CTC questions answered

[Tax Protester]

I was beginning to wonder if it was John Bulten or Pete himself. It doesn't sound like Bulten. It sounds a bit like Pete, though he hasn't directly quoted his other writings.

Hmm, well perhaps I am Pete Bulten, which is Hendrickson’s long lost illegitimate brother from Hendrickson seniors seed sowing days? But you all can just call me Petey Guy.

[Tax Protester]

The gross amount of compensation received (or constructively received) for personal services rendered by an individual (a living human) U.S. citizen or U.S. resident in a private sector activity not connected with the exercise of a federal privilege is includible in gross income under the U.S. Constitution (including the Sixteenth Amendment) and the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that such amount is fully taxable for U.S. federal income tax purposes (except, of course, to the extent excluded under sections 101 through 140).

Do you agree with that, Tax Protester?

Well your question creates a conflict because you included the phrase ‘compensation for [personal] services’, which refers to governmental employment which is taxable for that sole reason [Classification Act of 1923], as such persons are in exercising a privilege, do you mean to say ‘compensation for labor’ and I presume you are not at all referring to ‘compensation for [domestic] services’ numerated in the definitions of ‘wages’?

Also ‘Gross income’ is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in it’ entirely, so that has no relevance, except for the latter portion of the sentence addressing the IRC, which of course does

However, with your question in its present form, I have to say that yes I concur with it. If you perform ‘compensation for services’ as meant within the related tax laws, then you are in fact earning ‘wages’ and have reportable ‘income’ for the purposes of the IRC.

That said, should I decide to invest my pay from working and realize a gain, then that portion might become taxable, depending upon what instrument I had invested in.

Do you disagree? If so, let us hear your explanation on how you believe the case of Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka (which you cited earlier) could possibly negate what I just wrote.

Explanation, that case speaks for itself loud and clear, don’t you hear the bells ringing?

“The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 (58 L. Ed. 285).”

Notice a ‘gain’ derived from the fruits of something tangible, not just a ‘gain’ in and of itself, period. An modus operandi.

“It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the [255 U.S. 509, 519] case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 540, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913 (38 Stat. 114). There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of 'income' which was applied was adopted from Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court.”

“In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this Court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved, in the definitions quoted, what it believed to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 , 207 S., 40 Sup. Ct. 189, 9 A. L. R. 1570. Notwithstanding the full argument heard in this case and in the series of cases now under consideration, we continue entirely satisfied with that definition, and, since the fund here taxed was the amount realized from the sale of the stock in 1917, less the capital investment [255 U.S. 509, 520] as determined by the trustee as of March 1, 1913, it is palpable that it was a 'gain or profit' 'produced by' or 'derived from' that investment, and that it 'proceeded' and was 'severed' or rendered severable from it by the sale for cash, and thereby became that 'realized gain' which has been repeatedly declared to be taxable income within the meaning of the constitutional amendment and the acts of Congress. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. and Eisner v. Macomber, supra.”

Also pointed to within this case and which is supported by numerous CRS reports, was the realization that determining ‘income’ is a two part equation, requiring first a source and then a realized gain. The act of earning a living only accounts for one part of the equation, the source, therefore the equation is not complete until it has sought a gain… as exemplified below:

“Thus, from the price realized from the sale of stock by two investors, as distinguished from dealers, and from a single transaction as distinguished from a course of business, the value of the stock on the effective date of the tax act was deducted, and the resulting gain was treated by this court as 'income' by which the tax was measured.”

Further still:

“It is sufficient to say of this contention that no such distinction was recognized in the Civil War Income Tax Act of 1867 (14 Stat. 471, 478), or in the act of 1894 (28 Stat. 509, 553), declared unconstitutional on an unrelated ground; that it was not recognized in determining income under the Excise Tax Act of 1909, as the cases cited, supra, show; that it is not to be found, in terms, in any of the income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Acts of 1913, 1916, 1917, or 1919 (40 Stat. 1057); that the definition of the word 'income' as used in the Sixteenth Amendment, which has been developed by this Court, does not recognize any such distinction; that in departmental practice, for now seven years, such a rule has not been applied; …”

I think you get the point (I pray), but if not:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 5&page=509
MERCHANTS' LOAN & TRUST CO. v. SMIETANKA, 255 U.S. 509 (1921)

[Tax Protester]

And exactly what education did you receive to allow you to interpret laws?

It is called self-education, we each have a right and entitlement to it… We each have an individual civic duty to be knowledgeable in that which governs our land. Anything less would be uncivilized.

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
- James Madison (Federalist and Father of the Constitution)

“A lawyer's primer: If you don't have the law, you argue the facts; if you don't have the facts, you argue the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, then you argue the Constitution”
- James Madison (Federalist and Father of the Constitution)

“Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you.” – Pericles (430 B.C.)

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
- Plato

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
- Plato

[Tax Protester]

Wrong. Re-read what I wrote:

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.

Not is it is not wrong, it is entirely correct. The IRS will not provide us with these documents and records, neither through FOIA Requests.

26 CFR 301.6203-1 provides (in part):

... If the taxpayer requests a copy of the record of assessment, he shall be furnished a copy of the pertinent parts of the assessment which set forth the name of the taxpayer, the date of assessment, the character of the liability assessed, the taxable period, if applicable, and the amounts assessed.

That’s what you’re entitled to receive, Tax Protester. You are NOT entitled to receive “documentation that will satisfy you.” You are entitled to receive only what the statutes and regs say you are entitled to receive.

Exactly right and that is all were ask for, we even word it as such within our FOIA Requests, ...And yet the IRS will not provide any of us with a document that contains all of the following information as stipulated:

1. name of the taxpayer;
2. the date of assessment;
3. the character of the liability assessed;
4. the taxable period, if applicable, and;
5. and the amounts assessed.

And do not forget, the assessment and all penalties require an authorizing signature. IRS will not provide those either.

Reading is fundamental.

I concur. Is it just me are the both of agreeing an awful lot on things… OK, this is really starting to get scary now.

Sorry, but there is nothing in this provision that says you are entitled to receive documentation that will satisfy you. This provision simply imposes a burden on the IRS to give a notice stating the amount of tax and demanding payment.

Remember your snide “reading is fundamental” comment? It holds true for you to, you do realize that right?
“… after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. Such notice shall be given as soon as possible and within 60 days.”
The IRS will not produce this document for any of us, nor will an FOIA Request, not even one year after the fact.
Section 6751(b)(1) of the Code states:
(b) APPROVAL OF ASSESSMENT. --

(1) IN GENERAL. --No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination or such higher level official as the Secretary may designate.

There is nothing in this provision that says that you are entitled to receive a copy of the written approval by the supervisor. And there is certainly nothing here that says you are entitled to receive whatever will satisfy you.

Now who is talking about “receiving whatever will satisfy you”, oh that is right, that was something you snuck into virtually all of your replies, right?

Sure nothing there verbatim, but quite clearly this is it a required step in the process for the issuance of any penalties and as releasing documents and records to those subject to them is a an entitlement prescribed by way of the FOIA, (also do not forget about 44 USC 1503, 1505, and 1507). Ergo, I can request any and all records that apply to me from any federal agency and they have to comply with my request, with a few exceptions, such as national security, criminal investigation, etc.. I could not possibly see how myself let along all other CtCers would meet such criteria.

Notice that: “No penalty under this title shall be assessed unless the initial determination of such assessment is personally approved (in writing) …”

Section 7522 provides:

Sec. 7522. CONTENT OF TAX DUE, DEFICIENCY, AND OTHER NOTICES

(a) GENERAL RULE. --Any notice to which this section applies shall describe the basis for, and identify the amounts (if any) of, the tax due, interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties included in such notice. An inadequate description under the preceding sentence shall not invalidate such notice.

(b) NOTICES TO WHICH SECTION APPLIES. --This section shall apply to --

(1) any tax due notice or deficiency notice described in section 6155, 6212, or 6303,

(2) any notice generated out of any information return matching program, and

(3) the 1st letter of proposed deficiency which allows the taxpayer an opportunity for administrative review in the Internal Revenue Service office of Appeals.

Are you catching the drift, Tax Protester? Nothing in section 7522 says you are entitled to receive whatever will satisfy you.

Again correct, only the following: a notice containing in conjunction with 6303:

1. describes the basis for, and;
2. the identify the amounts (if any) of;
a. the tax due,
b. interest,
c. additional amounts,
d. additions to the tax,
e. and assessable penalties.

You know I absolutely just love how you conveniently left out 6303, did you really think I would not catch that one? Nice try though. Here allow me:

§ 6303. Notice and demand for tax
(a) General rule
Where it is not otherwise provided by this title, the Secretary shall, as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof. Such notice shall be left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or shall be sent by mail to such person’s last known address.

Again a notice containing:

1. stating the amount;
2. demanding payment thereof.

Emphasizing: “as soon as practicable, and within 60 days, after the making of an assessment of a tax pursuant to section 6203, give notice to each person liable for the unpaid tax, stating the amount and demanding payment thereof.”

My point was and is that the IRS is not under a legal duty to provide documentation to you that will SATISFY you that the penalty they are imposing is correct.

Yes they are, how did you miss that you just cited the relevant statutes and Regulations. Get serious, my goodness.

To be even more specific, the government is not under a legal or moral duty to provide information to you that will satisfy you that some position you take on a tax return is legally frivolous. The rest of the world simply is not here to satisfy you that we are right and you are wrong.

They are making the allegation, once I establish a reasonable objection, they have the burden, not I, an allegation only a court can make by the way, (think of trying to convict a thief when there is no victim or evidence available, the prosecution is not going to get very far). Only a judge can rule something frivolous, not an agency of the government. That would give them hybrid powers between the three branches of government. That equates to a tyrannical act. It becomes patently unconstitutional, on its face, as they say.

None of the other citations you provided contradict my statement either. I repeat: "They" are not legally required to offer documentation that will satisfy you. Maybe that's unfair, but that's the state of the law.

Yes they are per the sections you quoted just prior to making such a silly notion and as well in those that you did not bother to quote, (such as 7401, cited below for your viewing convenience). As well there are other Titles of relevant law within the USC that come into play in such circumstances, you can’t forget about those. There are other breeches of law and protocol to take into consideration.

Sec. 301.7401-1 Authorization.
(a) In general. No civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, shall be commenced unless the Commissioner (or the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, with respect to the provisions of subtitle E of the Code), or the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service or his delegate authorizes or sanctions the proceedings and the Attorney General or his delegate directs that the action be commenced.

That means that there must be an ‘authorization’ made by one of the Secretary, the Commissioner, or their Delegate to bring forth any of any of:

1. a civil action for the collection or recovery of taxes;
2. a civil action for any fine or penalty, or;
3. a civil action for forfeiture.

As well keep in mind that through our FOIA Replies the Disclosure Office does not say you are not entitled to those documents or requests or that your requests are not valid or denied or established in law… but do you know what they do say? They say that they search for the documents and records requested, but no such documents or records could be found, period. So clearly you are operating on notions which are false and biased, which work only to blind your point of view.

Not to mention the gross misapplication of 6702, but that is a whole other ball of wax for the bees.

[Tax Protester]

The definition of "capitation" quoted above is not contained in the Constitution, and does not seem to come from any decision of the Supreme Court.

What does that even mean, really? The constitution does not define words; it is not a dictionary, what Constitution are you reading exactly?

AI, S9, C4: “No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

The Supreme Court has consistently stated something different. In the Hylton case, Justice Samuel Chase stated his opinion that "the direct taxes contemplated by the constitution are only two, to wit, a capitation or poll tax simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstances, and the tax on land." (Emphasis added.) And other justices have equated "capitation" with "poll tax," which is a tax imposed in a fixed amount on each person.

Oh that case does not apply because it is about taxes on carriages and not occupations; because it is before the 16th Amendment; because it was before the Revenue Act of 1913… sound familiar, no?

Actually, to correctly cite this case, which is from 1796, BTW is as follows:

“I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND. I doubt whether a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax. As I do not think the tax on carriages is a direct tax, it is unnecessary, at this time, for me to determine, whether this court, constitutionally possesses the power to declare an act of Congress void, on the ground of its being made contrary to, and in violation of, the Constitution; but if the court have such power, I am free to declare, that I will never exercise it, but in a very clear case. I am for affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court.”

Here let us try it another way… A ‘Capitation Tax’ is a tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc., without specific regard or consideration to it… which it would have to be, as that is the only way it could be tax proportionally, by way of a solid unit of measure from one geographical to another, remaining as an imposition without regard to each persons actual abilities… which is in complete contrast to a tax following uniformity.

Better yet “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstances” is stipulating that it does not matter how much property you have, how well employed you are, nor is any other similar item taken into consideration, the tax applies to you, no way out of it, period. Whereas, an Excise Tax, such as the Income Tax, such items are taken into full consideration for the tax and further still when such items are avoided the tax is not to be levied.

The ‘Capitation Tax’ tax is in reference to your head, ergo the geographical census, that is the subject of the tax, not your status, your wealth, your prosperity, ingenuity, capabilities, etc., etc., such as is the case with the ‘Income Tax’. It is a perfect system this way because it keeps the people equally supporting their elected government that is representative of them as a whole. Equal shares and equal rights… Hence we have a Republic, for which it stands.
Further it was also stated that:

“… All taxes on expenses or consumption are indirect taxes. A tax on carriages is of this kind, and of course is not a direct tax. Indirect taxes are circuitous modes of reaching the revenue of individuals, who generally live according to their income. In many cases of this nature the individual may be said to tax himself. I shall close the discourse with reading a passage or two from Smith's Wealth of Nations.

'The impossibility of taxing people in proportion to their revenue, by any capitation, seems to have given occasion to the invention of taxes upon consumable commodities; the state not knowing how to tax directly and proportionably the revenue of its subjects, endeavours to tax it indirectly by taxing their expense, which it is supposed in most cases will be neatly in proportion to their revenue. Their expense is taxed by taxing the consumable commodities upon which it is laid out. 3 Vol. page 331.'”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 3&page=171

Also notice how at no time is a tax levied on occupations was suggested, regardless if ‘Direct’ or ‘Indirect’, intriguing to say the least.

"The following are presumed to be the only direct taxes. Capitation or poll taxes. Taxes on lands and buildings. General assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals, or on their whole real or personal estate; all else must of necessity be considered as indirect taxes."
From Alexander Hamilton's argument in the Hylton Case (quoted from his son's 1851 publication of Hamilton's writings)

And you definition of "capitation" is irrelevant. The only purpose of defining "capitation" would be to determine if the tax must be apportioned, but the 16th Amendment declares that Congress has the power to impose taxes on incomes without apportionment. So even if a tax on income from labor might be a capitation before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment removed the requirement of apportionment from any tax on incomes making the meaning of "capitation" irrelevant to the issue of whether a tax is constitutional.

It is not my definition it is Adam Smith’s definition and is supported by the definition contained with all old legal dictionaries, (more current dictionaries have changed the definition, no wonder why).

As it has been stated already, a ‘Capitation Tax’ is not an ‘Income Tax’ and visa versa, before nor after the advent of the 16th Amendment. That is precisely what is does matter, a tax on labor is not an ‘Income Tax’

The 16th Amendment merely, removed the apportionment requirement in consideration of taxing any realized gains and profits which have been derived from a given source (as further defined by law). Nothing more and nothing less.

Note the similarities (both are Direct Taxes):
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".

Personal Tax - A tax either imposed on the person without reference to property, as a capitation or poll tax, or a tax imposed on personal property, as distinguished from one laid on real property.

Oh yes, the "you must use the words I want to see or I won't pay any attention to what you write" argument. Very persuasive.

What is that? You have issues with somebody seeking verification or clarification? You must be one of those low-level IRS “employees” you folks kick-down around here all the time. Man your ego must be entirely shot, if your slumming around these parts, right?

Unfortunately, in the Pollock and Brushaber decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of taxes on "professions," "trades," "employments," "vocations," "occupations," and "labor." (See discussion below.)

Wrong. That decision had nothing to do with taxes, and the words "direct" and "tax" do not even appear in the opinion.

Why don’t you try reading rather then pushing your Ctrl-F button? I already addressed this in prior posts, not going to repeat myself again. You don’t want to read, so sad for you.

Wrong again. The issue was whether a tax on rental income from land was the same as a tax on the value of land, and so a "direct tax." The meaning of "capitation" was not even relevant to the decision.

Oh for Pete sakes, have you even actually read that case?

Here swallow this, tasty I know, right?

“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);

The Supreme Court quoted a number of earlier opinions and commentaries on the meaning of "direct tax," but those quotations are divided at best. The court quoted the statement by Justice Chase that I referred to above, which contradicts your views on the meaning of capitation, and also quoted Representative Sedgwick for the proposition that a "direct tax" would include both a capitation and a tax on land and "incomes generally." The latter statement supports your view that a tax on incomes was "direct" (before the adoption of the 16th Amendment), but undermines the idea that a tax on income is the same as a capitation because Sedgwick described them separately.

What you are still talking about a case from 1796? Except now in reference to “incomes generally”, which BTW, I can neither find that quote nor Sedgwick’s name anywhere in that case. It is clear in reading that case, they were doing some serious brainstorming on many issues; however, not once was taxing labor discussed. This only further destroys your assertions.

But the second Pollock decision (158 U.S. 601) completely contradicts you. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a tax on dividends and interest was also the same as a tax on property, and so a "direct tax," and declared the entire tax act unconstitutional because otherwise they "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor.” In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that an income tax on employment or labor was constitutional, and struck down the entire law only because they believed that Congress would not want the law to stand if only incomes from labor were taxed and not incomes from capital.

Really, how do you figure that exactly? It actually supports my understanding of Constitutional taxation to precision. Furthermore, so does the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Being that such taxes were placed thereafter back into the correct category of ‘Indirect Taxes’, right where they always belong. The central issue of the Pollock case was a misinterpretation or a failed distinction between the underlying source and the participation in a taxable activity, their by making whatever gain or profit was generated taxable. It had much to due with those that wish to have their cake and eat it to, (figuratively speaking).

The constitutionality of taxes on labor was explicitly affirmed in the Brushaber decision:

“Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from ‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations,’ (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Have you ever read that quote? Did you miss the part where it says: “real estate” and “invested personal property”? Ergo, “income” from whatever source derived! Is it really that difficult to comprehend?

Since you brought up Brushaber, perhaps you might enjoy some cake and milk?

“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);

[United States Supreme Court, Stratton’s Independence, LTD. V. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399 (1913);]

A case that "addressed" the 16th Amendment by pointing out that it had not been ratified when the act in question was enacted, and so was not relevant to the decision.

1. “Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]” and 2. The Corporation Tax Act of 1909 is discussed therein, therefore the case and has direct bearing on ‘income’ and subsequently the 16th Amendment.

E.g.[extra protein included for a healthy mind]

The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the amendment was adopted.

Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:

"'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co."

"A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts."

"Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised."

"The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment, and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue."

"After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L. D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case, 247 U.S. 183, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054)."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 2&page=189
EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Which affirmed the constitutionality of the federal income tax under the 16th Amendment and, as explained above, specifically held that incomes from employments were constitutionally subject to tax.

Exactly, ‘income’ does not mean remuneration or compensation or labor, it means that which was made through gaining and profiteering, as well as from licences and privileges.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Not a single judge in the history of the United States, on any court at any level, has ever expressed the belief that Congress cannot tax the money received by workers for their labor.

Oh absolutely they can; however, only by way of apportionment.

[Lambkin]

I'd really like to know how you envision your victory happening. Are you going to waltz into court and murmur these sweet nothings in the judge's ear, and the judge is going to say "Wow, you know, he's right! Thanks for pointing out how stupid we have been! No more taxes for anyone!"

Am I getting this right? Or you think the IRS is going to read these reams of blather and say "gee we'd better not mess with this guy... our baseless intimidation won't work on him!" Is that it?

Or (just thinking out-loud here) is the "corrupt" IRS and the "corrupt" judiciary going to clean your clock? If that's the case, why bother making losing arguments? Is it because you like being a martyr for the cause and hope to get a jail sentence and share financial ruin with your family?

The legislature isn't going to repeal the tax laws, the courts aren't going to stop upholding them (according to their interpretation and not yours), and surely you are not looking to our new executive to end the income tax. If you think the electorate is going to rise up and support a nutball like you, you have another thing coming. All that's left is to sit back and watch your flame-out with MST3K commentary from Quatloos.

[wserra]

Is it because you like being a martyr for the cause and hope to get a jail sentence

Actually, you can get a hint and a half from the fact that he calls men "doll-face".

[wserra]

Wow, they actually used the words “babbling”, were they using the legal definition or English meaning?

Well, courts have to maintain a certain decorum that posters don't. So Judge Edmunds used the words "frivolous", "false" and "preposterous" to describe Hendrickson's babbling. The Sixth Circuit used "fraudulent", "plainly baseless", "patently meritless", and sanctioned him for a frivolous appeal.

So I guess you can take your choice. Do you prefer to take a frivolous position, a false position, a preposterous position, a fraudulent position, a plainly baseless position or a patently meritless position?

Cheek defense, I swear is that all you folks know? That’s old news doll-face; perhaps you might try picking up a copy of something called the Bill of Rights… who knows you just might even enjoy the read. I know I did.

Refresh my recollection - which Amendment was it that says you don't have to pay taxes? But I would keep working on the "doll-face"; you may need it.

[Famspear]

Tax Protester wrote:

Well your question creates a conflict because you included the phrase ‘compensation for [personal] services’, which refers to governmental employment which is taxable for that sole reason [Classification Act of 1923], as such persons are in exercising a privilege, do you mean to say ‘compensation for labor’ and I presume you are not at all referring to ‘compensation for [domestic] services’ numerated in the definitions of ‘wages’?

Nope. "Compensation for personal services" does not refer to "governmental employment." And the "Classification Act of 1923" has no bearing here. And there is no requirement that you be involved in the exercise of a "privilege," governmental or otherwise, federal or otherwise, in order for the gross amount of compensation you receive or constructively receive to be included in gross income under section 61.

If you work for McDonalds, flipping hamburgers, and you are compensated for that, the gross amount of that compensation is "compensation for services" as that term is used in section 61(a)(1).

Now, Tax Protester, go look for an actual U.S. federal court case where someone argued that Pete Hendrickson's Cracking the Code theories about the taxation of private sector non-federally privileged earnings under the U.S. federal income tax law -- or any variations of such theories -- were correct (in whatever wording you want to use to comply with your theory about what Pete is saying) and the court ruled in favor of that person.

No more word games. No more losthorizoner lies and goofy equivocations about the meanings of terms like "taxpayer" and "wage" and "employer" and "employee" and "compensation" and "includes" and "including" and so on. No more silly citations to the "Classification Act of 1923" of all things.

No more clueless citations to Brushaber and Pollock and Merchants' Loan -- no more citations to court cases that do not support your position. Just go look for actual court cases where the "taxpayer" argued the same thing (or close to the same thing) that you are arguing, and the court ruled in that taxpayer's favor.

Hint: Fool's errand..... There are no such cases.

By contrast, we have plenty of actual federal court cases where Pete's arguments (or substantially similar arguments) have been rejected -- in some cases by mentioning Pete and his book by name.

[Cpt Banjo]

It is not my definition it is Adam Smith’s definition and is supported by the definition contained with all old legal dictionaries, (more current dictionaries have changed the definition, no wonder why).

Apparently you're not aware that the Supreme Court has rejected reliance on Adam Smith and other economists in determining the meaning of "direct tax" in the Constitution. See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881), which upheld the Civil War income tax against the contention that it was a direct tax; the Court characterized it as in the nature of an excise or duty.

Being that such taxes were placed thereafter back into the correct category of ‘Indirect Taxes’, right where they always belong. The central issue of the Pollock case was a misinterpretation or a failed distinction between the underlying source and the participation in a taxable activity, their by making whatever gain or profit was generated taxable.

Bilge. Taxes on personal earnings were already treated as indirect taxes (see Springer), so there was no need for the 16th Amendment to place them back in the correct category. The power to tax incomes comes from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes...It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment] that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived. Brushaber, 240 U.S. at 12 and 18

Moreover, no court has ever held that some sort of "taxable activity" has to have been engaged in before income can be taxed, and no court has ever held that a tax on personal earnings has to be apportioned.

[Famspear]

Tax Protester wrote:

Cheek defense, I swear is that all you folks know? That’s old news doll-face; perhaps you might try picking up a copy of something called the Bill of Rights… who knows you just might even enjoy the read. I know I did.

No, the Cheek defense is not all we know.

However, the Bill of Rights probably will not help you in a federal income tax prosecution for tax evasion (to use an example) if the prosecutor persuades the jury that the three elements of tax evasion have been met beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that allows you to file a U.S. federal income tax return taking the position that your private sector non-federally privileged compensation is not taxable (or using any other variation of the Pete Hendrickson theory). If the jury concludes that you did that, and that you did it willfully, you can be convicted of tax evasion. The Bill of Rights will not help you on these specific issues.

By contrast: On one of the elements of tax evasion (specifically, the mens rea element of willfulness), what might help you with a jury is a Cheek defense.

Clue: Stop wasting your time talking and thinking about the Bill of Rights. You don't know what you're talking about. You would do well to think about what you could do to present a Cheek defense in the event you ever need to do so.

[Kimokeo]

# 1 - I don't agree with your interpretations of the tax law.
# 2 - I don't agree with your interpretations of the tax law.
# 1 - I believe a just court will rule in my favor.
# 2 - I believe a court will rule justly in my favor.
# 1 - IRS can't quote the law.
# 2 - IRS doesn't quote the law.
# 1 - They have to.
# 2 - They don't have to.
# 1 - I'm right.
# 2 - The courts are.
# 1 - Only if its a just court.
# 2 - The court is just.
# 1 - The courts are wrong.
# 2 - AHA

[darling]

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

I'm still trying to figure this one out.

[Famspear]

Tax Protester is still citing and quoting from cases like "Butchers' Union":

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)

Again, this case is not about taxes -- federal or otherwise. The flaw in your argument is easily exposed by stating -- openly -- what you and many other tax protesters want to imply, but are apparently afraid to actually say, namely: That the Court somehow ruled in this case that a man's labor (or the income from his labor) cannot properly be taxed. Once that statement is made clearly, as I have just made it, the falsity of your argument, the flaw in your argument, becomes more readily apparent.

In the Butchers' Union case, the United States Supreme Court did not rule that the government cannot tax a man's labor.

In the Butchers' Union case, the United States Supreme Court did not rule that the government cannot tax the income from labor.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any other federal court has ever ruled that the government cannot, as a general proposition, tax your labor, or the income from your labor, or compensation for services, or private sector compensation earned in a non-federally privileged activity. And it does not matter what variations on these words you use in this forum, or in another internet forum, or in a court of law, or anywhere else, to try to get around your problem.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress can validly tax your earnings from your labor, no matter how you say it, and no matter how you try to define the problem away with special "meanings" of words. Under the tax law, the words do not mean what Peter Hendrickson hilariously claims those words mean. The courts that interpret that tax law have not, and do not, and will not help you. Under our legal system, the law is what the courts rule the law to be, not what you claim the law to be.

Protester wrote:

Regarding Pollock you left out a paragraph that is more relevant to a discussion concerning Direct Taxes… don’t worry I forgive you.

Sorry, but I'm not worried, and I don't care whether you have "forgiven" me or not. Sell your rhetoric to Pete Hendrickson and the other scammers at losthorizons. You are whistling past the graveyard.

The plain fact, Protester, is that you have not properly studied the cases you are citing. Clue: Citing a case like Butchers' Union or a case like Merchant's Loan as you did is a dead giveaway to real experts who study this stuff all the time that you don't know what you're talking about. You have simply copied and pasted the same scam garbage we have seen almost every day for literally years -- both here and in other internet forums.

[Famspear]

And the Classification Act of 1923? You want to be taken seriously here, Tax Protester? And you cite the Classification Act of 1923? That is dumb as dirt.

Multiple choice: Tax Protester found a reference to the Classification Act of 1923 and concluded that it applied to current federal income tax law definitions based on something he read:

A. On the IRS web site;

B. In a federal court decision on taxation;

C. On some internet tax scam web site - such as Christopher Hansen's "familyguardian" web site:

http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Histo ... ionAct.htm

Here's an excerpt:

This act was passed on March 4, 1923 as H.R. 8928. Chapter 265 created several custom terms and definitions to be used throughout the government from that point on, including in subsequent Revenue Acts as well as the Internal Revenue Code, first codified in the U.S. Code in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939. Among the important terms defined and subsequently used in the I.R.C. include:

1. “department”: “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.”

2. “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 public Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”

3. “employee”: “means any person temporarily or permanently in a position.”

4. “service”: “means the broadest division of related offices and employments.”

5. “compensation”: “means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position.”

Nearly all of the above definitions would be very carefully used to deceive the American public in subsequent acts of Congress, because they would be misconstrued by the general public to have their common definition, rather than the very specific legal definition above. This act much better concealed the nature of the I.R.C. Subtitle A income tax as an excise tax upon the privileges incident to public office (e.g. “trade or business”, see 26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26)) by disguising hidden meanings within the terms “compensation” and “services” and “employee”, all of which, by the above act, can ONLY be incident to service in the United States government as a public officer, whether elected or appointed.

The affect [sic] of this act carried over into the IRC’s of 1954 and 1986 insofar as they merely restate relevant elements incorporated in the 1939 version.

Yeah, sure!

Hansen's web site continues:

It is particularly important in the modern I.R.C. Section 61, “Gross Income Defined”, wherein “compensation for services” is listed as a specific “item of income” and its misleadingly ambiguous distinction from “income derived”, seen in the 1921 Revenue Act, is restored. The restoration was accompanied by a notation to the effect that the reconstruction of the 1928 language (which the 1939 code section duplicated) represented no substantial change in its meaning. Below is the content of 26 U.S.C. §61, “Gross Income Defined” so you can now apply the above definitions properly. We have boldfaced and underlined the words from the above definitions contained in the Classification Act and added bracketed material so you can clearly see the meanings:

[ . . . . ]

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:

(1) Compensation for services [as a public official], including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items [ . . . ]

Notice the bracketed language "[as a public official]".

And you fell for this, didn't you Tax Protester? You get your "tax research" from Christopher Hansen? Or is it from some other scammer who copied and pasted from Chris?

[LPC]

The definition of "capitation" quoted above is not contained in the Constitution, and does not seem to come from any decision of the Supreme Court.

What does that even mean, really?

It means that putting quotation marks around a group of words does not persuade me or impress me unless you identify where the words come from. Without a citation to the source of the "quotation," all you are stating is your own opinion (which is worthless, by the way).

The Supreme Court has consistently stated something different. In the Hylton case, Justice Samuel Chase stated his opinion that "the direct taxes contemplated by the constitution are only two, to wit, a capitation or poll tax simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstances, and the tax on land." (Emphasis added.) And other justices have equated "capitation" with "poll tax," which is a tax imposed in a fixed amount on each person.

Oh that case does not apply because it is about taxes on carriages and not occupations; because it is before the 16th Amendment; because it was before the Revenue Act of 1913… sound familiar, no?

Learning to mimic is useful, but learning to reason would be even better.

I have to remind tax protesters like yourself what cases are about, because they quote indiscriminately from any opinion that has a sequence of words that they can pretend supports their insane delusions. But I don't completely discount "dicta" because what courts say (particularly the Supreme Court) is usually a good indicator of how they will rule in other cases.

In the Hylton decision, the court was definitely wrestling with the meaning of "direct tax," and they were writing within 10 years of the creation of the Constitution, so their thoughts are useful and interesting.

Actually, to correctly cite this case, which is from 1796, BTW is as follows:

“I am inclined to think, but of this I do not give a judicial opinion, that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution, are only two, to wit, a capitation, or poll tax, simply, without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance; and a tax on LAND. I doubt whether a tax, by a general assessment of personal property, within the United States, is included within the term direct tax. As I do not think the tax on carriages is a direct tax, it is unnecessary, at this time, for me to determine, whether this court, constitutionally possesses the power to declare an act of Congress void, on the ground of its being made contrary to, and in violation of, the Constitution; but if the court have such power, I am free to declare, that I will never exercise it, but in a very clear case. I am for affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court.”

Since I'm in teaching mode, let me point out that what you have written above is a quotation, not a citation. A citation tells people where to find the case, and is usually a combination of the name of the case, the volume and page (or other source) where the opinion can be located, and the date of the decision, as well as other relevant information, such as the identity of the court deciding the case. The citation to the Hylton decision would be Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

The quotation above is also not "the case" but part of the opinion of Justice Samuel Chase, because each of the four justices who decided the case wrote a separate opinion.

Here let us try it another way… A ‘Capitation Tax’ is a tax or imposition raised on each person in consideration of his labor, industry, office, rank, etc., without specific regard or consideration to it… which it would have to be, as that is the only way it could be tax proportionally, by way of a solid unit of measure from one geographical to another, remaining as an imposition without regard to each persons actual abilities… which is in complete contrast to a tax following uniformity.

What you have written is gibberish, because you can't both impose a tax "in consideration of" a person's labor while simultaneously imposing the same tax WITHOUT consideration of his labor.

Better yet “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstances” is stipulating that it does not matter how much property you have, how well employed you are, nor is any other similar item taken into consideration, the tax applies to you, no way out of it, period. But if the tax varies by a person's employment, then the tax would be an Whereas, an Excise Tax, such as the Income Tax, such items are taken into full consideration for the tax and further still when such items are avoided the tax is not to be levied.

So you agree that an income tax or payroll tax is an excise and not a capitation?

And you definition of "capitation" is irrelevant. The only purpose of defining "capitation" would be to determine if the tax must be apportioned, but the 16th Amendment declares that Congress has the power to impose taxes on incomes without apportionment. So even if a tax on income from labor might be a capitation before the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment removed the requirement of apportionment from any tax on incomes making the meaning of "capitation" irrelevant to the issue of whether a tax is constitutional.

It is not my definition it is Adam Smith’s definition and is supported by the definition contained with all old legal dictionaries, (more current dictionaries have changed the definition, no wonder why).

You're missing the point. I don't care whose definition it is. It's irrelevant. The 16th Amendment allows incomes to be taxed without apportionment. End of story.

As it has been stated already, a ‘Capitation Tax’ is not an ‘Income Tax’ and visa versa, before nor after the advent of the 16th Amendment. That is precisely what is does matter, a tax on labor is not an ‘Income Tax’

A tax on labor itself might not be an income tax, but a tax on remuneration for labor is certainly an income tax.

The 16th Amendment merely, removed the apportionment requirement in consideration of taxing any realized gains and profits which have been derived from a given source (as further defined by law). Nothing more and nothing less.

You're contradicting yourself again. First you insist that incomes from labor cannot be taxed in the same way as incomes from other sources, and then you admit that the 16th Amendment allows for unapportioned taxes on incomes without consideration of the source.

Unfortunately, in the Pollock and Brushaber decisions, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of taxes on "professions," "trades," "employments," "vocations," "occupations," and "labor." (See discussion below.)

[Crickets....]

The lack of a response is undoubtedly accidental, but it would be interesting to see what kind of lame rationalization you can find to ignore Supreme Court decisions that directly contradict you.

Wrong. That decision had nothing to do with taxes, and the words "direct" and "tax" do not even appear in the opinion.

Why don’t you try reading rather then pushing your Ctrl-F button? I already addressed this in prior posts, not going to repeat myself again. You don’t want to read, so sad for you.

You "already address this" in a post that is AFTER mine, and I can't read things before they are written.

What you later wrote was:

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.

Except that you first described Butcher's Union as one of "a couple which touch on the issue and nature of 'Direct Taxes', in so many words." But the case doesn't touch on the issue and nature of direct taxes "in so many words. The case doesn't touch on direct taxes with any words at all. You might have made a mistake, you might be a liar, or you might be an idiot, but what you wrote was WRONG and to pretend that it wasn't is to be an idiot.

Wrong again. The issue was whether a tax on rental income from land was the same as a tax on the value of land, and so a "direct tax." The meaning of "capitation" was not even relevant to the decision.

Oh for Pete sakes, have you even actually read that case?

Here swallow this, tasty I know, right?

“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);

You must not understand what Siaca has written, because what you have quoted is absolutely consistent with what I wrote above, and absolutely consistent with everything I have ever written about the 16th Amendment.

And if Siaca is right, the you are wrong, because you keep wanting to exclude remuneration for labor from taxation by reason of the source of the income.

The Supreme Court quoted a number of earlier opinions and commentaries on the meaning of "direct tax," but those quotations are divided at best. The court quoted the statement by Justice Chase that I referred to above, which contradicts your views on the meaning of capitation, and also quoted Representative Sedgwick for the proposition that a "direct tax" would include both a capitation and a tax on land and "incomes generally." The latter statement supports your view that a tax on incomes was "direct" (before the adoption of the 16th Amendment), but undermines the idea that a tax on income is the same as a capitation because Sedgwick described them separately.

What you are still talking about a case from 1796? Except now in reference to “incomes generally”, which BTW, I can neither find that quote nor Sedgwick’s name anywhere in that case. It is clear in reading that case, they were doing some serious brainstorming on many issues; however, not once was taxing labor discussed. This only further destroys your assertions.

You really have trouble with the idea of "context," don't you? What you have quoted above was the second paragraph following your citation to the first Pollock decision. You recognized that the first paragraph was discussing the first Pollock decision. The third paragraph referred to the second Pollock decision. Now guess what Supreme Court decision I was referring to in the second paragraph, quoted above?

But the second Pollock decision (158 U.S. 601) completely contradicts you. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a tax on dividends and interest was also the same as a tax on property, and so a "direct tax," and declared the entire tax act unconstitutional because otherwise they "would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way a tax on capital would remain in substance a tax on occupations and labor.” In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that an income tax on employment or labor was constitutional, and struck down the entire law only because they believed that Congress would not want the law to stand if only incomes from labor were taxed and not incomes from capital.

Really, how do you figure that exactly? It actually supports my understanding of Constitutional taxation to precision. Furthermore, so does the ratification of the 16th Amendment. Being that such taxes were placed thereafter back into the correct category of ‘Indirect Taxes’, right where they always belong. The central issue of the Pollock case was a misinterpretation or a failed distinction between the underlying source and the participation in a taxable activity, their by making whatever gain or profit was generated taxable. It had much to due with those that wish to have their cake and eat it to, (figuratively speaking).

It's tough to argue with gibberish. Come back when you're coherent and try stating something that is decipherable.

[Edited by LPC to add the following:]The one thing that you've written that is somewhat comprehensible is wrong. The Pollock decision never used the phrase "taxable activity" and there is nothing in the decision about taxing different types of activities in different ways. So you're making up crap again.

The constitutionality of taxes on labor was explicitly affirmed in the Brushaber decision:

“Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from ‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations,’ (158 U.S. 637), its validity was recognized; indeed it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past. Id. p. 635.” Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).

Have you ever read that quote? Did you miss the part where it says: “real estate” and “invested personal property”? Ergo, “income” from whatever source derived! Is it really that difficult to comprehend?

Try reading the sentence again but pay special attention to the words "other than" and "that is."

Since you brought up Brushaber, perhaps you might enjoy some cake and milk?

“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);

All sensible opinions, perfectly consistent with what I have written, and either irrelevant or inconsistent to what you have written.

Which affirmed the constitutionality of the federal income tax under the 16th Amendment and, as explained above, specifically held that incomes from employments were constitutionally subject to tax.

Exactly, ‘income’ does not mean remuneration or compensation or labor,

That's your own personal delusion, which is not shared by Congress or the courts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Not a single judge in the history of the United States, on any court at any level, has ever expressed the belief that Congress cannot tax the money received by workers for their labor.

Oh absolutely they can; however, only by way of apportionment.

God, you really love word games. Okay, I'll try again:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Not a single judge in the history of the United States, on any court at any level, has ever expressed the belief that Congress cannot impose an unapportioned tax on the money received by workers for their labor.

[LPC]

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883) was a case involving interpretation of the Louisiana constitution and certain ordinances of the city of New Orleans. The statement above that the Supreme Court in this case defined labor as "property, and the most sacred kind of property," is false. In a concurring opinion, Justice Field quoted approvingly from Adam Smith, ''An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations'' (1776), as follows:

------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.

However, the Adam Smith quote was not a ruling by the Court.

It's also not the law, because the idea that labor or some other form of property might be "inviolable" and incapable of taxation has been rejected by the courts. In rejecting such a claim in 1830, Chief Justice Marshall wrote:

“The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all the persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by all, for the benefit of all. It resides in government as a part of itself, and need not be reserved when property of any description, or the right to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies. However absolute the right of an individual may be, it is still in the nature of that right, that it must bear a portion of the public burthens; and that portion must be determined by the legislature.”

Providence Bank v. Billings, 29 U.S. 514, 563 (1830), (emphasis added).

In upholding the power of New York to tax a bequest to the United States, the Supreme Court observed in 1896 that:

“[T]he laws of all civilized states recognize in every citizen the absolute right to his own earnings, and to the enjoyment of his own property, and the increase thereof, during his life, except so far as the state may require him to contribute his share for public expenses....”

United States v. Perkins, 163 U.S. 625, 627 (1896).

[Nikki]

What's most interesting about TP's postings is that he has totally avoided any of the underpinnings of a CtC-educated tax return.

Instead, he has fallen back on the usual misinterpretations, incorrect quotations, and outright distortions of the run-of-the mill sovereignoramus tax evader.

[Judge Roy Bean]

From following Tax Protester's ramblings and the responses to them, it is pretty clear why the mythologies universally fail in a legal setting. It is also an excellent demonstration of how one would go about trying to promote the myth to those with even less actual understanding of the law than Tax Protester. He just walked into the wrong room.

But hey, it must be making someone some money, right?

[The Operative]

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.

Wrong. The courts have consistently stated that wages are income and are taxable. No court in the U.S. has EVER ruled that the money you receive in exchange for your labor performed for someone else is not taxable.

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.’

No, capitation taxes are levied on persons regardless of their income. However, in the past, capitation taxes have been adjusted based upon occupation or class rank. That is not the same as a tax on income. For example, if a capitation tax was established saying that all lawyers had to pay $10,000 per year, it would not matter if one lawyer made $50,000 and another lawyer made $300,000. Both lawyers would pay $10,000. The income tax is obviously not a capitation tax and the courts have CONSISTENTLY held that a tax on the income from professions and employments is an EXCISE.

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;

As usual, you are taking a quote that is out of context from the time it was written.

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.

And I mentioned that your “excuses” are wrong and you are misinterpreting the court decisions. The IRC has many of the definitions because some prior tax protester or some other situation created the need to clarify. Now, tax protesters still aren’t happy. Tax protesters always find some excuse why the income tax laws shouldn’t apply to them. Regardless of how many times a court politely tells them they are idiots, they continue tilting at the windmill (See Irwin Schiff).

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.

No court that matters will agree with that. In fact, the courts will state that your argument is ‘frivolous’ and ‘without merit’.

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.

You are wrong. The courts will tell you that you are wrong. People have tried the “I do not receive ‘income’ or wages” argument before. Believe it or not, ‘CTC’ is nothing new. You believers may think it is new, but all of your arguments have been tried before. Just because you do not believe that, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

“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.

Yet another quote taken out of context. The case involved improvements to a building made by a lessee. The commissioner assessed the improvements were income to the lessor in the year the improvements were made. The court found this decision to be wrong in regards to the statute as enacted by Congress. What the court is saying is that a treasury regulation cannot add to what is considered income by the statute. Why this is bad for you is that the courts have specifically said that a private sector employee’s earnings are income within the meaning of the statute.

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)

Still irrelevant. The court was deciding whether Crescent City still had a monopoly that had been created through city ordinances several years prior. A change to the Louisiana constitution abolished monopolies created through ordinance or agreements with the state. The court found that Crescent City no longer had a right to a legally enforced monopoly. Also, later Supreme Court cases have SPECIFICALLY STATED that ‘natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance.’

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 what you are quoting. Also, you are leaving out some very important words from those quotes.

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.

The annotation for the sixteenth amendment does not concur with your understanding. In fact, the following from the pages concerning the 16th amendment from the annotated Constitution says exactly what I, Famspear, LPC and others have been telling you.

The Court conceded that taxes on incomes from ‘‘professions, trades, employments, or vocations’’ levied by this act were excise taxes and therefore valid. The entire statute, however, was voided on the ground that Congress never intended to permit the entire ‘‘burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations’’ after real estate and personal property had been exempted, 158 U.S. at 635 - Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution
Annotations of Cases Decided by the Supreme Court of the United States Senate Document No. 108-17
2002 Edition: Cases Decided to June 28, 2002 page 2067, footnote 3.

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.

You do not even understand stare decisis.

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?

If the person is not following the law (i.e. Pete Hendrickson and all you other CtC adherents), then yes, the court does have the power to instruct a person to follow the law (i.e. by instructing that a person to not file using CtC theories). It is not the responsibility of the IRS to baby-sit every person to make certain they file income taxes correctly. Most people do not need the IRS to hold their hand while they complete an income tax return. Also, even those people that do make mistakes on their returns, most do not receive frivolous penalties. Only those people who use arguments that have been determined to be frivolous will have frivolous penalties.

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.

You are wrong and your reliance on the Corporate Excise tax of 1909 is fallacious. The argument has been tried before and the courts have explained that it is wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protes ... _arguments

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[sic] 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.

No. My example is perfectly clear to anyone who can comprehend simple math or anyone who hasn’t jumped to a conclusion before reading a single word. What the example shows is that taxes are levied on accessions to wealth or gains. There is no flaw in my example.

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.

I was giving an example of the concept of a ‘basis’. It is an example for that purpose only. Leave it to a tax protester to go off on a tangent. BTW, I am not a tax professional. Nor am I a lawyer. However, I can read law and court cases well enough to see that your arguments are without merit.

EDIT: Additionally, the statutes apply to income earned through illegal activities and the courts have ruled that income from illegal activities is taxable. Therefore, the fact of whether or not a person is legally required to turn over to authorities property that is found is irrelevant.

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..

Wrong again. The courts have said differently. In fact, the Supreme Court, in a case concerning personal injury awards, stated that a personal injury award obviously include gains for the person since a portion of the award is intended to compensate the person for lost wages. See Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368.

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.

Wrong. The first problem with your statement is the fact that common labor is not taxed. The INCOME received in exchange for labor is taxed. Second problem is regardless of whether an income tax is called a direct tax or indirect tax is irrelevant since the 16th amendment removes the apportionment requirement for income taxes regardless of the source.