CTC questions answered

[Prof]

While I profess great ignorance of the "CTC" method, my perhaps simplistic understanding is that the argument is based upon a reading of the statute that excludes income without a federal nexus such as federal employment.

I have not seen that argument addressed by "Tax Protestor."

As Nikki says, he seems to be regurgitating a lot of stuff from other gurus.

However, if Tax Protestor cares to elaborate, I would like him to explain how CTC "proves" that there is a requirement of a federal "nexus" and how CTC followers interpret that requirement in order to avoid State taxation. I understand that most state taxation statutes follow the analysis of income implicit or explicit in the IRC; however, it seems that a State could adopt any means it wishes to determine the amount of "income." Since the States have not adopted the entire IRC, but generally use their own definitions of income, how does one go from a (stupid) analysis of the IRC to argue that there is no legitimate taxation on the State level?

Just mildly curious.

[The Observer]

So you're making up crap again.

Sorry, LPC, but this is where you are unfortunately wrong. TP's post is 100% genuine crap - nothing made up about it at all.

[Tax Protester]

I have been reading over these and I am noticing the same twisted tactics over and over. Really, I suppose I should not be surprised. Just to note I had replied to each of your replies and I am only one person; while all of you have avoided many of the issues I brought up, while vigorously attacking only very small portion of other issues I brought up, such as the use of legalize and the Butcher's Union case and my use of words such as 'citation' and 'case'. Really is that the best you folks have? This is an absolute cake walk... even with the silliness each of you harlequins pose.

Just to address a few core issues:

1. The point of bringing up Butcher's Union had nothing specifically to do with taxation, specifically. It was merely to point out that a mans labor is his property and serves to create his property, this means that anything having to do effecting his property so far as taxation goes, falls in the realm of Direct Taxes, because that is what such taxes effect. Such taxes are not avoidable.

2. Indirect Taxes are taxes on consumption, licenses, privilege. Such taxes are avoidable.

3. A person must work, it is not avoidable. See Butcher's Union for a refresher course in humanity.

4. I did not misquote any court cases, they are all directly from Findlaw and I provided you the links. Geez, you folks really are desperate, aren't you!

5. The quotes I provided discussing 'income', you must keep in mind that 'income' does not mean payment for labor, it means business and corporate activities which realize gains and profits... this is not what laboring is.

6. At not time have I upheld or mentioned that the government cannot tax ones labor, I did say though that such taxes must be done through Capitation Taxes, because that is what a Capitation Tax is.

7. None of you still understand that the Income Tax never ever had anything to do with Capitation Taxes? Really?

8. In reference to the Classification Act of 1923, think of the term 'income' in relation to the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act, it is the same principle. Special words were defined within a relative Act of law, (also see other Acts such as Public Salary Tax Act, FICA, FUTA, etc.). I know you understand, you just can't admit to it though, it ends your very weak assertions, dead. Further to support the contention I uphold, have a reading of the original Revenue Acts, it is plain as day in those... now it is omitted and hidden.

[Tax Protester]

While I profess great ignorance of the "CTC" method, my perhaps simplistic understanding is that the argument is based upon a reading of the statute that excludes income without a federal nexus such as federal employment.

I have not seen that argument addressed by "Tax Protestor."

As Nikki says, he seems to be regurgitating a lot of stuff from other gurus.

However, if Tax Protestor cares to elaborate, I would like him to explain how CTC "proves" that there is a requirement of a federal "nexus" and how CTC followers interpret that requirement in order to avoid State taxation. I understand that most state taxation statutes follow the analysis of income implicit or explicit in the IRC; however, it seems that a State could adopt any means it wishes to determine the amount of "income." Since the States have not adopted the entire IRC, but generally use their own definitions of income, how does one go from a (stupid) analysis of the IRC to argue that there is no legitimate taxation on the State level?

Just mildly curious.

No, states all use the definitions within the IRC, they all directly reference the IRC, they all use the Gross Income that was determined from the IRC. Which is another sign of the fraud in progress. They all have just piggybacked onto the IRC. Is there any other single object that gets taxed so much as an individuals pay?

[Famspear]

I have been reading over these and I am noticing the same twisted tactics over and over. Really, I suppose I should not be surprised. Just to note I had replied to each of your replies and I am only one person; while all of you have avoided many of the issues I brought up, while vigorously attacking only very small portion of other issues I brought up, such as the use of legalize and the Butcher's Union case and my use of words such as 'citation' and 'case'. Really is that the best you folks have? This is an absolute cake walk... even with the silliness each of you harlequins pose.

What's the matter Protester? Ain't the cakewalk you thought it would be?

Just to address a few core issues:

1. The point of bringing up Butcher's Union had nothing specifically to do with taxation, specifically. It was merely to point out that a mans labor is his property and serves to create his property, this means that anything having to do effecting his property so far as taxation goes, falls in the realm of Direct Taxes, because that is what such taxes effect. Such taxes are not avoidable.

Doesn't matter whether the taxes are "avoidable" or not. That's not the legally relevant distinction. A tax on income from labor is an indirect tax, regardless of whether the tax is avoidable or not. Now, go look for a court case where someone argued this point, and see if you can find one where your argument was upheld.

2. Indirect Taxes are taxes on consumption, licenses, privilege [ . . . . ]

Wrong. Indirect taxes are essentially any taxes other that a capitation or a tax on property by reason of its ownership.

3. A person must work, it is not avoidable. See Butcher's Union for a refresher course in humanity.

Who cares? We're not here to discuss the humanity vel non of taxation.

4. I did not misquote any court cases, they are all directly from Findlaw and I provided you the links. Geez, you folks really are desperate, aren't you!

You quoted cases out of context. Learn what this term means: stare decisis. Look for the decision, the precedent. You are doing what legal commentator Daniel B. Evans refers to as "chaining" -- an almost universal error made by tax protesters. You are chaining this quote from this case and that quote from that case and then falsely arguing that those quotes mean something that the courts did not rule in those cases -- something that the federal courts have actually rejected, over and over and over and over.

5. The quotes I provided discussing 'income', you must keep in mind that 'income' does not mean payment for labor, it means business and corporate activities which realize gains and profits... this is not what laboring is.

No, income is not limited to "business and corporate activities which realize gains and profits", and every single federal court that has ever considered your specious argument has rejected that argument. Now, go look for one single court case that supports your argument. Not five cases, or ten cases. Just cite one that you believe stands for your argument.

6. At not time have I upheld or mentioned that the government cannot tax ones labor, I did say though that such taxes must be done through Capitation Taxes, because that is what a Capitation Tax is.

You are wrong. A tax on labor, or income from labor, is not a capitation tax. Now go look for one court case where someone raised your argument, and the court ruled in your favor.

7. None of you still understand that the Income Tax never ever had anything to do with Capitation Taxes? Really?

No, the U.S. federal income tax has never, ever been treated as a "capitation tax" in the history of the United States. Now, go look for one case that you believe supports your argument.

8. In reference to the Classification Act of 1923, think of the term 'income' in relation to the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act, it is the same principle. Special words were defined within a relative Act of law. I know you understand, you just can't admit to it though, it ends your very weak assertions, dead. Further to support the contention I uphold, have a reading of the original Revenue Acts, it is plain as day in those... now it is omitted and hidden.

No. Baloney. The Classification Act of 1923 does not determine the meaning of income under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

[Tax Protester]

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

This one was just too funny had to reply to it.

You are citing Wikipedia pages now? OMG! Seriously what about it? And guess what I am not saying that only corporate income is taxable now am I?

If I play investments or earn interest on my pay, I promise all of you that I will pay the tax owed on that, so long as it has a federal nexus and qualifies. But the money I make for working, belongs to me and I have no interest in being a member of the SSA.

[Tax Protester]

What's the matter Protester? Ain't the cakewalk you thought it would be?

laff, and what do you think I am going to reply to numerous people over and over and over? Get serious.

[Tax Protester]

You quoted cases out of context. Learn what this term means: stare decisis. Look for the decision, the precedent. You are doing what legal commentator Daniel B. Evans refers to as "chaining" -- an almost universal error made by tax protesters. You are chaining this quote from this case and that quote from that case and then falsely arguing that those quotes mean something that the courts did not rule in those cases -- something that the federal courts have actually rejected, over and over and over and over.

You sir are an outright liar. Guess what you just made my foe list. Goodbye you piece of trash.

DONE

EDIT: Public notice, that is what I am going to do, for every person that pulls the crap that Famspear just pulled, that person will be added to my foe list... until that are only a few people left, at which time I will bail. Peace out.

[Famspear]

You quoted cases out of context. Learn what this term means: stare decisis. Look for the decision, the precedent. You are doing what legal commentator Daniel B. Evans refers to as "chaining" -- an almost universal error made by tax protesters. You are chaining this quote from this case and that quote from that case and then falsely arguing that those quotes mean something that the courts did not rule in those cases -- something that the federal courts have actually rejected, over and over and over and over.

You sir are an outright liar. Guess what you just made my foe list. Goodbye you piece of trash.

No, I am not a liar. What's the matter Protester? Can't take the heat? Go look for one single statement that I have made that constitutes "a lie."

[David Mamet mode = on] You see, pal, I know what I am talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. You're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give s**t. Go home and play with your kids. You wanna play here? Then you better be ready to take it as well as dish it out. Fundamentally, Protester, you are a phony. [David Mamet mode = off]

[LPC]

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…

If you are self-educated, then you had an ignorant fool for a teacher.

[Nikki]

If I play investments or earn interest on my pay, I promise all of you that I will pay the tax owed on that, so long as it has a federal nexus and qualifies. But the money I make for working, belongs to me and I have no interest in being a member of the SSA.

Please provide a single citation to a court case or a statute which restricts taxation based upon a federal nexus.

While you're at it, please explain how every single CtC adherant who has become involved in any form of litigation regarding his or her tax return or refund has either conceded defeat or outright lost -- including Pete.

[Lambkin]

You quoted cases out of context. Learn what this term means: stare decisis. Look for the decision, the precedent. You are doing what legal commentator Daniel B. Evans refers to as "chaining" -- an almost universal error made by tax protesters. You are chaining this quote from this case and that quote from that case and then falsely arguing that those quotes mean something that the courts did not rule in those cases -- something that the federal courts have actually rejected, over and over and over and over.

You sir are an outright liar. Guess what you just made my foe list. Goodbye you piece of trash.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Famspear's words you quoted reflect a universally-held view so you may as well ban the rest of us as well. All of your quotes and citations combined will not make a court rule that your income isn't taxable. So I hope you get your chance to advance these theories in court where they can be properly resolved in a more convincing way. What you are hearing on this message board are educated guesses about how that will turn out for you and the consensus is "badly".

[The Operative]

I have been reading over these and I am noticing the same twisted tactics over and over.

We have noticed the same denial of reality over and over.

Really, I suppose I should not be surprised. Just to note I had replied to each of your replies and I am only one person; while all of you have avoided many of the issues I brought up, while vigorously attacking only very small portion of other issues I brought up, such as the use of legalize and the Butcher's Union case and my use of words such as 'citation' and 'case'. Really is that the best you folks have? This is an absolute cake walk... even with the silliness each of you harlequins pose.

You have ignored our explanations of every point you raise. That is different than us avoiding the ‘issues’ you have brought up.

Just to address a few core issues:
1. The point of bringing up Butcher's Union had nothing specifically to do with taxation, specifically. It was merely to point out that a mans labor is his property and serves to create his property, this means that anything having to do effecting his property so far as taxation goes, falls in the realm of Direct Taxes, because that is what such taxes effect. Such taxes are not avoidable.

Butcher’s Union does say that a man’s labor is his property, but as has been stated, your labor is NOT being taxed. The INCOME you receive in exchange for your labor is what is being taxed. Congress may not tax the value of property directly, but it is well established that Congress can tax the transfer of property.

2. Indirect Taxes are taxes on consumption, licenses, privilege. Such taxes are avoidable.

The courts disagree. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#privileges and http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#burden

3. A person must work, it is not avoidable. See Butcher's Union for a refresher course in humanity.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#rights

4. I did not misquote any court cases, they are all directly from Findlaw and I provided you the links. Geez, you folks really are desperate, aren't you!

While you may cut and paste certain portions of court cases, you still do not understand them or how those cases are interpreted by other courts.

5. The quotes I provided discussing 'income', you must keep in mind that 'income' does not mean payment for labor, it means business and corporate activities which realize gains and profits... this is not what laboring is.

Payment you receive for your labor is income whether you believe it or not. http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

6. At not time have I upheld or mentioned that the government cannot tax ones labor, I did say though that such taxes must be done through Capitation Taxes, because that is what a Capitation Tax is.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If Congress enacted a law stating that all persons paid a tax of $10,000 regardless of how much a person earns, that is a capitation tax. If Congress enacted a law that stated that a lawyer pays $10,000 a year in taxes and a car salesman pays $5,000 a year and a doctor pays $20,000 in taxes and a garbage man pays $1,000 a year, that is a capitation tax. However, if Congress enacts a law that says that every person pays a particular amount of taxes based upon what they earn, that is NOT a capitation tax.

7. None of you still understand that the Income Tax never ever had anything to do with Capitation Taxes? Really?

I know that because income taxes are not capitation taxes and the income taxes enacted in the U.S. are not capitation taxes and do not have to be.

8. In reference to the Classification Act of 1923, think of the term 'income' in relation to the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act, it is the same principle. Special words were defined within a relative Act of law, (also see other Acts such as Public Salary Tax Act, FICA, FUTA, etc.). I know you understand, you just can't admit to it though, it ends your very weak assertions, dead. Further to support the contention I uphold, have a reading of the original Revenue Acts, it is plain as day in those... now it is omitted and hidden.

The Classification Act of 1923 has no bearing on the definition of income for the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

[LPC]

I have been reading over these and I am noticing the same twisted tactics over and over. Really, I suppose I should not be surprised. Just to note I had replied to each of your replies and I am only one person; while all of you have avoided many of the issues I brought up, while vigorously attacking only very small portion of other issues I brought up, such as the use of legalize and the Butcher's Union case and my use of words such as 'citation' and 'case'. Really is that the best you folks have?

You're still blowing smoke.

You continue to evade the most important issue, which is why you think that that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says, and every legal commentator you have quoted have confirmed, which is that taxes on incomes do NOT need to be apportioned.

1. The point of bringing up Butcher's Union had nothing specifically to do with taxation, specifically.

And yet you brought it up in a discussion of taxation, and claimed that it touched on the meaning of "direct tax" in "so many words."

So it was just more smoke?

2. Indirect Taxes are taxes on consumption, licenses, privilege.

Indirect taxes include duties and excises, and taxes on incomes are duties or excises. See Springer v. United States,

Such taxes are avoidable.

How would an excise on the consumption of food be "avoidable"?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says nothing about "avoidable," and neither does the 16th Amendment. And the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the idea that an excise must be "avoidable."

3. A person must work, it is not avoidable.

Rich people don't need to work, and neither do people receiving disability benefits.

And people who work don't need to earn income. For example, subsistence farmers cam feed and house themselves without earning any money. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, a significant percentage of the American people were subsistence farmers, and free land was plentiful, so whether one became a laborer earning wages from an employer was entirely voluntary.

5. The quotes I provided discussing 'income', you must keep in mind that 'income' does not mean payment for labor,

Another of your personal delusions having no basis in reality.

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.” Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

“In sum, the sixteenth amendment authorizes the imposition of a tax upon income without apportionment among the states, and under the statute, the term ‘income’ includes the compensation a taxpayer receives in return for services rendered.” Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982), affirming T.C. Memo. 1981-506.

“Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.” United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

6. At not time have I upheld or mentioned that the government cannot tax ones labor, I did say though that such taxes must be done through Capitation Taxes, because that is what a Capitation Tax is.

You keep restating your conclusion without providing any evidence or authority to support it.

Remember, 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.

Meanwhile, we have had an unapportioned income tax on wages, salaries, remuneration for labor, and just anything else you want to call it since 1913, and every single judge that has had the misfortune to have to deal with arguments like yours have rejected them as frivolous.

[The Operative]

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

This one was just too funny had to reply to it.

You are citing Wikipedia pages now? OMG! Seriously what about it? And guess what I am not saying that only corporate income is taxable now am I?

If I play investments or earn interest on my pay, I promise all of you that I will pay the tax owed on that, so long as it has a federal nexus and qualifies. But the money I make for working, belongs to me and I have no interest in being a member of the SSA.

The wikipedia entry is correct, whereas your inane babblings are not. The only reason I referenced it was because it was easier to reference it than to write an explanation.

For the federal nexus argument, see United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

[Demosthenes]

Famspear likely wrote the Wiki entry...

[LPC]

No, states all use the definitions within the IRC, they all directly reference the IRC, they all use the Gross Income that was determined from the IRC.

Wrong again. For example, Pennsylvania's personal income tax has almost nothing to do with the federal income tax. In fact, Pennsylvania once tried to enact an income that was based on federal taxable income and it was struck down as a violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

A brochure (REV-581) published by the Pa. Dept. of Revenue states flatly in its second sentence on the first page: "PA Personal Income Tax law does not follow the same rules as the federal Internal Revenue Code."

[Red Cedar PM]

“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

Got another good quote for you. I'll let you guess what it's in reference to.

"Some people believe with great fervor preposterous things that just happen to coincide with their self-interest."

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 69 (7th Cir. 1986).

[ASITStands]

You quoted cases out of context. Learn what this term means: stare decisis. Look for the decision, the precedent. You are doing what legal commentator Daniel B. Evans refers to as "chaining" -- an almost universal error made by tax protesters. You are chaining this quote from this case and that quote from that case and then falsely arguing that those quotes mean something that the courts did not rule in those cases -- something that the federal courts have actually rejected, over and over and over and over.

You sir are an outright liar. Guess what you just made my foe list. Goodbye you piece of trash.

DONE

EDIT: Public notice, that is what I am going to do, for every person that pulls the crap that Famspear just pulled, that person will be added to my foe list... until that are only a few people left, at which time I will bail. Peace out.

I'm sure it's obvious, and I'm just too dense to understand, but ....

Why such an angry reaction to 'Famspear's' description of 'chaining?' I don't understand how this makes 'Famspear' a liar or why it upsets you so very much. Care to explain?

[Nikki]

Public notice, that is what I am going to do, for every person that pulls the crap that Famspear just pulled, that person will be added to my foe list... until that are only a few people left, at which time I will bail. Peace out.

He's only doing that because he can't invoke the Ban-The-Heretics rule which is one of the basic tenets of LoserHeads' forum.

Brings to mind something about cockroaches and daylight...