income from whatever source derived (again)

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
Doktor Avalanche
Asst Secretary, the Dept of Jesters
Posts: 1767
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Yuba City, CA

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Doktor Avalanche »

Weston White wrote: Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches, it is the lower courts that are not in compliance with the rule of law. Why do you think the IRS depends so much on quoting lower court cases to prove their points? Because they know SCOTUS shows them to be entirely wrong in the crap they dole out.
*snicker*

*guffaw*

hehehe

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

* whew *

Thanks for the laugh, Weston.
The laissez-faire argument relies on the same tacit appeal to perfection as does communism. - George Soros
User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 5631
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 5:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Gregg »

I'm waiting for him to start quoting Common Law Courts, Michigan Militia Administrative Decisions and obscure 17th Century Latvian Economics Undergrads. Other than the entertainment value that may provide, I don't pay much attention to Weston anymore. I suspect I'm not the only one here who got all they wanted in the first few days he posted here.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.
Duke2Earl
Eighth Operator of the Delusional Mooloo
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 10:09 pm
Location: Neverland

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Duke2Earl »

Weston White wrote:No I do not bounce back and forth, each of you keep bringing up other side issues, I suppose because you have nothing else to fall back on, because my core argument, completely annihilates your already frail contentions.
Oh really. We're real easy to convince. All you have to show is one case, one single case in any court in the land that ever held that people's wages weren't subject to income tax. Just one. For all your bluster and bullcrap, when it comes down to it, you have exactly nothing but your wild imaginings.

At its heart, to believe you or Hendrickson or many other tax deniers one has to believe that every court in the land is wrong, every reputable tax professional is wrong, every reputable constitutional scholar is wrong and over a hundred years of jurisprudence and thousands of actual cases are wrong but you are right. Doesn't sound like much of a contest to me.

I know you think you are winning the discussion here. That's just another thing you are wrong about.
My choice early in life was to either be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politican. And to tell the truth there's hardly any difference.

Harry S Truman
Famspear
Knight Templar of the Sacred Tax
Posts: 7668
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 12:59 pm
Location: Texas

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Famspear »

Weston, why don't you sign up for the Supreme Court's Minimum Intellectual Competence Test, as promulgated by Justice Harry Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court in the Cheek case?

In Cheek, there were two major rulings by the Supreme Court. Justices Harry Blackmun and Thurgood Marshall agreed with the Court's ruling that a belief that the Federal income tax is unconstitutional is not a defense to a charge of willfulness.

These two justices complained, however, about the Court's separate ruling that a genuine, good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law is a valid defense. In the dissent to that part particular ruling, Justice Blackmun (with Justice Marshall agreeing) wrote:
It seems to me that we are concerned in this case not with "the complexity of the tax laws," ante, at 200, but with the income tax law in its most elementary and basic aspect: Is a wage earner a taxpayer and are wages income? [ . . . ] it is incomprehensible to me how, in this day [January of 1991], more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. One might note in passing that this particular taxpayer, after all, was a licensed pilot for one of our major commercial airlines; he presumably was a person of at least minimum intellectual competence.
-----from the dissent in Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991).

Result? Because of the trial court's error in its instruction to the jury, John Cheek's first conviction was thrown out. The case went back for retrial, and despite John Cheek's claim that he really believed that wages were not income, Mr. Cheek was again convicted. He went to federal prison. And he began appealing all over again. The Court of Appeals upheld his second conviction. And the United States Supreme Court let his second conviction stand, by denying his petition for writ of certiorari.

Weston, if you are now really claiming that you really believe that the United States Supreme Court now agrees -- or has ever agreed at any time in history -- with Peter Eric Hendrickson's Cracking the Code tax scam -- including Hendrickson's laughable definitions of terms like "wage" and "employer" and "employee" and "includes," you are either lying or you are dumber than a box of rocks.

:lol:
"My greatest fear is that the audience will beat me to the punch line." -- David Mamet
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by LPC »

Weston White wrote:Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches,
Unbelievable.
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
ASITStands
17th Viscount du Voolooh
Posts: 1088
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by ASITStands »

Weston ....

Is it your contention that the income tax laws (as originally written and as originally conceived by the founders) did not impose a tax on compensation (remuneration) or payments made in exchange for labor, and that those original tax laws have been changed so much from the original that the most pertinent parts of the law have been hidden?

In other words, that the important understanding of what was intended to be taxed (and originally taxed) was made ambiguous by the later tax laws enacted by Congress?

I'm seriously trying to understand the core of your argument, and the best that I can conceive of it, is that you believe the income tax laws (as they stand today) are not what was originally intended or what was allowed by the founding documents.

Am I getting close? Please don't argue with me, and please simply answer the questions.

Also, I'd like to see you answer the question asked by 'Dr. Caligari' below.
Dr. Caligari wrote:
No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government
OK, fine (even though that language no longer appears in the Code or regulations). Just what items of income are there that are not taxable by the federal government under the Constitution? (Hint: if you can answer that question, you will know why that language has been removed from the current versions of the Code and Regulations.)
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by jg »

Weston White wrote: No I do not bounce back and forth, each of you keep bringing up other side issues, I suppose because you have nothing else to fall back on, because my core argument, completely annihilates your already frail contentions. I am merely replying to the content of your off-topic posts, the shifting nature of the many subjects you address. If you do not like it, might I make the suggestion for you to stop going off topic?
I started this thread with a quote and a link to Glenshaw Glass to "visit Title 26 section 61 and the interpretation of the phrase " gross income means all income from whatever source derived"..." and have stayed on that topic.
Weston White wrote:
If you are not interested in what judicial authority says is, and is not, income for purposes of application of the income tax, then you can not possibly determine what is or is not legally correct.
I never said that, I am very interested in reviewing SCOTUS cases. I am just not interested in reading through a vague quotation that gets posted and which contains no actual insight as to what is really being addressed within the case.
What was said:
Weston White wrote:
jg wrote:Obviously, you prefer not to examine what the SCOTUS has ruled to be income that is comprehended as gross income subject to the income tax.
I do not disagree with that, at this point in time I am no longer interested in what the IRC states or does not state, I have come to understand that the IRC is not the argument to be made, it is the core of the entire argument that is to be made...
So you post to this thread that says it is to "visit Title 26 section 61 and the interpretation of the phrase " gross income means all income from whatever source derived"..." but you say "at this point in time I am no longer interested in what the IRC states or does not state".

You do not disagree that "Obviously, you prefer not to examine what the SCOTUS has ruled to be income that is comprehended as gross income subject to the income tax" but you also say "I am very interested in reviewing SCOTUS cases. "

Another prime example of you being inconsistent or unable to focus or maybe just answering whatever question is in your head rather than what is written.

My suggestion is that you not only review; but carefully consider what the SCOTUS says in COMMISSIONER v. GLENSHAW GLASS CO., 348 U.S. 426 (1955) and compare that to your claim that work for labor is not within the taxing power of the Congress of the United States.
The full case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 8&page=426

Since I understand your reluctance to want to deal with that current SCOTUS delineation of what is gross income subject to the income tax. Here is a blast from the past that contradicts much of what you imagine about the early understandings in our country as to what is an indirect or a direct tax.

As a bonus, look carefully at SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) which is one of the first cases that deals with the issue of what is a direct tax as that term is used in the Constitution available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586
(And yes, consider this changing the topic,if you like, - but it was, after all my topic -though you seem not to have been aware what the topic actually was by saying I was the one off topic. )
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE wrote:Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs, and among them one entitled 'Carriage tax.' See vol. vii. p. 848, of his works. This paper was evidently prepared with a view to the Hylton case, in which he appeared as one of the counsel for the United States. In it he says: 'What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? It is a matter of regret that terms so uncertain and vague in so important a point are to be found in the Constitution. We shall seek in vain for any antecedent settled legal meaning to the respective terms. There is none. We shall be as much at a loss to find any disposition of either which can satisfactorily determine the point.' There being many carriages in some of the States, and very few in others, he points out the preposterous consequences if such a tax be laid and collected on the principle of apportionment instead of the rule of uniformity. He insists that if the tax there in question was a direct tax, so would be a tax on ships, according to their tonnage. He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and 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.'

The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error.
In case you missed it the argument of the plaintiff is found here:
Mr. William M. Springer for the plaintiff in error.

The tax assessed against the plaintiff in error having been levied upon his income, gains, and profits, is a direct tax. 3 Smith's Wealth of Nations, 212, 213, 216, 220-228, 244-248, 271-274, 276-278; 2 Mill's Pol. Econ. 418-434; Say's Pol. Econ. 465-468, 480; Perry's Elements Pol. Econ. 443; 1 Chambers's Inf. for the People, 371; Brande's Dict. of Science, Literature, and Art, 1211; Wayland's Pol. Econ. 391, 392; Knight's Cyclopaedia (London, 1842), title 'Taxation;' Encyclopaedia Britannica, title 'Taxation;' Encyclopaedia Americana, title 'Taxes;' 4 Elliott's Debates, 433; Sir Morton Peto on Taxation, 50, 53; Goodrich's Science of Government, 251; Ricardo's Principles of Pol. Econ. 214, 221; 1 Pampletier, 557 (1816). [102 U.S. 586, 591] The tax on incomes not having been based, even professedly, upon population nor approtioned relatively among the several States, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States. Const. U. S., art. 1, sects. 2, 8, 9; 1 Kent, Com. 277; 2 Story, Const. 113, 143; Loughborough v. Blake, 5 Wheat. 317.


Oh, but Weston, you seemed to be dreaming that your argument that the income tax must be apportioned is something new. Or that the founding fathers even had clearly categorized income on labor as being direct versus indirect. Or that Adam Smith would provide something to convince the court that the tax on incomes not having been based, even professedly, upon population nor apportioned relatively among the several States, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Read the Springer case and find more evidence that you are very far from the correct legal categorization of the income tax (at least according to the Supreme Court.)
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Nikki

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Nikki »

Weston White wrote:Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches, it is the lower courts that are not in compliance with the rule of law. Why do you think the IRS depends so much on quoting lower court cases to prove their points? Because they know SCOTUS shows them to be entirely wrong in the crap they dole out.
Sherman T. Potter had the best possible response to this hallucination: "Horse hockey!"
Imalawman
Enchanted Consultant of the Red Stapler
Posts: 1808
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Formerly in a cubicle by the window where I could see the squirrels, and they were married.

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Imalawman »

Weston White wrote:Oh and hello SCOTUS is agreement with what CtC teaches, it is the lower courts that are not in compliance with the rule of law. Why do you think the IRS depends so much on quoting lower court cases to prove their points? Because they know SCOTUS shows them to be entirely wrong in the crap they dole out.
Weston, I have some oceanfront property in South Dakota that I would be willing to let go very cheaply, just because I like you. PM me and we'll work out the details.
"Some people are like Slinkies ... not really good for anything, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down the stairs" - Unknown
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Dr. Caligari »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government
OK, fine (even though that language no longer appears in the Code or regulations). Just what items of income are there that are not taxable by the federal government under the Constitution? (Hint: if you can answer that question, you will know why that language has been removed from the current versions of the Code and Regulations.)
Still waiting for an answer, Weston.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
The Operative
Fourth Shogun of Quatloosia
Posts: 885
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 3:04 pm
Location: Here, I used to be there, but I moved.

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by The Operative »

Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak.
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Famspear wrote:Weston White wrote:
I never said that, I am very interested in reviewing SCOTUS cases. I am just not interested in reading through a vague quotation that gets posted and which contains no actual insight as to what is really being addressed within the case.
:lol:

Then, you'd better delete about 98% of your own posts, Weston!

:P
Sure I will get right on that. NOT.
Judge Roy Bean
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Judge for the District of Quatloosia
Posts: 3704
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: West of the Pecos

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Judge Roy Bean »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government
OK, fine (even though that language no longer appears in the Code or regulations). Just what items of income are there that are not taxable by the federal government under the Constitution? (Hint: if you can answer that question, you will know why that language has been removed from the current versions of the Code and Regulations.)
Still waiting for an answer, Weston.
WW will not answer questions that reinforce public humiliation.
The Honorable Judge Roy Bean
The world is a car and you're a crash-test dummy.
The Devil Makes Three
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Dr. Caligari wrote:
Dr. Caligari wrote:
No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government
OK, fine (even though that language no longer appears in the Code or regulations). Just what items of income are there that are not taxable by the federal government under the Constitution? (Hint: if you can answer that question, you will know why that language has been removed from the current versions of the Code and Regulations.)
Still waiting for an answer, Weston.
It was removed in preparation of the up and coming Current Tax Payment Act. To obfuscate the truth from the public... and it worked like a charm.

I already posted the link to Subchapter B and I could care less about what items of income are exempt. I do not deal in such numeration, one way or the other, exception being to my bank accounts. Though I have been searching for a local bank that does non-interest bearing accounts and strangely enough, not a single one does.

All things being equal though, you would have a very tough time explaining why such language was even included if things truly were as you claim them to be. Because there would be no need at all as everything would be applicable except as exempted within the IRC, which had been covered within its own language anyway!
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

WW will not answer questions that reinforce public humiliation.
Sure I will and I just did. I am not scared you any of you, most of your tactics are nothing more than juvenile anyways. Debating in forums is old news to me, I have thousands and thousands of posts racked up on various forums dedicated to many topics.

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel any better. I can tell by our posts you have self-esteem issues. Most "judges" do.
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

*snicker*

*guffaw*

hehehe

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

* whew *[/qoute]
Thanks for the laugh, Weston.
Wow now that is absolutely astonishing, you have managed to summarize every single post you have ever made on this forum into a short series of single syllable noises. Somebody, quick call Guinness I think this man has just accomplished the impossible.
jg
Fed Chairman of the Quatloosian Reserve
Posts: 614
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 1:25 am

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by jg »

Weston, please know that the Supreme Court ruled in 1880 that an income tax is not a capitation.

In SPRINGER v. U S, 102 U.S. 586 (1880) which is available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=586
MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE wrote:
Hamilton left behind him a series of legal briefs,... <snip for brevity> ...
He suggests that the boundary line between direct and indirect taxes be settled by 'a species of arbitration,' and that direct taxes be held to be only 'capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and 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.'

The tax here in question falls within neither of these categories. It is not a tax on the 'whole . . . personal estate' of the individual, but only on his income, gains, and profits during a year, which may have been but a small part of his personal estate, and in most cases would have been so. This classification lends no support to the argument of the plaintiff in error.
See where the court said the tax falls within neither "capitation or poll taxes, and taxes on lands and buildings, and general assessments, whether on the whole property of individuals or on their whole real or personal estate."?

The income tax is not a capitation or poll tax according to the Supreme Court. Mr. Springer, the plaintiff, even used Adam Smith and other economic philosophers of the time in his briefs.

Read the case and decide for yourself. Quit swallowing Hendrickson's garbage that the income tax is a capitation.
“Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

... that to your claim that work for labor is not within the taxing power of the Congress of the United States.
I have never laid such a claim, only that it is taxable though direct taxation only.
Oh, but Weston, you seemed to be dreaming that your argument that the income tax must be apportioned is something new. Or that the founding fathers even had clearly categorized income on labor as being direct versus indirect. Or that Adam Smith would provide something to convince the court that the tax on incomes not having been based, even professedly, upon population nor apportioned relatively among the several States, was in violation of the Constitution of the United States.
Where have I argued that income taxes must be apportioned? I never said that, you must therefore be the one “dreaming”, not I.

Here let me rephrase, I am interested in SCOTUS cases addressing direct taxation, I don’t really care about cases arguing over “income taxes”, it is not relevant.

The cases you are discussing involves the consideration that income was thought to be within ‘direct taxes’ as a direct tax upon the property itself or a tax upon a certain item of property vs. the use of that property, such as riding are carriage upon public roads, for example.

When I stated stay on topic, perhaps I should have said stay on point, this was not only in reference to this thread, but in all of the other threads as well, people are just all over the map.
Read the Springer case and find more evidence that you are very far from the correct legal categorization of the income tax (at least according to the Supreme Court.)
You know you keep posting that but every reference to income taxes is just as I understand them to be. Income taxes are not capitation taxes!
5. The duty which the internal revenue acts provided should be assessed, collected, and paid upon gains, profits, and incomes was an excise or duty, and not a direct tax, within the meaning of the Constitution.
This case is concerning 'direct taxes', not 'capitations' and not 'incomes' per se:
4. Direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.
“Nothing is said of any other direct tax. In neither case is there a definition given or attempted of the phrase 'direct tax.'”
Mr. Justice Chase said further, 'That he would give no judicial opinion upon the subject, but that he was inclined to think that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution were only two,-a capitation tax and a tax on land.'
Our conclusions are, that direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty. Pomeroy, Const. Law, 177; Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, and Scholey v. Rew, supra.
The moral of the story is: ‘Direct Taxation’ is either (1) a ‘capitation tax’ as expressed within the Constitution; ergo no further explanation needed, because there is no doubt as what that actually means, to argue about such a point we might as well begin arguing about the meaning of “conclusion” or “constitution” or “freedom” or “liberty” or it is (2) a ‘direct tax’, a tax on realty or that which is tied to the land, i.e. slaves.
Weston White

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Weston White »

Read the case and decide for yourself. Quit swallowing Hendrickson's garbage that the income tax is a capitation.
Well, POLLOCK cited differently regarding income, not the income tax, but "income", it was considered to exist within 'direct taxes' as a tax upon ownership of property.

I have never said the income tax is a capitation tax, the income tax is its own class of tax, that exisits within the excise tax; as the poll-tax exists within the capitation tax.

Within the Springer case though, it does not point out what he was being taxed for other than his income, always in reference to gains and profits. That could very well be anything. So there is no real context to this citing this case without that information.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Re: income from whatever source derived (again)

Post by Cpt Banjo »

Weston White wrote:Within the Springer case though, it does not point out what he was being taxed for other than his income, always in reference to gains and profits. That could very well be anything. So there is no real context to this citing this case without that information.
If you read the Pollock case, it tells you that Springer's income consisted of his personal earnings from his law practice and interest on government bonds. Now, we all know that Pollock held that a tax on the income from property was a direct tax because it was viewed as a tax on the underlying property. Consequently, a tax on the income from government bonds would have been held to be a direct tax by the Pollock majority. But we also know that Pollock didn't overrule Springer. It follows, therefore...
All these cases are distinguishable from that in hand, and this brings us to consider that of Springer v. U. S., 102 U.S. 586 , chiefly relied on and urged upon us as decisive.

That was an action of ejectment, brought on a tax deed issued to the United States on sale of defendant's real estate for income taxes. The defendant contended that the deed was void, because the tax was a direct tax, not levied in accordance with the constitution. Unless the tax were wholly invalid, the defense failed.

The statement of the case in the report shows that Springer returned a certain amount as his net income for the particular year, but does not give the details of what his income, gains, and profits consisted in.

The original record discloses that the income was not derived in any degree from real estate, but was in part professional as attorney at law, and the rest interest on United States bonds. It would seem probable that the court did not feel called upon to advert to the distinction between the latter and the former source of income, as the validity of the tax as to either would sustain the action.

The opinion thus concludes: 'Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.'

While this language is broad enough to cover the interest as well as the professional earnings, the case would have been more significant as a precedent if the distinction had been brought out in the report and commented on in arriving at judgment, for a tax on professional receipts might be treated as an excise or duty, and therefore indirect, when a tax on the income of personalty might be held to be direct.
Pollock also recognized that a tax on wages and personal earnings is not a direct tax:
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...

...According to the census, the true valuation of real and personal property in the United States in 1890 was $65,037,091,197, of which real estate with improvements thereon made up $39,544,544,333. Of course, from the latter must be deducted, in applying these sections, all unproductive property and all property whose net yield does not exceed $4,000; but, even with such deductions, it is evident that the income from realty formed a vital part of the scheme for taxation embodied therein. If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; 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. But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered as a whole.
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis