Section 93

[Duke2Earl]

I hate to tell you this but the current IRC is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and all of what various laws of 1864, 1913, 1939 etc. are, in effect, so much dog poo. All any court will care about is the 1986 Tax Code... all of your other ravings are simply nonsense.

[Weston White]

Though I am not trained as an attorney, knowing some fundamentals of federal income taxation is crucial for my line of work. One of the first concepts that any serious financial analyst or accountant learns is that "any item of income received by a taxpayer is includible in gross income unless a specific provision in the IRC specifically states that the item may be excluded". We are taught that "unless the Code explicitly provides otherwise, the rule that all items of income are includible in gross income stands".

Oddly enough, that is exactly what section 61 says, and exactly what the Supreme Court has affirmed in Glenshaw Glass and other cases.

And you mindlessly believed it. Welcome to the cult of the brainwashed sheeple.

Exactly! Congress has taxed "incomes" and not "compensation".

Laboring brings compensation, while investing and the like brings income.

[Duke2Earl]

Exactly! Congress has taxed "incomes" and not "compensation".

Laboring brings compensation, while investing and the like brings income.

Good luck with that one. I hope you don't mind losing bigtime.

[Cpt Banjo]

2. It exposes the underlying truth because there is absolutely no other explanation as to why until the ‘Current Tax Payment Act of 1943’ which thereafter forced “wage” withholding, the majority of Americans did not file federal income tax returns during the first 29-years of it being established. The only explanations are that:
a. All of America was unemployed, which recorded statistics show that not to be the case.
b. That the majority of Americans did not meet the legal requirements to have to file a federal income tax return, which fundamental law supports, ergo, ‘capitation taxes’.

Hopelessly wrong. The exemption amount in the 1913 Act was much, much higher in constant dollars that it was in 1942. That's why so few people ended up paying taxes in the early years. Incidentally, wage witholding was a feature of the 1913 Act, although it was repealed a few years later.

And while you're at it, show us where "fundamental law" (i.e., the Constitution) says that any particular kind of income is exempt from taxation.

[Weston White]

I hate to tell you this but the current IRC is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and all of what various laws of 1864, 1913, 1939 etc. are, in effect, so much dog poo. All any court will care about is the 1986 Tax Code... all of your other ravings are simply nonsense.

If the scope of the Revenue Act for 1986 has changed since 1954, 1939, ..., or 1913, then it is functioning without any law. That means that it is de facto law. But that is not the case, what is the case though is that people do not understand the terms used therein. There is a reason that Wealth of Nations is not required reading material at public schools. Hell, I doubt they even have it at school libraries.

[Weston White]

And yet, the courts have all disagreed with you. Besides, "compensation" is a fairly common synonym for income(s).

That is a great point to make, it all depends upon the term or word you use, is it in the common sense meaning or is it in the established statutory meaning? That is the question!

[Duke2Earl]

I hate to tell you this but the current IRC is the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and all of what various laws of 1864, 1913, 1939 etc. are, in effect, so much dog poo. All any court will care about is the 1986 Tax Code... all of your other ravings are simply nonsense.

If the scope of the Revenue Act for 1986 has changed since 1954, 1939, ..., or 1913, then it is functioning without any law. That means that it is de facto law. But that is not the case, what is the case though is that people do not understand the terms used therein. There is a reason that Wealth of Nations is not required reading material at public schools. Hell, I doubt they even have it at school libraries.

That may be your opinion, but that not what the courts think. And you know, the courts seem to be the ones who can throw your butt in jail. Your mistaken interpretation of the Wealth of Nations is totally meaningless as to whether or not you have to pay taxes. Maybe you ought to get Adam Smith to defend you... he probably smells about as good as your arguments.

[Weston White]

Hopelessly wrong. The exemption amount in the 1913 Act was much, much higher in constant dollars that it was in 1942. That's why so few people ended up paying taxes in the early years. Incidentally, wage witholding was a feature of the 1913 Act, although it was repealed a few years later.

Oh yea that explains everything then, real good explanation, just a real good explanation! Regardless that shows to show that it was not the intent of the Act to tax the common class of society.

And while you're at it, show us where "fundamental law" (i.e., the Constitution) says that any particular kind of income is exempt from taxation.

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.”

If you need further explanation, I suggest a reading of Wealth of Nations, fascinating book, absolutely fascinating, truly.

[Famspear]

Weston White wrote:

Congress has taxed "incomes" and not "compensation".

No, Congress has taxed compensation for services, as others have already noted. See IRC section 61. Weston's statement is, of course, the infamous "Conner" statement that tax protesters love to quote -- hoping that no one will actually look up the Conner case to see what the ruling actually was. Tax protesters have cited this case over and over and over and over and over again, to no avail.



The case is Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). This is a tax protester's attempt to create the false impression that this case was about taxability of compensation for services. This case had nothing to do with compensation for services, or wages, or the taxability of said same. This case was about the taxability of "compensation" paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages" or "compensation for services." The compensation was for the loss of a home by fire.

Weston's nonsense is an example of the logical fallacy of whole word equivocation, which I studied in a logic class in law school. Essentially, this is taking a word out of context. The court in Conner did not rule that compensation for services was not taxable. The court did not rule that "wages" were not taxable. The court did not rule that "salaries" were not taxable. The court did not rule that private sector compensation for services in an activity unconnected with a federal privilege (or however Pete Hendrickson or Weston White feels like phrasing it this week) was not taxable.

No, this is just more futile, flaccid folderol from Weston ("Minimal Intellectual Competence") White.



EDIT: I note in passing that Weston did not actually cite the Conner case. So, we don't know whether Weston even knew the source of the statement he made. If Weston did not know the source, then he is incompetent. If he did know the source, then he is either incompetent or a liar.

[Cpt Banjo]

And while you're at it, show us where "fundamental law" (i.e., the Constitution) says that any particular kind of income is exempt from taxation.

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.”

If you need further explanation, I suggest a reading of Wealth of Nations, fascinating book, absolutely fascinating, truly.

You really can't read, can you? You have not pointed out any kind of income that is exempt. Instead, you have suggeted that taxing certain kinds of income amounts to a direct tax that has to be apportioned. In other words, dimwit, you are talking about how something can be taxed, not what can be taxed. The only problems with this are (a) the 16th Amendment, which makes it clear to all but the most obtuse (that's you, sport) that all incomes can be taxed without apportionment, and (b) the Supreme Court has held that a tax on personal earnings doesn't have to be apportioned.

I couldn't care less what The Wealth of Nations says, because (a) the Supreme Court has rejected it as authority for what a direct or capitation tax is under the Constitution, and (b) Smith never said that a tax on wages is a capitation.

[Weston White]

That may be your opinion, but that not what the courts think. And you know, the courts seem to be the ones who can throw your butt in jail. Your mistaken interpretation of the Wealth of Nations is totally meaningless as to whether or not you have to pay taxes. Maybe you ought to get Adam Smith to defend you... he probably smells about as good as your arguments.

No that is fact, there is nothing in fundamental law that established any varied application of taxation, since 1913, that being the XVI Amendment, nothing, period.

My interpretation of Wealth of Nations? It is not all that hard to understand really, see he used plain words, fairly easy to comprehend what he states numerous times, taxes on the wages of labor are direct taxes and should be taxed in a proportioned manner and that those taxes should be paid by the employer of the labourer either directly or though an increase in the laborers own wages.

Seriously, do you not ponder why Dr. Adam Smith is mentioned in so many of these older SCOTUS cases? There is a reason for that you know. It is just like Common Sense and Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, these writtings had such a great influence, so did Wealth of Nations.

[LPC]

Congress has taxed "incomes" and not "compensation".

Wessy is obviously paraphrasing from the famous Supreme Court decision in Conner v. United States.

(For those not in on the joke, the Conner decision is often cited by crackpots, but it was a District Court decision on the taxation of insurance proceeds received as compensation for losses incurred in a fire. Actual Supreme Court decisions contradict Wessy, such as C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945), in which the Supreme Court declared that “[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”)

[Weston White]

No, Congress has taxed compensation for services, as others have already noted. See IRC section 61. Weston's statement is, of course, the infamous "Conner" statement that tax protesters love to quote -- hoping that no one will actually look up the Conner case to see what the ruling actually was. Tax protesters have cited this case over and over and over and over and over again, to no avail.



The case is Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). This is a tax protester's attempt to create the false impression that this case was about taxability of compensation for services. This case had nothing to do with compensation for services, or wages, or the taxability of said same. This case was about the taxability of "compensation" paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages" or "compensation for services." The compensation was for the loss of a home by fire.

Weston's nonsense is an example of the logical fallacy of whole word equivocation, which I studied in a logic class in law school. Essentially, this is taking a word out of context. The court in Conner did not rule that compensation for services was not taxable. The court did not rule that "wages" were not taxable. The court did not rule that "salaries" were not taxable. The court did not rule that private sector compensation for services in an activity unconnected with a federal privilege (or however Pete Hendrickson or Weston White feels like phrasing it this week) was not taxable.

No, this is just more futile, flaccid folderol from Weston ("Minimal Intellectual Competence") White.



EDIT: I note in passing that Weston did not actually cite the Conner case. So, we don't know whether Weston even knew the source of the statement he made. If Weston did not know the source, then he is incompetent. If he did know the source, then he is either incompetent or a liar.

Oh more of Famspear making exceptions for when it suits to peddle his contorted stance. No response required on my part.

You exposed your falsehood perfectly fine on your own. Your "wittiness" aside.

[Famspear]

Seriously, do you not ponder why Dr. Adam Smith is mentioned in so many of these older SCOTUS cases? There is a reason for that you know. It is just like Common Sense and Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, these writtings had such a great influence, so did Wealth of Nations.

No, we don't "ponder" why Smith is mentioned in some cases, and we don't need to "ponder." That's because we know why Smith was mentioned. Many of us had already studied these cases before you had ever heard of them.

The Supreme Court mentioned Smith and his book for the same reason that anything else is mentioned in a court opinion: as part of the discussion of the case. The mere fact that something is "mentioned" in a court opinion does not mean that the "thing that was mentioned" is a statement of what the law is, Einstein.

And since you obviously still seem to labor under the delusion that we here at Quatloos do know know what the Court ruled in Pollock, let me say it again: ADAM SMITH'S THEORIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, OR STATUTORY LAW, OR CASE LAW, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF LAW. Adam Smith's theories were not ruled to be the law in Pollock, or in any other case you have cited. Adam Smith was rejected.

You can cite Adam Smith over and over until Pete Hendrickson rots in jail, and it still won't change anything, Weston. Repeating the same garbage over and over will not make anyone here respect you, or make anyone believe you -- any more than Hendrickson's repeating his same old Cracking the Code tax scam garbage will relieve him of his legal liability for payment of the federal income taxes he claims he does not owe.

Boo-hoo.....

[Famspear]

No, Congress has taxed compensation for services, as others have already noted. See IRC section 61. Weston's statement is, of course, the infamous "Conner" statement that tax protesters love to quote -- hoping that no one will actually look up the Conner case to see what the ruling actually was. Tax protesters have cited this case over and over and over and over and over again, to no avail.



The case is Conner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 1187 (S.D. Tex. 1969), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 439 F.2d 974 (5th Cir. 1971). This is a tax protester's attempt to create the false impression that this case was about taxability of compensation for services. This case had nothing to do with compensation for services, or wages, or the taxability of said same. This case was about the taxability of "compensation" paid by an insurance company to a policy holder whose house had burned down. The insurance company was reimbursing the homeowner for the costs of renting a place to stay after the home burned down -- under the terms of the insurance policy. The insurance company was not paying "wages" or "compensation for services." The compensation was for the loss of a home by fire.

Weston's nonsense is an example of the logical fallacy of whole word equivocation, which I studied in a logic class in law school. Essentially, this is taking a word out of context. The court in Conner did not rule that compensation for services was not taxable. The court did not rule that "wages" were not taxable. The court did not rule that "salaries" were not taxable. The court did not rule that private sector compensation for services in an activity unconnected with a federal privilege (or however Pete Hendrickson or Weston White feels like phrasing it this week) was not taxable.

No, this is just more futile, flaccid folderol from Weston ("Minimal Intellectual Competence") White.



EDIT: I note in passing that Weston did not actually cite the Conner case. So, we don't know whether Weston even knew the source of the statement he made. If Weston did not know the source, then he is incompetent. If he did know the source, then he is either incompetent or a liar.

Oh more of Famspear making exceptions for when it suits to peddle his contorted stance. No response required on my part.

You exposed your falsehood perfectly fine on your own. Your "wittiness" aside.

That's it? That's your answer? What's the matter Weston?

[Weston White]

You really can't read, can you? You have not pointed out any kind of income that is exempt. Instead, you have suggeted that taxing certain kinds of income amounts to a direct tax that has to be apportioned. In other words, dimwit, you are talking about how something can be taxed, not what can be taxed.

Oh you want to see what type of income is exempt, here you go: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html ... 0_III.html

And you are supposed to be some tax expert or something? Geez, I found that in like 1.5 seconds. Easy sneazie!

The only problems with this are…

(a) the 16th Amendment, which makes it clear to all but the most obtuse (that's you, sport) that all incomes can be taxed without apportionment, and

Exactly and all you have shown to prove is that you do not understand the meaning of phrase: “’income’ as meant within the XVI Amendment” vs. ‘income’ within the meaning of common English.

(b) the Supreme Court has held that a tax on personal earnings doesn't have to be apportioned.

Negative you liar, in changing statutory terms to words you alter their original implications, their context. But that is all you have going for you is to falsify the reality, deprive the truth. Clearly, that is the name of your game.

I couldn't care less what The Wealth of Nations says, because (a) the Supreme Court has rejected it as authority for what a direct or capitation tax is under the Constitution, and (b) Smith never said that a tax on wages is a capitation.

And I am the one that can’t read? ROFL

(a) The only quote I have seen thus far is considering the issue of ‘direct taxes’ and of nothing else.
(b) Yes he did and numerous times, he even has a chapter dedicated to that sole topic.
(c) Guess what, even if he didn’t say that, that is what a capitation tax is as it was established in France as such a class of tax.
(d) The legal definition of capitation tax confirms what is stated within Wealth of Nations.
(e) Nobody can otherwise explain what a capitation tax is if it is not what it has been defined as both in dictionary and in recorded writings.

[LPC]

Seriously, do you not ponder why Dr. Adam Smith is mentioned in so many of these older SCOTUS cases?

There are primitive peoples who can express only four numbers: one, two, three, and many (i.e., any number greater than three). Weston appears to be a member of one of those primitive tribes, because as far as I can tell, there are only four Supreme Court tax opiniones that refer to Adam Smith.

And two of those decisions mention Adam Smith only for the purpose of stating that he is not relevant to the decision, which hardly seems like a ringing endorsement.

[Weston White]

Seriously, do you not ponder why Dr. Adam Smith is mentioned in so many of these older SCOTUS cases? There is a reason for that you know. It is just like Common Sense and Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, these writtings had such a great influence, so did Wealth of Nations.

No, we don't "ponder" why Smith is mentioned in some cases, and we don't need to "ponder." That's because we know why Smith was mentioned. Many of us had already studied these cases before you had ever heard of them.

The Supreme Court mentioned Smith and his book for the same reason that anything else is mentioned in a court opinion: as part of the discussion of the case. The mere fact that something is "mentioned" in a court opinion does not mean that the "thing that was mentioned" is a statement of what the law is, Einstein.

And since you obviously still seem to labor under the delusion that we here at Quatloos do know know what the Court ruled in Pollock, let me say it again: ADAM SMITH'S THEORIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, OR STATUTORY LAW, OR CASE LAW, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF LAW. Adam Smith's theories were not ruled to be the law in Pollock, or in any other case you have cited. Adam Smith was rejected.

You can cite Adam Smith over and over until Pete Hendrickson rots in jail, and it still won't change anything, Weston. Repeating the same garbage over and over will not make anyone here respect you, or make anyone believe you -- any more than Hendrickson's repeating his same old Cracking the Code tax scam garbage will relieve him of his legal liability for payment of the federal income taxes he claims he does not owe.

Boo-hoo.....

QUICK... you have exactly 30-seconds, post your precise and best definition of a 'capitation tax'...tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock...

[Weston White]

There are primitive peoples who can express only four numbers: one, two, three, and many (i.e., any number greater than three). Weston appears to be a member of one of those primitive tribes, because as far as I can tell, there are only four Supreme Court tax opiniones that refer to Adam Smith.

And two of those decisions mention Adam Smith only for the purpose of stating that he is not relevant to the decision, which hardly seems like a ringing endorsement.

Because silly you goose, a 'capitation tax' is not a 'direct tax' and it is not a 'poll-tax'; I suppose you just fail to see that though, eh now!

[grixit]

I read about a product labelling case once. A maker of turkey ham wanted to be allowed to skip the turkey part and just label it "ham". The judge quoted Lewis Carroll "...and whether pigs have wings", before stating that they in fact don't, and denying the petition.

By TP logic, that makes Lewis Carroll part of our code of law.

Which means you can make words mean what you want them to say.

But so can the judge.