LostHopers Just Don't Get It

[Dr. Caligari]

Over at LostHopes, Richard614 posted a link to a pdf of a 1915 treatise on income taxation by Henry Black (of Black's Law Dictionary fame):
http://state-citizen.org/A_Treatise_on_ ... xation.pdf
What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.

[ASITStands]

Over at LostHopes, Richard614 posted a link to a pdf of a 1915 treatise on income taxation by Henry Black (of Black's Law Dictionary fame):
http://state-citizen.org/A_Treatise_on_ ... xation.pdf
What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.

Excellent, Doctor!

I downloaded the file for later review but had not read that page.

Where's 'Weston White' when you need him? Doesn't he cite Black's Law Dictionary?

It doesn't appear to be searchable, but wouldn't it be a hoot if it defined income?

And, what if it mentioned Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations?

EDIT: The index of files is here.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Look the LoHos lost this parchment for a reason. We do not know the authenticity of these documents of which you speak. The early church fathers did not include them in the cannon of the Holy CTC therefore they must be suspect.


So let it be written...


So let it be done...

[LPC]

What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.

Has anyone told Sybil?

[ASITStands]

What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.

Has anyone told Sybil?

The definition of "income" starts on page 328, and there's footnotes. Hmm.

Lots of good stuff there to rebut tax denier arguments (if you're into old documents).

[Tax Man]

What he didn't notice was that section 229 of the book (starting at p. 346) makes clear that, at the time of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the common understanding of the word "income" included the earnings of private-sector workers.

Has anyone told Sybil?

Youre gonna have to give him some time to think about it. This is a devastating blow for the man who loves citing the dead sea scrolls as evidence of the meaning of income.

[Quixote]

The imaging is a bit flawed. The left or right 1/3 of some pages were not copied.

[LPC]

Most interesting questions of the day:

PeacefulKancer started a thread based on this citation:

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument “that he is not an ‘employee’ under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer,” stating, “[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of ‘employee’ excludes all other wage earners.”

After several people speculated about why the court didn't really mean what it said, PK raised two questions:

1. Where can we get copies of court cases?
2. What court was this held in. If Wisconsin (as I guessed) what bearing does that have on Federal law?

Yes, analyze the opinion first, then read the opinion, and then try to figure out what court rendered the opinion.

[.]

Everyone knows that the Eastern District of Wisconsin is Lake Michigan, so obviously this belonged in an Admiralty court, where he obviously would have won.

[Red Cedar PM]

I want some of whatever these guys are smoking. Seriously though, thinking that federal law does not apply to the states unless it is a military base or other federal land is just about the dumbest of the dumb things that these people have come up with. I think that's even more whacko than thinking typing your name in all caps or putting a colon in or writing refused for cause on everything will somehow get you out of your obligations. People this dumb should have to apply for a license to breed.

[Duke2Earl]

I want some of whatever these guys are smoking. Seriously though, thinking that federal law does not apply to the states unless it is a military base or other federal land is just about the dumbest of the dumb things that these people have come up with. I think that's even more whacko than thinking typing your name in all caps or putting a colon in or writing refused for cause on everything will somehow get you out of your obligations. People this dumb should have to apply for a license to breed.

It's all just a matter of degree. I have had discussions with Tax Directors at major corporations that would make your head spin. They will spend thousands of dollars on consulting fees to try to avoid filing disclosures that wouldn't make the slightest difference in their tax liability if they made them but could cause big penalties if they didn't. Sanity is a very rare comodity.