It is you that doesn't understand what a capitation tax is. A capitation tax is one that is imposed upon a person REGARDLESS OF INCOME. For example, if the government decided that every person was to pay $1,000 in taxes regardless of whether they earned $10,000 or $10 million, THAT is a capitation tax. The INCOME TAX is NOT a capitation tax.
You seem to forget that ‘income’ is not remuneration as is meant within the 16th Amendment. Clearly the Capitation Tax is a tax based upon the performance of labor, industry, occupation, and office… this means that the Income Tax cannot be a Capitation Tax, so in that respect at least you are able to understand, as well you seem to understand the principles of apportionment, so good job there… However, you seem to sincerely ensconce the core of the matter.
Once again: ‘Capitation Tax - A tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc.’
Furthermore, from the horses own mouth as it were:
“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.”…
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book V. CH. II, Art. IV;
I don't have to. Regardless of what SCOTUS case I pull up, you'll make up some lame excuse as to why it supposedly doesn't apply to you. Let me make this perfectly clear to anyone who has more than two brain cells. If you perform work at the direction of another person and you receive money in exchange for the work you have performed, THAT IS INCOME and IS TAXABLE.
Lame excuse? Well I already gave you my “excuses”, right up front so you would know where I am coming from. Hey now, the IRC did not need to use these special definitions… if what you proclaim is true, they could have kept it simple, instead they build a maze and coated it in legalize… they did this for a reason, such tact goes back to ancient times, this is nothing new. Not by any means.
Only if the work you perform presents a federal nexus does it thereafter enter the realm of being taxable. Otherwise the federal government has no legal authority or vested interest in such private activities, nor are they party to the private agreement/contract, as pertaining to the act of persons working for or with others within a sovereign state of the Union. The federal government only has the powers enumerated to them and no more, period. That said, yes ‘income’ as meant within the 16th Amendment is taxable for the purposes of the IRC.
The only person who's point is moot is yours. Regardless of how you phrase it, the courts will rule that money you receive in return for performing work for another person is income. Whether they use the words or phrases 'salaries', 'wages', or 'compensation for services' is somewhat irrelevant.
In the general since, yes that is true; however, we are referring to ‘incomes’ as meant within the 16th Amendment so your assertion is only presumptive on the surface at best. And no the courts never say “money” they say “wages” and “income”, in some cases the do make reference to “remuneration”, but that is about it. No that fact that they only use legalize terms is entirely relevant…e.g. if they define for the purposes of 26 USC, yellow to include all shades of orange, that is very important to know. The only way the intentional use of such legalize is not relevant is for that simple fact that the average American citizen or resident is not subject to the IRC to begin with.
“Each was an addition to capital; not income within the meaning of the statute. 8 Treasury Regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress.”
M. E. BLATT CO. v. UNITED STATES, 305 U.S. 267 (1938)
[ Footnote 8 ] United States v. Phellis, 257 U.S. 156, 169 , 175 S., 42 S.Ct. 63, 65, 67; Merchants' L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519 , 520 S., 41 S.Ct. 386, 388, 389, 15 A.L.R. 1305; Taft v. Bowers, 278 U.S. 470 , 480, et seq., 49 S.Ct. 199, 200, 64 A.L.R. 362; Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U.S. 445, 449 , 50 S.Ct. 202, 203, 67 A.L.R. 1010; Eckert v. Burnet, 283 U.S. 140, 142 , 51 S.Ct. 373, 374; Burnet v. Logan, 283 U.S. 404, 412 , 413 S., 51 S.Ct. 550, 552; United States v. Safety Car Heating Co., 297 U.S. 88, 99 , 56 S.Ct. 353, 358; Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 444 , 445 S., 56 S.Ct. 767, 768, 769, 105 A.L.R. 756; Cf. Commissioner v. Van Vorst, 9 Cir., 59 F.2d 677, 680.
Too bad you don't understand them. First, the Butcher's Union case is not a tax case and has nothing about direct taxes or indirect taxes within it. In fact, the word, 'tax' doesn't even appear in the decision. Second, the first Pollock decision only ruled on 'a tax on the rents or income of real estate' and left everything else alone. The second Pollock decision (158 U.S. 601), stated
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
Wrong, I understand that perfectly, Butcher’s Union was about rights to labor and property though, that is paramount to the central issue regarding the governments enumerated powers and the afforded protection under both the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The case does not have to be about taxes to prove a monumental point.
“The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of his most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him.”
"It has been well said that 'the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property'."
United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883)
Regarding Pollock you left out a paragraph that is more relevant to a discussion concerning Direct Taxes… don’t worry I forgive you.
”Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon some one else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes….” and, “The power to tax real and personal property and the income from both, there being an apportionment, is conceded: that such a tax is a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution has not been, and, in our judgment, cannot be successfully denied: ..."
Oh and…
… and in that way what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations. …
Again, you do not understand the decisions of those courts if you think they support your position.
Yes I do. Oh and guess what the Annotation for the 16th Amendment concurs with my understanding. Just because a person was deemed to be a ‘taxpayer’ and lost their case does not also mean that the case is not substantial to my points of view or understanding of the facts.
A circuit case is binding upon you and the mass populace. While it may be overruled by a higher court, unless that happens, it is still binding.
Whoa now, do you have scholarly legal citation to back such a claim up? From my understanding, only SCOTUS cases matter, unless you live in the state of the circuit decision of course. That logic makes since in consideration of varying state laws and the judicial authority of the SCOTUS.
As usual, the argument is that person didn't file 'CTC' or didn't use the right magic words. I have news for you, the courts have specifically told Pete Hendrickson that 'CTC' is wrong. The courts have instructed him to never file income taxes using the theories in 'CTC' ever again. Regardless of whether or not he is convicted in his criminal case, the courts will make it clear that 'CTC' is erroneous.
Do you honestly believe the court has the power on how to instruct a person on how to file? Do you really? Besides the fact that such a statement is a bit presumptive of the court and entirely outside of their lawful authority [Remember that little document called the Bill of Rights?], (there are many facets to be considered such as: how would the court know of Hendrickson's future self-assessment requirements? What if the instruction thereafter conflicts or impairs Hendrickson’s ability to correctly file due to unforeseen circumstances?). No it would be grossly negligent on the part a judge to make such a blanket statement.
Besides, why not instruct the IRS that they must file Hendrickson’s returns for him from now on and why not instruct the IRS to correct all of Hendrickson’s past returns so as to make them in accordance with the law and why not instruct the IRS that they are to arrange for an annual interview at Hendrickson’s convenience to permit the IRS to ensure that his return is entirely correct and by no means ‘frivolous’ prior to submitting it in their presence?
So they left off an 's' at the end of income. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that YOU do not comprehend the 16th amendment. Also, it does not change the meaning of the 16th amendment as the courts have construed it.
Yes it is a very big deal, it has to due with the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act. The IRS is willingly and purposefully hiding facts from the eyes of the public. ‘Income’ in its general sense is not ‘incomes’ (and visa versa) as intended within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. Therefore the IRS is attempting to make the 16th Amendment appear to mean something is really does not nor ever has.
Though I do agree with you in that, the IRS’ own desperate attempts at perverting fundamental law, in the end change nothing. They only serve to confuse those interested in actually learning the facts for themselves. In comparison is that of the MSM and alternative news media…even in consideration of extorted efforts of the MSM, the alternative news media is now absolutely flourishing… That is because in people’s heart of hearts, they know the facts, they know the truth, they know right from wrong, they know the difference between justice and injustice. Even in dumbing down and culling the populous, the government has failed to take such abilities away from the people, people they are supposed to be protecting.
Wrong again. If you buy a car for $10,000, drive it for awhile and then sell it to your neighbor for $9,000. The $9,000 you receive in exchange for that car is not income because your 'basis' in the car is $10,000. However, if you find a diamond ring in your backyard and sell it to your neighbor for $3,000, then you have a gain of $3,000 because your 'basis' in the ring is $0. Your cost basis for your labor is $0. If you sell one hour of your time to your employer for $20, you have a $20 gain, which is taxable.
Now you are bringing up side issues that really have nothing to due with the core issue. However, what you are stating is only because the IRC permits you to exclude certain transactions, write stuff off, and to devalue certain types of items, i.e. amortize. Sure your little example there looks shinny and convincing on the surface, but in reality it only exposes the flaws within your overall contention, so far as it pertains to the IRC.
And if you find property that does not belong to you, regardless where you find it, you are to turn it over to your local law enforcement agency, you are not suppose to sell it for profit. Just like a Tax Professional, taking that which is not theirs. I suppose we could not expect much more from a corrupted profession.
As used in law a ‘gain’ holds a specific definition as in a ‘gain’ from business ventures, ‘a profit’ realized. That is entirely outside the scope of a private individual earning a living in a field of common occupation or bartering. In stating an individual incurs a zero loss in the process of working, is negligent. There are many issues to be considered, such as: transportation expenses, vehicle maintenance, parking fees, travel expenses, automotive insurance, health, safety, and well-being, pain, suffering, and stress, education and training, clothing and proper grooming, babysitter, health and life insurance, physical and mental exertion, work tools and equipment, etc..
The fact still stands that taxing common labor is to be done by way of Direct Taxes only. Understanding for what purposes establishing Excises Taxes are to be levied for, serves only to crystallize that distinction.
It is your contentions that are patently absurd. The courts and the legislature will agree with me and not with you.
Well, that remains to be seen. For the most part I suppose it really just boils down to who you speak with. However, thank you for your sentiments.
