CTC questions answered

[Gregg]

Well, sometimes you just feel like helping people, so today whilst reading the Loserhead forum came across some questions and thought I'd provide some answers….

I know that there are some members of this forum who have encountered similar results after filing a CTC return, only to receive a notice from the IRS that they have been slapped with a 5K penalty for a frivolous return.

With the wealth of knowledge and expertise on this subject and the experience of many of you who have gone through this ordeal, I would appreciate any information or help that you can shed on how to properly handle this situation.

They take cash, checks, Visa and Mastercard.

Can someone help me get my mind around the compensation for services claim that the IRS uses to claim we (private sector) have gross income....

You worked, someone paid, it's called "Gross Income" , see also "Wages, Tips, and Other Compensation"

My friend (and CtC warrior) brought this to my attention the other day. We currently have ~$9,850,000.00 refunded back to warriors. And we have 650 people with scanned checks.

650 doesn't seem like a lot. (Or does it?)

Now, I'm not knocking Pete, but I wonder what the real number is. This friend of mine sent in his scanned State about 8 months ago and his Federal about 7 months ago. It is not posted on there. I send in my scanned state in January 09, and it is not posted on there yet.

How many other people out there are in the same boat as my friend and myself. What is the real number?

Well, a good number of the ones posted have been "corrected" so they really don't count anymore. At least a few are in various stages of collection/litigation so scratch those. A few will happily slip through the cracks and go un noticed, those are genuine wins in the same since that getting away with robbing a liquor store is. Of the ones that the Government has contested, exactly ZERO, although all of them of which I'm aware have managed to avoid actual prison time, but Pete is blazing the trail in the criminal courts as we speak, so maybe we can get some more exposure there real soon.

I would like to refinance my mortgage. I could save 2% in interest. The problem is all the mortgage companies want to see your previous year tax return. Since I filed a correct return they would see my "income" as a few thousand dollars in investment income. Despite the fact that I have perfect credit, have never missed a mortgage payment in my life, those I've talked to say I wouldn't be able to get a loan without showing my tax return and would likely be declined for lack of "income".

Anybody else running into this? Any pointers to mortgage companies that will give loans without tax returns? Anybody with a spare $163,000 who would like to give me a private loan at 4%. That's better than you'll get in the stock market these days.

Another thought is maybe I should just go ahead and apply and show them my correct return and try to educate them. Or are they just going to report me to the IRS?

The problem you're gonna run into here Sparky, is that the bank is going to e a little leary of lending money to someone who is VERY LIKELY going to be having federal tax lien problems very soon. It is their experience (and a lot of institutions agree) that people who have gone a few years without paying income tax are either

A) too poor to afford house payments
B) very likely due to have tax problems and have their assets levied

neither one o these groups are people that bankers like to do business with.

I was trying to figure out where the IRS gets the audacity to question my 1040, which is a sworn statement, while preferring to cling to the hearsay evidence of a Form W-2 from my payer which merely alleges I earned wages.

If I understand correctly what the W-3 is, it is a statement by my Payer to the IRS which backs up and transmits the W-2 to the IRS and Social Security Administration. The W-3 is a sworn document, signed under penalties of perjury.

Is THIS where my payer and I are put on equal footing by the fact that both of us have a sworn statement about my earnings? And both of us swearing to opposite testimony? Of course the IRS will choose to believe the payer and not me--they keep my money that way.

You got it! And guess what, by definition, one of you is committing PERJURY, another serious felony. One of you says they didn't get paid any wages, the other side has cancelled checks with your signature on them. I'll leave it to you who that one is likely to turn out.

Funny thing about my case is they accepted my CTC returns as filed, creating zero balances for many past years... then turned around and hit me for a $5,000 penalty PER SIGNATURE on a couple years, and a single penalty on others. I do not, and will not understand how they will accept my CTC returns, create zero balances... and then charge me a penalty for the same return!! So now the alleged balance due is only the penalty and accrued interest on the penalties

Well, you have to pay the penalties, and they'll be wanting to discuss the taxes with you, too, eventually. Before they get to that they'll give you a chance to come to your senses and file a valid tax return. For now, though, the penalties interest tab is running.

I have some friends who take bills, like an IRS demand, and convert it to a money order. They claim it works, anyone have any experience with this?

We've got a jailfull of them

I just received my 12th letter from IRS (in a span of 14 months now) giving me 30 days to respond or they will fine me $5000 for a frivolous return. It seems to me they are looking to save face and get anything, in this case the 5K fine, before they refund all the erroneously held taxes I have re-filed for. Does it make any sense to not respond and let them have the 5K in hopes that this would facilitate a faster refund?

You are retarded, aren't you?

Really, you weren't dropped on your head as a baby, someone wound up and threw you.

got my first 3176 and posted about it in"looking for solutions".Kensei gave me a good place to find an appropiate response.And I did find one.And I know their will be a series of 3175etc... and likely with notice fo intent to levy.But what I do not hear of is victories aginst the 3176.This now seems to be occuring at a faster pace and I believe people are getting more of them.After I send a response if I have a victory I will certainly post it.All I have running around in my head is section this,section that,section 3401,3121 6703,a bunch of fricking numbers all jumbled up in my brain.But now I am asking,why am I doing all this?

That should have been your "Aha" moment. You haven't heard of any victories because there hasn't been one. Not a one. Really.

0-fer
Nada
zilch



that's all for today, but I encourage anyone else who sees a question from over the hedge to post it here with a quick answer.

[Nikki]

No meaning have your answers.

Light has come upon the LoserHeads.

A new leader they have to walk them through the dark side of the Tax Court.

Found they have is ROBERT CLARKSON

Yes, observers, the two new thrusts of the LoserHeads are The Great One and Jurisdictionary.

CtCers have been surfing and have found new sources of silver bullets

[.]

$5,000 penalty PER SIGNATURE on a couple years, and a single penalty on others

So, that's at least $30K in frivolous penalties. There was another idiot a month or two ago that had rung up $30K. I wonder what the total membership of the Crackhead $30K in Penalties Alone Club is up to.

If nothing else these dolts reduce the budget deficit. And to think that each of them manage to perform their magic with only the aid of a $25 "book."

[Tax Protester]

You worked, someone paid, it's called "Gross Income" , see also "Wages, Tips, and Other Compensation"

No, for most it is actually called pay, salary, [labor] wages, remuneration, emolument, commission, or compensation [for labor]. Legally, ‘gross income’, has a defined scope. Seriously, ask the IRS why they have such a hard time properly quoting the 16th Amendment, (they just can’t seem to get it right, since at least 1999).

Income [or for that matter, compensation for services] as it is meant within the Code is not the same as it is meant within the English language. You seem so willing to overlook the definition of what a capitation is and in doing so you expose the fatal flaw in the argument you uphold as a fact.

See in your methodology you claim the ‘income tax’, which came after the U.S. Constitution and not cited therein, serves as a catch all class of taxation… Therefore, this means that (1) the Forefathers overlooked the beneficial need for the authority to tax a mans labor in some facet or form [dang did they learn nothing from the Articles of Confederation?], (2) since the inception of the ‘income tax’ no other categories of Indirect Taxes [imposts, duties, and excises] are required because the ‘income tax’ can simply just morph itself to whatever the Legislature wishes it to be, and (3) the inclusion of the ‘from whatever source derived’ language within the 16th and Section 61 would not be required because it serves to only be redundant and confusing. Now as you can see your contentions are patently absurd.

Now besides the obvious, you still miss the point. As it is not the numerations themselves, which are to be taxed. It is what derives from those numerations, which is to be taxed. That which is derived from the numerations, thereafter serve as the measuring stick for determining the tax due. i.e. The act of merely earning pay does not derived a thing [because it is the source and the source cannot derive from itself] until that pay starts earning interest in a saving account or earning gains and profits from playing the stock market; it is thereafter that ‘income’ begets deriving from ones pay, salary, [labor] wages, remuneration, emolument, commission, or compensation [for labor]. See, quite simple when you think about it.

XVI Amendment - The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

§ 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

You got it! And guess what, by definition, one of you is committing PERJURY, another serious felony. One of you says they didn't get paid any wages, the other side has cancelled checks with your signature on them. I'll leave it to you who that one is likely to turn out

.

No actually the W-3 goes to the SSA not the IRS, the W-2 goes to the IRS. Besides that ask your works designated CPA what class of tax they are deducting taxes for when they withhold from your pay and they will have no clue what you are asking them about. I know from experience, Payroll Manager, CPA, and attorney, none of them had any idea what I was addressing them about… they looked at me like I was a space alien, seriously.

Well, you have to pay the penalties, and they'll be wanting to discuss the taxes with you, too, eventually. Before they get to that they'll give you a chance to come to your senses and file a valid tax return. For now, though, the penalties interest tab is running.

Yea just like getting a credit card bill in the mail for something you know you never charged on it, right?

Nope, in fact quite opposite they do not want to discuss taxes with you at all. They only want to discuss the penalty they assigned to you… they are entirely unable to offer any documentation of how they determined the penalty to begin with. They can’t assess a penalty with first having something to compare the validity of the penalty to. Meaning that if questioned on how they know what you have attested to is true or false and to what degree, they are unable to answer. Such tact would never stand in a just court.

Additionally, just the same as including a W-2 along with a 1040 though without performing the self-assessment on the 1040, does not relieve one of their requirement to perform the actual self-assessment; the mere receipt of a W-2 by the IRS does not automatically make other forms submitted to the IRS invalid or ‘frivolous’. It is called Due Process, everybody has the right to be heard, at least in the eyes of the law. It is even included in the Bill of Rights, perhaps you have a look. You have even bothered read it?

You are retarded, aren't you?

Really, you weren't dropped on your head as a baby, someone wound up and threw you.

Darn it, you could not make it more than two replies before throwing another petty insult out there could you!

That should have been your "Aha" moment. You haven't heard of any victories because there hasn't been one. Not a one. Really.

0-fer
Nada
zilch

Perhaps you should do some more reading… perhaps? Several individuals have killed the IRS’ illegal pursuits… in fact there are only a few have actually reported being levied and those individuals seem to had not bothered replying to their notices and letters and some even refused to pickup their NOIL from the USPS.

P.S. Hiding under a rock is always a bad idea... unless you are employed in the Tax Profession of course.

that's all for today, but I encourage anyone else who sees a question from over the hedge to post it here with a quick answer.

By all means, that is just a stupendous suggestion!

[Tax Protester]

No meaning have your answers.

Light has come upon the LoserHeads.

A new leader they have to walk them through the dark side of the Tax Court.

Found they have is ROBERT CLARKSON

Yes, observers, the two new thrusts of the LoserHeads are The Great One and Jurisdictionary.

CtCers have been surfing and have found new sources of silver bullets

Nope, not true at all. CtC enlightened individuals know that the Tax Court is not applicable to them… except of course for when it actually is under law; however, this is never presumed by default.

[Tax Protester]

If nothing else these dolts reduce the budget deficit. And to think that each of them manage to perform their magic with only the aid of a $25 "book."

I know the irony of it all, right?

[LPC]

Legally, ‘gross income’, has a defined scope.

Gross income is defined by section 61(a) as meaning "all income from whatever source derived," specifically including "compensation for services."

If you think that the money you receive for working is not within that "defined scope," you'll need to provide a coherent explanation and some evidence. Snarky babble won't cut it.

[The Operative]

You worked, someone paid, it's called "Gross Income" , see also "Wages, Tips, and Other Compensation"

No, for most it is actually called pay, salary, [labor] wages, remuneration, emolument, commission, or compensation [for labor]. Legally, ‘gross income’, has a defined scope. Seriously, ask the IRS why they have such a hard time properly quoting the 16th Amendment, (they just can’t seem to get it right, since at least 1999).

Income [or for that matter, compensation for services] as it is meant within the Code is not the same as it is meant within the English language. You seem so willing to overlook the definition of what a capitation is and in doing so you expose the fatal flaw in the argument you uphold as a fact.

No, it is you who do not understand the meaning of common words and the meaning of those words within the code. No court, whose opinion has an effect on the interpretation of law, has ever held that the money a person receives from another in exchange for labor performed at the direction of another is not income.

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. We recognize that the tax laws bear heavily on all persons engaged in gainful activity, and recognize the right of a taxpayer to minimize his taxes by all lawful means. But Romero here is not attempting to minimize his taxes; instead he is attempting willfully and intentionally to shift his burden to his fellow workers by the use of semantics.

Also, it is not the IRS that has a hard time quoting the 16th amendment. It is you, and other tax protesters like you, that have a hard time listening and/or comprehending.

See in your methodology you claim the ‘income tax’, which came after the U.S. Constitution and not cited therein, serves as a catch all class of taxation… Therefore, this means that (1) the Forefathers overlooked the beneficial need for the authority to tax a mans labor in some facet or form [dang did they learn nothing from the Articles of Confederation?], (2) since the inception of the ‘income tax’ no other categories of Indirect Taxes [imposts, duties, and excises] are required because the ‘income tax’ can simply just morph itself to whatever the Legislature wishes it to be, and (3) the inclusion of the ‘from whatever source derived’ language within the 16th and Section 61 would not be required because it serves to only be redundant and confusing. Now as you can see your contentions are patently absurd.

The first sentence of the above paragraph is not correct. I, nor anyone here, claim that an income tax serves as a catch all class of taxation. Therefore, the entire rest of your paragraph is based on a false premise and is also wrong.

Now besides the obvious, you still miss the point. [SNIP]

The only obvious thing is that you miss the point.

[Famspear]

The Protester wrote:

No actually the W-3 goes to the SSA not the IRS, the W-2 goes to the IRS. Besides that ask your works designated CPA what class of tax they are deducting taxes for when they withhold from your pay and they will have no clue what you are asking them about. I know from experience, Payroll Manager, CPA, and attorney, none of them had any idea what I was addressing them about… they looked at me like I was a space alien, seriously.

No, actually, both the W-2 and and W-3 go to SSA. The information from the W-2s, etc., is thereafter transmitted from SSA to IRS.

The reason the payroll managers, CPAs, attorneys, etc. will look at you like you are a space alien is that you do not know what you are talking about. Seriously.

This is a recurring theme with you people. You profess to believe that your version of the law is correct, and that the experts do not know the law. You are wrong.

[Famspear]

Protester wrote:

Nope, in fact quite opposite they do not want to discuss taxes with you at all. They only want to discuss the penalty they assigned to you… they are entirely unable to offer any documentation of how they determined the penalty to begin with.

Unfortunately, "they" are not legally required to offer documentation that will satisfy you. Maybe that's unfair, but that's the state of the law.

They can’t assess a penalty with first having something to compare the validity of the penalty to.

Meaningless statement.

Meaning that if questioned on how they know what you have attested to is true or false and to what degree, they are unable to answer. Such tact would never stand in a just court.

"They" are not legally required to answer your questions as to how they "know" what you have attested to is true or false.

Regarding a "just" court -- your personal view -- or my personal view, for that matter -- of what a "just" court should be is not necessarily the final word on the subject, nor would such a view properly constitute the contours of a court of "justice." Justice, like beauty, is to some extent a variable depending on the eye of the beholder. So, we are left with the maxim that courts interpret the law -- and we hope that in the interpretation of law, justice will be served.

In short, nobody cares whether you believe such a "tact" would stand in a "just" court.

[Nikki]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Pellentesque viverra placerat purus. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis lacinia porttitor ante. Donec ipsum. Etiam est mauris, eleifend eu, aliquet nec, dapibus eu, turpis. Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Pellentesque luctus, leo eu pretium lobortis, tellus lacus porta nibh, et posuere nisi tellus non ligula. Praesent porta. In ac mi eget enim sagittis fermentum. Nam blandit, leo id pellentesque aliquet, ipsum lectus fermentum lacus, a aliquam sem lectus non libero. Sed venenatis elit nec eros. Fusce tellus lacus, fermentum non, elementum vitae, bibendum sit amet, lacus. Nullam tortor metus, suscipit scelerisque, rhoncus pulvinar, fringilla sit amet, metus. Donec nisi tellus, pharetra eu, sodales eu, suscipit vitae, mauris.

Proin metus dolor, sollicitudin quis, cursus sed, venenatis gravida, ante. Suspendisse potenti. Phasellus id elit. Sed bibendum neque non tellus. Donec id tortor. Sed eget ligula. Nam lectus velit, vehicula non, egestas quis, ultricies ac, mi. Cras et enim. Nullam accumsan. Donec tincidunt odio eget sapien. Donec malesuada, ligula vel sagittis vehicula, augue est facilisis enim, in fermentum dolor lectus eu turpis. Pellentesque porta justo sit amet urna. Nulla vitae lorem.

Vivamus condimentum, tortor ut dapibus tempor, nibh magna accumsan purus, sed gravida erat enim eget ipsum. Etiam scelerisque congue mauris. Suspendisse nulla. Integer libero leo, adipiscing eu, vehicula ac, tristique in, ante. Nullam at sem. Fusce risus magna, scelerisque vel, suscipit in, lacinia a, sapien. Nulla facilisi. Nulla ullamcorper, justo sit amet suscipit dignissim, ligula enim aliquam magna, ut mollis libero mauris quis tellus. Mauris ultrices, neque facilisis tempus convallis, ante nibh ornare massa, eget sagittis mauris tellus ac dolor. Curabitur bibendum sollicitudin libero. Aliquam quam lectus, commodo sit amet, sodales a, mollis sed, sapien. Cras at felis. In nisi. Curabitur massa nulla, malesuada porttitor, congue in, placerat ut, augue. Nulla tincidunt sapien ac nunc tristique volutpat. Aliquam tempus, felis id eleifend scelerisque, enim urna tristique lacus, in hendrerit risus urna eget enim.

Fusce quam. Duis nulla. Aliquam id urna. Nulla facilisi. Vestibulum et dolor ut justo elementum sagittis. Etiam tempor lacus in diam. Quisque metus nunc, dignissim vitae, luctus vel, ullamcorper sit amet, turpis. Vestibulum non ligula. Sed malesuada. Mauris semper ligula sed nisi. Sed ultricies, tellus vitae varius suscipit, nunc mi rhoncus diam, non lobortis nulla purus vel ante. Nunc vestibulum. Proin arcu tellus, pretium eget, aliquam malesuada, lacinia a, enim.

Mauris nibh. Sed pretium tempus turpis. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Etiam scelerisque risus. Suspendisse blandit cursus arcu. Suspendisse vulputate felis vitae tortor. Curabitur neque. Maecenas imperdiet nibh sit amet dolor. In hendrerit accumsan lacus. Duis ultrices molestie leo. Nunc bibendum. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Morbi adipiscing arcu ut ligula. Proin luctus dolor non nulla. Aliquam non elit. Curabitur tempus. Sed lectus. Nunc semper nulla sit amet est euismod pulvinar. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut at eros non augue pulvinar gravida.

Oh NOW I Understand your point.

[Tax Protester]

Gross income is defined by section 61(a) as meaning "all income from whatever source derived," specifically including "compensation for services."

Specifically, for 26 USC § 61(a)(1) – ‘Compensation for services’ and 26 USC § 32(c)(2)(A) – ‘Earned income’: “The term “compensation” means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position.”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(c) – ‘Employee’: “The term “employee” means any person temporarily or permanently in a position.”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(a) – ‘Wages’: “The term “service” means the broadest division of related offices and employments.”.

“The term “position” means a specific civilian office or employment, whether occupied or vacant, in a department other than the following: Offices or employments in the Postal Service; teachers, librarians, school attendance officers, and employees of the community center department under the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; officers and members of the Metropolitan police, the fire department of the District of Columbia, and the United States park police; and the commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard, the Pubic Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”

“The term “department” means an executive department of the United States Government, a governmental establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government which is not a part of an executive department, the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution.”

See: H.R. 8928, the ‘Classification Act of 1923’ [CHAP. 265, 42 Stat. 1488, March 4, 1923, Public, No. 516].

If you think that the money you receive for working is not within that "defined scope," you'll need to provide a coherent explanation and some evidence. Snarky babble won't cut it.

The money I make from working only becomes within that defined scope upon the engagement of a taxable activity (only the gains and profits realized), merely earning a living is not of itself a taxable activity, if Congress wanted that to be the case they would have implemented an apportioned tax on all by way of a Capitation Tax Act of some flavor, though they did not, now did they. However, done and done:

Capitation Tax - A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc. It is a very ancient kind of tribute, and answers to what the Latins called "tributum," by which taxes on persons are distinguished from taxes on merchandise, called "vectigalia".
Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Edition

“The taxes which, it is intended, should fall indifferently upon every different species of revenue, are capitation taxes.”… “Capitation taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary. The state of a man’s fortune varies from day to day, and without an inquisition more intolerable than any tax, and renewed at least once every year, can only be guessed at.”… “Capitation taxes, so far as they are levied upon the lower ranks of people, are direct taxes upon the wages of labour, and are attended with all the inconveniences of such taxes.”…

“In the capitation which has been levied in France without any interruption since the beginning of the present century, the highest orders of people are rated according to their rank by an invariable tariff; the lower orders of people, according to what is supposed to be their fortune, by an assessment which varies from year to year.”
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V. CH. II, Art. IV;

“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.”
…
”Footnote: If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax.”

“Hitherto the previous year’s income has been used as the basis. But the basis, as well as the rates, may be changed at any time.”
…
“Footnote: If income is merely the measure of the tax, it is clearly quite immaterial whether the income that is adopted as a measure is that of the past, or the present, or of the future, provided only that it is practically ascertainable.”

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE, 78th Congress, 1st Session, March 27, 1943, Individual Income Tax Collection Bill of 1943, pp. 2578, 2579, 2580; ENTITLED: “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount”;

“An excise tax is a tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity or any various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee. In other words, it is a tax on doing something to property or on the privilege of holding some property or doing some act, not a tax on the property itself. The tax is not on the property directly, but rather it is a tax on the transaction.”

“When a court refers to an income tax as being in the nature of an excise, it is merely stating that the tax is not on the property itself, but rather it is a fee for the privilege of receiving gain from the property. The tax is based upon the amount of the gain, not the value of the property.”
Congressional Research Service (CRS) Revised Report, “Frequently Asked Questions Concerning The Federal Income Tax” by John R. Luckey, Legislative Attorney Library of Congress, 92-303A (1992);

INCOME.
The return in money from one’s business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profit, or private revenue. Braun’s Appeal, 105 Pa. 415; People v. Davenport, 30 Hun (N. Y.) 177; In re Slocum, 169 N. Y. 153, 62 N. E. 130; Waring v. Savannah, 60 Ga. 99.

“Income” is the gain which proceeds from labor, business, or property; commercial revenue, or receipts of any kind, including wages or salaries, the proceeds of agriculture or commerce, the rent of houses, or the return on investments; or the amount of money coming to a person or corporation within a specified time, whether as payment for services, interest, or profit from investment, its usual synonyms being “gain,” “profit,” “revenue.” Trefry v. Putnam, 116 N. E. 904, 907, 227 Mass. 522, L. R. A. 1917F, 806. Something derived from property, labor, skill, ingenuity, or sound judgment, or from two or more in combination, or from some other productive source. Stony Brook R. Corporation v. Boston & M. R. R., 260 Mass. 379, 157 N. E. 607, 610, 53 A. L. R. 700. An increase of wealth, out of which money may be taken to satisfy the imposition laid thereon. Brown v. Long, 242 Mass. 242, 136 N. E. 188, 139.

“Income” is the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined; something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and dispose. Eisner v. Macomber, 40 S. Ct. 189, 252 U.S. 189, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570; Goodrich v. Edwards, 41 S. Ct. 390, 255 U.S. 527, 65 L. Ed. 758; Noel v. Parrot (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 669, 672. Money or that which is convertible into money. State v. Wisconsin Tax Commission, 187 Wis. 539, 204 N. W. 481, 482.

“Income” means that which comes in or is received from any business or investment of capital, without reference to the outgoing expenditures; while “profits” generally means the gain which is made upon any business or investment when both receipts and payments are taken into account.

“Income” is used in common parlance and in law in contradistinction to “capital.” 81 C. J. 397. Income, when not derived from personal exertion, is something produced by capital without impairing such capital, the property being left intact, and nothing can be called income which takes away from the property itself. Sargent Land Co. v. Von Baumbach (D. C.) 207 F. 423, 430. Income is something which has gone out of or issued from capital, leaving the capital unimpaired and intact. Gavit v. Irwin (D. C.) 275 F. 643, 645.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY - 3rd EDITION

INCOME TAX.
A tax on the yearly profits arising from property, professions, trades, and offices. 2 Steph. Comm. 573. Levi v. Louisville, 97 Ky. 394, 30 S. W. 973, 28 L. R. A. 480; Parker v. Insurance Co.,. 42 La. Ann. 428, 70 So. 599. An income tax is not levied upon property, funds, or profits, but upon the right of an individual or corporation to receive income or profits. Paine v. City of Oshkosh, 190, Wis. 69, 208 N W. 790, 791. Under various constitutional and statutory provisions, a tax on incomes is sometimes said to be an excise tax and not a tax on property, Hattiesburg Grocery Co. v. Robertson, 126 Miss. 34, 88 So. 4, 5, 25 A. L. R. 748, nor on business, but a tax on the proceeds arising therefrom, Young v. Illinois Athletic Club, 310 Ill. 75, 141 N. E. 369, 371, 30 A. L. R. 985. But in other cases an income tax is said to be a property and not a personal or excise tax; In re Ponzi (D.C.) 6 F.(2d) 324, 326; Commonwealth v. P. Horillard Co., 129 Va. 74, 105 S. E. 683, 684; Kennedy v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 256 Mass. 426, 152 N. E. 747, 748 (but see In re Opinion of the Justices, 77 N. H. 611, 93 A. 311, 313). An “excise tax” is an indirect charge for the privilege of following an occupation or trade, or carrying on a business; while an “income tax” is a direct tax imposed upon income, and is as directly imposed as is a tax on land. United States v. Philadelphia, B. & W. R. Co. (D. C.) 262 F. 188, 190.
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY - 3rd EDITION

“It is the theory of the friends of the income-tax proposition that [income from] property should be taxed and not individuals.”
Author of the Sixteenth Amendment, Senator Norris Brown (D-Nebraska), 44 Congressional Record 1570 (1909)

“In the first modern tax case to be litigated after the Sixteenth Amendment was purportedly ratified, the Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) that the income tax was an excise tax (an indirect tax) even though both the government and Brushaber argued that it was a direct tax exempted from apportionment.”

“In Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Mr. Chief Justice White, upholding the income tax imposed by the Tariff Act of 1913, construed the Amendment as a declaration that an income tax is indirect, rather than as making an exception to the rule that direct taxes must be apportioned.”
The Income Tax and the Sixteenth Amendment, 29 Harvard Law Review 536 (1915-1916);

“The amendment, the court said, judged by the purpose for which it was passed, does not treat income taxes as direct taxes but simply removed the ground which led to their being considered as such in the Pollock case, namely, the source of the income. Therefore, they are again to be classified in the class of indirect taxes to which they by nature belong.”
Ramon Siaca, The Federal Income Tax Law of 1913: Construction of the Sixteenth Amendment, 1 Cornell Law Quarterly 298, 299 and 301 (1916);

Income Subject to Taxation
Building upon definitions formulated in cases construing the Corporation Tax Act of 1909,14 the Court initially described income as the “gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” inclusive of the “profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets”;15 in the following array of factual situations it[p.1955]subsequently applied this definition to achieve results that have been productive of extended controversy.

[Tax Protester]

No, actually, both the W-2 and and W-3 go to SSA. The information from the W-2s, etc., is thereafter transmitted from SSA to IRS.

ROFL, that all you got? Where was I wrong at? Oh you are all upset now, because I did not mention the W-2 first goes to the SSA and then the IRS? Geez, it only says it on the form instructions that come with the W-3/W-3C, lol. I figured that was implied, so I did feel a need to mention it, obviously you did, however. How sad for you, seriously.

The reason the payroll managers, CPAs, attorneys, etc. will look at you like you are a space alien is that you do not know what you are talking about. Seriously.

Seriously? lol

This is a recurring theme with you people. You profess to believe that your version of the law is correct, and that the experts do not know the law. You are wrong.

That is what is wrong with you tax guru's, you honestly want so bad to believe that we are professing "our version of the law". No, not it all really, not at all. Perhaps that may be the case for a few, not for me, however. I profess to know my understanding of the law is accurate and correct... sure I run into a few hum bars along the way, here and there, that is why I am willing to discount that which I have learned to be untrue and strive for that which is accurate through revaluation and processing, do I deserve anything less from myself? The truth is and always will be the truth… Seriously now.

[Tax Protester]

blah, blah, blah...

Oh NOW I Understand your point.

Wow, what a great reply, keep up the hard work, kay?

[Famspear]

No, actually, both the W-2 and and W-3 go to SSA. The information from the W-2s, etc., is thereafter transmitted from SSA to IRS.

ROFL, that all you got? Where was I wrong at? Oh you are all upset now, because I did not mention the W-2 first goes to the SSA and then the IRS? Geez, it only says it on the form instructions that come with the W-3/W-3C, lol. I figured that was implied, so I did feel a need to mention it, obviously you did, however. How sad for you, seriously.

The reason the payroll managers, CPAs, attorneys, etc. will look at you like you are a space alien is that you do not know what you are talking about. Seriously.

Seriously? lol

This is a recurring theme with you people. You profess to believe that your version of the law is correct, and that the experts do not know the law. You are wrong.

That is what is wrong with you tax guru's, you honestly want so bad to believe that we are professing "our version of the law". No, not it all really, not at all. Perhaps that may be the case for a few, not for me, however. I profess to know my understanding of the law is accurate and correct... sure I run into a few hum bars along the way, here and there, that is why I am willing to discount that which I have learned to be untrue and strive for that which is accurate through revaluation and processing, do I deserve anything less from myself? The truth is and always will be the truth… Seriously now.

Oh, what's the matter? Ain't as easy as you thought it would be?

delphinum natare doces

[Tax Protester]

No, it is you who do not understand the meaning of common words and the meaning of those words within the code. No court, whose opinion has an effect on the interpretation of law, has ever held that the money a person receives from another in exchange for labor performed at the direction of another is not income.

Indeed I am sorry, now exactly which part of ‘Capitation Tax - A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc.’ do you just not understand?

Alight in fairness, show me a SCOTUS case where they specifically used a term other than ‘salary’, ‘wages’, ‘compensation for services’, or some combination thereof.

Have any SCOTUS case specifically stated that a ‘Capitation Tax’ is not a tax in consideration of ones labor or that the ‘Income Tax’ is a tax in consideration of ones labor (without the specific or implied use of ‘words of art’ as contained throughout 26 USC used within the citation)? I personally know of not a single one. Otherwise to state your point is moot, would be an understatement.

Here a couple which touch on the issue and nature of 'Direct Taxes', in so many words:

United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883);
United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust, 157 U.S. 429 (1895);

As well there are plenty of cases which address the 16th Amendment aspects, such as:

United States Supreme Court, Stratton’s Independence, LTD. V. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913);
United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916);
United States Supreme Court, Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179 (1918);
United States Supreme Court, Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921);

U.S. v Romero, 640 F.2d 1014 wrote: Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. We recognize that the tax laws bear heavily on all persons engaged in gainful activity, and recognize the right of a taxpayer to minimize his taxes by all lawful means. But Romero here is not attempting to minimize his taxes; instead he is attempting willfully and intentionally to shift his burden to his fellow workers by the use of semantics.

Why cite circuit cases, what bearing does that have on me or the mass populous?

However, let’s look at that case a bit, just to reconstruct it:

“with knowingly and willfully failing to file income tax returns for the years 1973 through 1977 in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 (1976) and, in Counts VI and VII, with willfully supplying false withholding certificates for the years 1976 and 1977,”
…
“The trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of these terms. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a "person" and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not "income" is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect”
…
“He based his defense on his proclaimed belief that the wages he earned were not taxable income and that he was not a person within the meaning of the income tax laws.”
…
“The jury's function is to determine matters of fact. Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.”

Gee, must I really point out all of the mistakes? Well I will just say that this case has no bearing on how CtC enlightened folks file with the IRS.

Also, it is not the IRS that has a hard time quoting the 16th amendment. It is you, and other tax protesters like you, that have a hard time listening and/or comprehending.

No, I have no issues with quoting it, it is the IRS, here let me show ya:

Pub 2105 - 1999
http://www.protectassets.com/irs/whytaxes.pdf

Pub 2105 - 2003
http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit ... b-2105.pdf

Pub 2105 - 2007
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p2105.pdf

Correct:
Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Incorrect (in every Publication):
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified on February 3, 1913, states, "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

The first sentence of the above paragraph is not correct. I, nor anyone here, claim that an income tax serves as a catch all class of taxation. Therefore, the entire rest of your paragraph is based on a false premise and is also wrong.

No, you folks here state that the ‘Income Tax’ is a tax on money exchanged for whatever, without any limitations, expect for those specifically implied [Sections 101-140], that manta therefore essentially covers any profitable activity which could or might take place in any venue or under any circumstance. Ergo, it is an end all end class of taxation, it is all encompassing, it is a worldly tax. In other words no other class of tax is needed, because the ‘Income Tax’ consumes all profitable exchanges.

And to readdress my prior:

(1) If the ‘Income Tax’ is a tax upon ones earnings and labor (in addition to everything else it covers) and also what I state a ‘Capitation Tax’ to mean, then that means that the Forefathers overlooked the beneficial need for the authority to tax a mans labor in some facet or form until the inception of the ‘Income Tax’ many years later [did our Framers learn nothing from the Articles of Confederation?].

(2) If the ‘Income Tax’ is a tax upon ones earnings and labor (in addition to everything else it covers), then since the inception of the ‘income tax’ no other categories of Indirect Taxes [imposts, duties, and excises] are required because the ‘income tax’ can simply just morph itself to whatever the Legislature wishes it to be.

(3) If the ‘Income Tax’ means what you proclaim (in addition to everything else it covers) then the inclusion of the ‘from whatever source derived’ language within the 16th and Section 61 would not be required because it serves to only be redundant and more important confusing to the reader.

…Now as you can see your contentions are patently absurd.

The only obvious thing is that you miss the point.

Sure, sure, you are certainly right about that… just not in the way you think.

[Tax Protester]

And yet absolutely no court has ever, ever, ever agreed this argument is valid.......

Damnitall. Where in the Hades is UGALawDog when you really need him, he would have a suitably appropriate response to TP's <ahem> "logic."

And again, even IF it were a loophole, don't you think the IRS and or Congress would have closed it a long, long time ago? Hmmm? Or are you logic-challenged?

Hmm, sounds like you are doing an awful lot of feeling around in the dark, perhaps you should pickup yourself up a flashlight or something?

However, show me a SCOTUS case were the Classification Act of 1923 has specifically been ruled invalid or whatever. Otherwise your contention is entirely a moot point. Although that would be sort of strange since it is specifically quoted within the IRC of the golden days, (meaning prior to the 1930's after which they started really obfuscating the IRC).

[Tax Protester]

Unfortunately, "they" are not legally required to offer documentation that will satisfy you. Maybe that's unfair, but that's the state of the law.

Actually yes they are, it is prescribed within the IRC and Regulations. The IRS is to provide them upon request… yet the IRS is not able to even through FOIA Requests, how strange, huh!

What is even more odd though is how somebody that appears to be so astute as yourself would have missed that.

E.g. 26 CFR 301.6203-1, 26 CFR 301.6303-1, 26 USC § 6751(b)(1), 26 USC § 7522, 26 CFR 301.7401-1, SBSE-20-1107-021 [IRS Form 4549, IRS Form 886-A], IRS Form 8278, IRS Form 12616, et al.

Furthermore,

Code: Select all

1.2.13.1.5  (Approved 12-23-1960) 
Policy Statement 4-7 
Impartial determination of tax liability 

An exaction by the United States Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Accordingly, a Service representative in his/her conclusions of fact or application of the law, shall hew to the law and the recognized standards of legal construction. It shall be his/her duty to determine the correct amount of the tax, with strict impartiality as between the taxpayer and the Government, and without favoritism or discrimination as between taxpayers.

Also see: Publication 1 ‘Taxpayers Bill of Rights’

Meaningless statement.

No not at all, otherwise a breech of law would have occurred. One cannot have a bill without first having a charge. In doing so it would amount to act of fraud or extortion… or even worse ‘Color of Law’. But of course you would say that, eh.

"They" are not legally required to answer your questions as to how they "know" what you have attested to is true or false.

If they make a claim in contrast to my own, they need to provide evidence as to how they came to or derived their conflicting determination. Otherwise it amounts to nothing more than ‘employee’ error and needs to be changed to reflect my own claim, sworn under perjury, mind you. Sure they do not have to, that is at least until a judge orders them to do so through a request for production at which time they will be unable to of course, because they have no authority to make such determinations and they know it, they are meekly playing a bluff hand. Once called the ‘Tax Protester’ wins, period.

Regarding a "just" court -- your personal view -- or my personal view, for that matter -- of what a "just" court should be is not necessarily the final word on the subject, nor would such a view properly constitute the contours of a court of "justice." Justice, like beauty, is to some extent a variable depending on the eye of the beholder. So, we are left with the maxim that courts interpret the law -- and we hope that in the interpretation of law, justice will be served.

In short, nobody cares whether you believe such a "tact" would stand in a "just" court.

Now would be the correct time to use the phrase “Meaningless statement.”. Perhaps you should heed to your own advice, seriously.

[.]

My, my, the newest TP poster is prolific.

He doesn't realize that his stale, frivolous BS will chopped and diced and minced into a fine powder within 48 hours. He may never realize what happened to it because it's quite likely that he will have run away before the inexorable process is complete. As they all do.

[Tax Protester]

My, my, the newest TP poster is prolific.

He doesn't realize that his stale, frivolous BS will chopped and diced and minced into a fine powder within 48 hours. He may never realize what happened to it because it's quite likely that he will have run away before the inexorable process is complete. As they all do.

What are you going to due? Dump a few dozen Tax Court cases in my lap? laff

Here let me just stop you now:

28 USC § 610. Courts defined
As used in this chapter the word “courts” includes the courts of appeals and district courts of the United States, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of Guam, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of International Trade.

28 USC § 3002. Definitions
(2) “Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court.

26 USC § 7441. Status
There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.

U.S. Constitution - Article I [The Legislative Branch]
U.S. Constitution - Article III [The Judiciary]

“Article III of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch as one of the three separate and distinct branches of the federal government. The other two are the legislative and executive branches.

The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies. …”
As quoted from: http://www.uscourts.gov/understand03/content_1_0.html