John J. Bulten wrote:Dan, would you please cite what statute superseded the meaning of Revenue Act of 1938 section 22(a)?
No statute was needed to supersede the meaning of the Revenue Act of 1938 because the Revenue Act of 1938 was repealed.
News flash: We now operate under the Internal Revenue Code of 1996. Please set your calendars accordingly.
John J. Bulten wrote:In US v Hendrickson, the court rejected or vitiated each of Hendrickson's claims by declaring he earned "wages". She did not thereby tax pay for work in itself, but the statutory nexus which is associated with "wages", which the US had to import in spite of Hendrickson's testimony. The court's ruling is not contrary to my point that no cases impose income taxes on work for pay in itself. Nice try.
What you have written is gibberish.
The court rejected all of Hendrickson's arguments and declared that the money he received was "wages" subject to tax.
The court's ruling is completely contrary to everything you have claimed and everything that Hendrickson has claimed.
Not a nice try.
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.
Hi Kickback, if the government were to lock anyone up unjustly, as governments are notorious for doing, then it would logically follow that the inmate would continue to believe and uphold the same just position in jail. The truth of my position is not harmed by court rulings (even convictions) which misrepresent it as some other strawman position, or perform other subterfuges.
I already volunteered to stop using the services funded by the income tax, which as the Grace Commission said only pays the national debt to the Federal Reserve. I could easily stop using the services of the Federal Reserve (even if I continue to use the federal services paid for by my gas tax, my increased costs from corporate tax, my phone tax, etc., which taxes are just).
I'm preparing my court battle now.
Did you have anything to say about the tax law?
Natty (and Dan), great! Yes, Congress can tax anything a State can tax, but only if qualified as either apportioned or uniform. If Congress wants to tax pay for work in itself, it must be apportioned. If Congress wants to tax gain from pay for work, well, as for me, I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
Fortunately, the income tax is Constitutional because it says nothing about the deduction of that loss unless it has been established that something other than pay for work is being taxed.
Red, you just proved that the court said wages are taxable. If the court had not found that the pay for work was wages, but still ruled the pay was taxable, you'd have a point.
Dan, I'm aware the 1939 IRC repealed the 1938 Revenue Act. I'd rather not post all the cites right now, but a loose description of the history is this. The statute creating the 1939 IRC repealed all prior statutes but stated that their meaning was unchanged. The statute creating the 1954 IRC did not even bother to repeal the prior statutes, and the statute creating the 1986 IRC considered it just another amendment to the 1954 IRC, stating that the 1954 IRC may be cited as the 1986 IRC. Whatever the 1996 IRC is does not appear in the statute, but probably is the same as the 1954-1986 IRC. Now given that lengthy explanation, all backed by cites anyone could easily dig up, my question remains:
Would you please cite what statute superseded the meaning of Revenue Act of 1938 section 22(a)?
You've left some other unanswered questions floating around here somewhere, but I can dig them up later.
Yet another moron who doesn't understand that gain is the value of what you receive minus your cost for what you give up, not the value of what you give up. If it was only the excess of value received over the value given up, you would never have gain on any transaction other than fraud or theft, because you would always give value for value. Your day cost you nothing, and it would be lost whether or not you worked, so its loss doesn't reduce your gain from employment.
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.
John J. Bulten wrote:Yes, Congress can tax anything a State can tax, but only if qualified as either apportioned or uniform.
And the federal income tax is geographically uniform. See the Brushaber decision.
John J. Bulten wrote:If Congress wants to tax pay for work in itself, it must be apportioned.
That's not a fact, but simply your unsupported and erroneous opinion. And an opinion that has been rejected by every judge that has ever considered it.
John J. Bulten wrote: If Congress wants to tax gain from pay for work, well, as for me, I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
Actually, it can be denied, and it has been denied by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court wrote:The pith of [the argument] is that mining corporations engaged solely in mining upon their own premises have but one kind of assets, and that in the ordinary use of them the enjoyment of the assets and the wasting thereof are in direct proportion, and proceed pari passu; and hence that a mining corporation is not engaged in business, properly speaking, but is merely occupied in converting its capital assets from one form into another.... t is of course true that the revenues derived from the working of mines result to some extent in the exhaustion of the capital. But the same is true of the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital, yet such earnings are commonly dealt with in legislation as income.
Stratton’s Independence Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 413-415 (1913).
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.
John J. Bulten wrote:
Natty (and Dan), great! Yes, Congress can tax anything a State can tax, but only if qualified as either apportioned or uniform. If Congress wants to tax pay for work in itself, it must be apportioned. If Congress wants to tax gain from pay for work, well, as for me, I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
Fortunately, the income tax is Constitutional because it says nothing about the deduction of that loss unless it has been established that something other than pay for work is being taxed.
This is where every argument with tax denying nutjobs ends- in full circle. Once you prove all of their errors, and cut through all of their misinterpretations, misdirections, semantics and rhetoric, they claim, "well, I had a loss of time and must deduct all of my living expenses, so I had no gain."
This argument is more philosophical than anything else. You come into the world naked and leave in a body bag, so I guess there really is no gain. Nevertheless, while alive, we have govt and govt collects taxes to cover the costs of govt. In the end, taxation is about fairly distributing the costs of govt. The income tax is merely one of those taxes. And tax denying nutjobs have no argument against it.
John J. Bulten wrote:If Congress wants to tax gain from pay for work, well, as for me, I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
The question is, how much did those 8 hours cost you? How much did you have to pay for the other 16 hours that day, and whom did you pay for it? I'd like to see a receipt if you have one.
Jar Jar Bull Hockey wrote:
Red, you just proved that the court said wages are taxable. If the court had not found that the pay for work was wages, but still ruled the pay was taxable, you'd have a point.
Dan pretty much summed it up best earlier in the thread:
LPC wrote:
Wrong. See United States v. Hendrickson, 2:06-cv-11753 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Mich. 5/2/2007). The defendant clearly stated that he had a "common work-for-pay agreement with the company Personnel Management, Inc." (Document #4, Exhibit A, page 1, filed 4/2/2006), that he had "common, private-sector earnings" that were not "wages as defined by section 3401(a)" (Id., page 3), and that he was a "private-sector, non-federally-connected individual" (Document #13, page 13, filed 9/7/2006).
And the court ruled against the defendant, finding that:
"During 2002 and 2003, Defendant Peter Hendrickson was employed by Personnel Management, Inc., and earned wages of $58,965 and $60,608, respectively, during those years." (Amended Order dated 5/2/2007, Document #34, par. 3, page 2.)
"Defendants’ 2002 Form 1040 tax return, which was filed with the IRS in August of 2003, falsely reported “zero” wages on line 7." (Id., par. 6, page 3.)
"Defendants’ 2003 Form 1040 tax return falsely reported “zero” wages on line 7." (Id., par. 13, page 4.)
"Defendant Peter Hendrickson was an employee of Personnel Management, Inc. in 2002 and 2003 within the meaning of IRC
§ 3401(c). Defendant Peter Hendrickson’s employer properly withheld federal income and employment taxes from his wages." (Id., par. 19, page 6.)
How you can read what the court said in those paragraphs and come to your conclusion that they did not say pay for work is wages is beyond me. The court repeatedly refers to Pete's income as wages throughout the entire opinion, and the court stated that Pete's contention was that he received pay for work which was not wages. The court could not disagree with that position more.
You're confused, John. You're the one who said gain is equal to revenue minus the value of property expended. It is you who must cite your source, not those asking you to prove your nonsense.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
Wrong. I can deny it. And, unlike you, I can prove what I say.
At the start of the day you have are not in possession of the next 8 hours. You come into possession of them later and use them immediately. Financial accounting does not account for time, but if it did, your 8 hours would be income (treasure trove) and an expense. The income and expense deduction would be a wash, not a loss.
We should all be thankful that time is not treated as property. If time were valued too highly, I don't think I could afford to sleep.
Inconsistency in applying “ad hoc,” result-oriented arguments.
In their desire to avoid taxes, tax protesters start with the proposition that the income tax is invalid and try to construct an argument (any argument) to justify that conclusion. The result is an “ad hoc” argument that collapses of its own weight because, if it were applied to other situations, it would lead to absurd results.
Dan Evans, The Tax Protester FAQ
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
John J. Bulten wrote:If Congress wants to tax gain from pay for work, well, as for me, I go to work in the morning with a full day ahead of me, and at the end of the day I have expended that day. That time is a loss that cannot be denied.
The question is, how much did those 8 hours cost you? How much did you have to pay for the other 16 hours that day, and whom did you pay for it? I'd like to see a receipt if you have one.
John seems to be having trouble finding that receipt, so I'm willing to assume that those hours were a gift from God. John's basis for depreciation is God's cost basis. God created those hours using an infinitesimal part of his omnipotence, so his basis was zero.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Location: Where the Grass is Green and the Girls Are Pretty
Postby Cobalt Shiva »
CaptainKickback wrote:What is going to be a gas is when Johnny B. goes to make his argument in court. Between the original argument and the inevitable appeals and Motions for Summary Judgements, the real question will be how much he gets fined and/or how long a sentence he gets (if applicable).
A betting line for each has to be established. House keeps 15% and the rest goes to the winner of each category. And yes, even Johnny B. can play - he may have need of the winnings, if he wins.
Just an idea......
Ahem . . .
In honor of the namesake currency of this website . . .
"Two thousand quatloos on the newcomer getting his Biblical Beast of Burden fined into next year."
