsense questions from illiterate lunatics. I will say though that whether or not you have a social security number has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether your wages are subject to the income tax. As I said previously on another thread if you provide any services of any kind for another person (including but not limited to a business) and are compensated for those services (in money or anything else of value) that compensation, whether you call it wages or not, is income for purposes of the federal income tax.

[jg]

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?

Personal determination is a principle going back to Section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862 and present in all its subsequent legislation. It's the principle that keeps the IRS from filling out the 1040 themselves as you know.

The principle that the income tax can only excise things which have excisable status is self-evidently the same as the principle that the income tax is an excise, which was stated in Eisner and many other times. One of the decisions I quoted previously also said that if it's some other indirect tax, it's irrelevant; you get the same results as calling it an excise. The other two are just the excise principle restated and do not intend to add anything to it.

Nothing you said is a basis for limiting the scope of the income tax or for excluding payments from being included in "gross income" under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code.
The question asked what is the legal basis - that is, what in the law or in court decisions supports what you claim. It matters not what you or my opinion is when deciding how the law is to applied and enforced.

The answer, based on your response, is that there is no legal basis for "federal privilege", "excisable statuses",or "voluntary acceptance" limiting the application of the income tax. Stated another way, those are frivolous arguments.

As for "personal determination of the facts" that was tossed in referring to the idea that one can determine, by simply saying so, whether or not compensation is or is not "wages" or "gross income" when the determination is based on the facts and circumstances and not on a whim.

[Cpt Banjo]

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.

No, I didn't know that. That's why I gave the case "if" it was income derived from professions (which is the part you emphasized). I also explained the case if it was income derived from salaries.

If you didn't know that, you didn't even bother to read the opinion. Yet without reading the decision, you feel qualified to explain it. Unbelievable.

[John J. Bulten]

JG, thanks for the clarifications. As I pretty much said, the scope of the income tax is limited by the two Constitutional "qualifications" on taxes: either it must apply to subjects taxable directly, and be apportioned; or it must apply to subjects taxable indirectly, and be uniform. I've already posted, at the head of the Income thread, the cites that demonstrate that pay for work in itself is a subject taxable only directly.

I really don't know what you mean by "excluding payments from being included in 'gross income'". "Exclude" can mean "not to include in a class" (an inaction), or it can mean "to remove from a class" (an action): which one do you think I am doing? And do you mean I am "including" the payments among the sources, or among the income? And does the exclusion or inclusion operate first? If I am excluding "actively", from what category am I supposedly excluding the payments, and what is it that includes the payments in that category prior to my excluding them?

Determination of "wages" is done by comparison of the facts to the requirements of 3121 and 3401 (as well as 7701 and 7651). Determination of "gross income" is the same as determination of "income" or gain, which determination is done by reporting facts in an accounting statement based on GAAP. Since there are various ways to reflect facts in accounting documents, like most people, I choose, within my discretion, the reporting method which minimizes tax burden. I cannot redetermine the facts of past activity according to whim, but I do have discretion to choose my accounting method from within GAAP.

In sum, as long as you ask tortured questions it may take several tries to get the answer to what you are asking. Please clarify your question.

Banjo, Springer is too old for Findlaw. Got a copy?

[Cpt Banjo]

It's there.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 2&page=586

[Quixote]

Since there are various ways to reflect facts in accounting documents, like most people, I choose, within my discretion, the reporting method which minimizes tax burden. I cannot redetermine the facts of past activity according to whim, but I do have discretion to choose my accounting method from within GAAP.

You have been asked repeatedly to explain your accounting method and how it results in $0.00 income. You have failed to do so. One can only speculate as to why. And so one will.

I have concluded, based on your track record, that you refuse to discuss the all important details of your "accounting method" because they would not stand up to scrutiny. You previously alluded to the idea that your accounting method would allow you to deduct personal living expenses. Later, you denied that you believed that personal living expenses were deductable. (At least I think you denied it. Your habitual obfuscation often makes it difficult to tell what you're trying to say.) I suspect your accounting method would not lead to an accurate calculation of your income. Of course, we'll never know.

[LPC]

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.

No, that is NOT what the quotation is about.

Too bad you didn't bother to read the case, but simply rationalized from the hip.

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.

If you begin with the assumption that income and salaries are different things, then it is possible to ignore the plain words of the court (and the plain holding of the court, which upheld a tax on salaries) and find some meaning that is not there. However, if you begin without any preconceived notions, the meaning of the decision is unmistakeable.

And I'm surprised you didn't harp on the fact that Mr. Earl was a corporate officer, even though section 3401(c) did not exist in 1922.

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.

Smith was not taxed on the value of stock he purchased with money he already had. Now if you can find a case in which someone paid money for their own labor, you might have something.

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.

There is nothing in the decision about "statutory wages."

In fact, the decision is not about taxes at all.

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.

Which demonstrates that you can always substitute your preconceived notions in place of the reasoning of the court regardless of what the court says.

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").

Wages are taxed. That's the point. The court is simply confirming that, were it not for the section 104 exclusion, the amounts paid for lost wages would have been taxed as 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.

The opinion is not about "statutory wages."

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.

All you seem to be saying is that you feel free to ignore what a court says whenever it suits you.

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.

And yet you still don't seem to get the point.

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.

Compensation for services is the income itself, not a "source" of 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.

So in the tens of thousands of cases that have upheld the imposition of income taxes on "work for pay," the judge was "confused" in every case?

Has there EVER been a judge who was not "confused"? Has there ever been one judge in any case in the history of the United States who has ever held that "work for pay" is not "income" that may be taxed by Congress?

Even if you are somehow able to explain away the tens of thousands of cases in which judges have issued rulings that squarely contradict you, you are still left with the uncomfortable fact that one judge in the history of the United States has ever agreed with you.

That's like believing you can hit a home run even though you have been playing baseball for 20 years and have yet to get a hit.

But a judicial intent that transgresses the Constitution is null by operation.

Which means you want to use one lie (Congress cannot tax "work for pay") in order to support your original lie (that "work for pay" is not included in gross income).

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.

You are very close to admitting both your obstinateness and your anarchy.

[Dr. Caligari]

As I pretty much said, the scope of the income tax is limited by the two Constitutional "qualifications" on taxes: either it must apply to subjects taxable directly, and be apportioned; or it must apply to subjects taxable indirectly, and be uniform.

The only things which are taxable directly are capitations, and ad valorem taxes on property. Hylton v. United States.

Taxes on the act of transferring property are excises, not direct taxes. Knowlton v. Moore. Specifically, a tax on being paid for working is an excise. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis.

[Quixote]

In such a rarefied case every man can only review and follow truth and logic, which will resolve every dispute if patiently applied.

When were you planning on following truth and logic, instead of your whims? You have had more than enough opportunies to reveal any truth or logic behind your support for tax evasion. You've made no use of them, preferring sophistry and word games.