NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at www.iwarrior.net.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

This is a general forum pertaining to discussions on all modes and classifications of taxes and taxation.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:20 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

The Freedom Watch Debates on Taxation - [Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano]



This is a designated archiving area for posts made at the Judge Napolitano’s Freedom Watch [on Fox] taxation thread.

You to can visit or join the social debate at the Freedom Watch ‘uservoice’ Website




These are primarly in reply to the CFT on another social media site as to which I have posted the following answers:

The Crux of Federal Taxation, PDF viewable at: DOWNLOADABLE CFT

As an additional reference material to provide further support and understanding to the CFT, here is the first completed PDF draft entitled “Points in Further Support of the CFT” (it essentially runs through various aspects in an organized manner): DOWNLOAD FOR POINTS IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF THE CFT

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:21 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
Mr. White's "CFT" would have been more intellectually honest if he had had the courage to address all of the court decisions that have rejected his arguments.


Oh and look, yet another anonymous Internet “attorney” pops up from the darkness-beyond all that is virtual; my, my, you strange-fellows are worse than a boll weevil infestation.

Seriously though, if you were at all an honest person, if you, yourself, possessed any courage whatsoever, you would not be hiding behind a handle, but yet you are, as you realized that you have to, being that both you and your position are utter farces! Because you need to protect yourself from ABA Model Rules violations from all of your blatant misrepresentation of the law and facts. Make no mistake, a “legist” you certainly are not; for you practice no expertise nor semblance of law, but only of deceit and contrivances.

I can honestly assert that I have been more than honest, forthright, and fair in my writing of the CFT and the same goes for all of my other writings and articles. The truth is that established case law/common law simply does not support your own biased self-serving conclusions; you of course must realize that in court you have a duty to adverse discovery, yet my dime says you have thoroughly failed in such respects of ethical representation throughout the duration of each and every such occurrence.

You cannot rightfully quote nor cite administrative tax court cases and additionally the majority of those trial/lower court cases are as well all inadmissible or are merely -at the very most- advisory to the court (but only when the circumstances of the case are directly related to the issues at bar and additionally the court is within the same district) –and the same applies to the myriad of Treasury/IRS internal memos, decisions, procedures, etc., which are inadmissible as evidence (at least for the purposes of supporting statutory laws), such documents pertain only to the interdepartmental functions of the Treasury/IRS and not the public at large).

Withstanding, regardless, is that SCOTUS has well-established binding chains upon the XIV Amendment and its subsequent IRC; the appellate and its lower courts are obliged to SCOTUS, the highest court upon all of our lands, via adjudicatory doctrines such as stare decisis, obsta principiis, et al.

What is truly at stake here are the fixed underlying principles fully appreciated, wholly substantiated, by our Nation’s core documents, which conjointly serve to make America the wonderfully unique nation that we are, a great experiment proven through our unified resolve; these are rather representative of quintessentially sustaining maxims, which stand just as true and virtuous today as they did 236-years ago, as they did a millennia ago, as they did over two millennium ago. Just as do the phases of the Moon, the planetary orbiting of our Solar System, the tides of our oceans, the magnetic roundness of our compassable Earth, or the effects of elements, gravity, opposing reactions, and of least resistance, etc.

Case in point, Gouverneur Morris had at one time engaged in a debate concerning land-property taxes (namely addressing the unjustness of taxing non-productive land ownership), whereas, an adversary had argued that in due-time the apportionment clauses of the U.S. Constitution would bear no concern to the people and the government could then in-fact impose such form of taxes however so desired; in other words people would simply no longer care to appreciate, learn, or understand the distinction of such sound principles and the intent for establishing them in the first place.

What “Legist”, clearly of progressive mentality, is really attempting to accomplish is the deathblow of such fundamental ideas (i.e., individual rights/natural law), for if an idea is publicly rendered obsolete, it matters not anymore if that idea was unalienable or not. Such as when one fails to instill belief in their own humanity that belief might as well had never existed at all. Sadly for Legist, what him/her and his/her ilk fail to realize is that such ideals are “bulletproof” and will invariably withstand all such attempted quashing, however trite or despotic.

Legist you cannot substantiate your claims, ergo, you have served your desperately pathetic progressivism no favors by making yet another in a long line of dubious or otherwise frivolous posts.


* Apropos, reliance upon lower court cases that goes on to misquote a higher court as a form of evidence in support of one’s argument is by no means a just assertion it is but a weak assumption steeped in lazy and dishonest investigatory research. Also, SCOTUS has never granted certiorari for any tax case involving the underlying constitutional issues that I and many others wholeheartedly prescribe to (to varying degrees anyway), so far as such efflorescent matters affect or impact the mass-populace in general, that is.

Also the originating proposal in support of the XVI Amendment, its subsequent congressional testimony on the entirety of the ‘income tax’ matter, and the rejection of an earlier version of the Amendment that would have accomplished the precise form of taxation that you, “Legist” are in favor of, but correctly, it was outright rejected due to concerns that it would have very little chance of passing ratification and even if it were it would likely have gone on only to be found unconstitutional as the context of that version of the Amendment would have resulted in destroying the two distinct heads of taxation authorized by the U.S. Constitution, thereby, effectively resolving the XVI Amendment to is present and rightful breadth.

Additionally, is the matter of the elephant in the room (say hello elephant), which is to say the federal governments ongoing and rapacious abuse of its taxing powers to levy only for specified necessity -i.e., the paying of debts in the provision of the United States’ common defense and general welfare and nothing more or less than this- that has been authorized for reasonable impositions and collections. This elephant includes an existing discrepancy with the federal income tax, which in its now contrived form it, regardless of its granted exemption from apportionment, is at its core a ‘direct tax’ and as such the binding ethical tenets of direct taxation still applies, which is to say that direct taxes may only be imposed and collected during exigent circumstances -such was clarified by several of our Forefathers, was argued within the Federalist Papers, and has also been observed by SCOTUS- and not as a perpetual or generalized means of generating revenue for the U.S. Treasury -as such otherwise amounts to government sanctioned strong-arm robbery on a mass scale.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:21 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
Mr. White posted so much drivel it's hard to know where to start, but let's give it a try.

"Also the originating proposal in support of the XVI Amendment, its subsequent congressional testimony on the entirety of the ‘income tax’ matter, and the rejection of an earlier version of the Amendment that would have accomplished the precise form of taxation that you, “Legist” are in favor of" Since I have never posted anything about the form of taxation I favor, Mr. White must think he can read minds. Pray tell, Mr. White, just what kind of taxation do I favor?

"you need to protect yourself from ABA Model Rules violations from all of your blatant misrepresentation of the law and facts" Since I have never misrepresented either, Mr. White is either delusional or a liar.

"The truth is that established case law/common law simply does not support your own biased self-serving conclusions" More attempts at mind reading. Just what conclusions are those, Mr. White?

"Legist you cannot substantiate your claims" What claims have I made, Mr. White? Oh, yes, I did say that the courts have rejected your arguments, which is undoubtedly true. Want proof? OK, sport, and I'll restrict myself to SCOTUS cases just to humor you.

All of your arguments based upon Adam Smith's views on direct taxes were considered and rejected in Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1881), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil War income tax and characterized it as in the nature of an excise or duty.

Your claim that " 'gross income' is the resulting financial increase taken in from a monetary corpus, it is not, all revenue that was received throughout a tax period for whatever engagements one may have participated in, such as pursuing a livelihood, while aspiring to attain happiness through life and liberty" is patently false, considering that SCOTUS has consistently upheld the taxation of wages and personal earnings from non-federally related activities. See, for example, Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) ("There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earn them"); CIR v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945) ("[The 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."); Helvering v. Gerhardt, 304 U.S. 405 (1938) (upholding the taxability of the wages of a state employee).

You claim that "For the purposes of establishing such a form of federal ‘income’ taxation, merely earning a livelihood by way of common right (i.e., natural law), while remaining exterior to professionally privileged activities, enterprises, or pursuits and to federal offices, instrumentalities, or bureaucracies, is entirely outside the breadth of the XVI Amendment." Unfortunately, SCOTUS says otherwise:

"It is clear on the face of this text [the 16th Amendment) that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense,-an authority already possessed and never questioned, -or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve ALL income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived." Brushaber v. U.S., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

"But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right.” Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

Tell you what, Mr. White, cite us a case (it doesn't have to be SCOTUS -- I'll let you cite lower courts) in which someone avoided the federal income tax on his wages or personal earnings by making one of your harebrained arguments. Or when you fail (and you shall) will you resort to the tired, paranoid argument that "all the courts are corrupt"?


Goodness gracious, all you ever do is engage in the exercise of cheap tactics, you’re tact is utterly pathetic “Legist”. Just so that you do not remain ignorant on our American values, such as freedom of speech, for example, it does not provide for the freedom to distort, contrive, deceive, or to profit through such unethical means -you, “Legist”, should be held legally accountable for your myriad of wrongful and illegitimate acts and lose your license to practice, at least for a number of years, presuming you even have one.

Most of your recent reply actually pertains to common sense so the answers to the few question you have asked of me should already be apparent or otherwise known to you or has already been explained by me below, so I shall not needlessly elaborate, yet again, upon them -if you lack the necessary common sense, mental facility, or comprehension skills, then that is a personal issue that I unfortunately cannot assist you with over the Internet.

Well that Lucas case really narrows it down, thank you for that, so you must be either Famspear or LPC –take your pick as either of you are vastly under qualified in the area of tax law just the same; being that either of you marauders rely primarily on quoting the mostly inapplicable Lucas case as if it serves to manifest a halo-of-impunity above your swelled heads.

That case actually bears more on the legal limitations of contact law as intending to establish an avoidance of legal obligations than anything to do with income taxation. Also no serious review or dicta was contextualized within the Lucas case (hell, it is not even quoted or cited within the CRS Annotated Constitution as an authority); however, things to note from that case are that: (1) Earl was an attorney, (2) attorneys are sanctioned business professionals that publicly contract their learned knowledge and skill, or services, in exchange for great gain, (3) no in depth discussion on established tax theory (referencing historical evidence or related tax cases for example) was brought forth in support of the “conclusions” rendered within this case, while (4) the framing of this case more-so appears to hinge on curtsey (e.g., when in fact does a spouse assume ownership of personalty that has been transferred to their husband or wife) and/or succession rights granted through a legitimate will with concern to something therein referenced as “income beneficially received” -which is this not true for all forms of income, regardless?

In the short of it, as an ‘officer of the court’, an attorney would be justly taxable under “compensation for personal service”, as attorneys both provide ‘services’ and charge exorbitant ‘fees’. It is rather safe to say that if you make $200 or more Dollars an hour based upon a profession directly dependent upon the very government seeking to levy taxes upon your prominent ‘gains’ (through Subtitle C) then you should be correctly and justifiably taxed to a much greater extent than those seeking only a means of essentialness, otherwise called a livelihood at around $8 Dollars or so an hour. Such classes of individuals in fact owe a much higher social duty than those existing below or at the national/state medians –and no, unfortunately, not everybody can obtain an A.S./M.A., B.S./M.S., or hold a high profile government position, or command their own business (as not everyone has the means or capacity to become the master of their one destiny, many are only capable of accepting what little is provided to them by the benefit or fortune of others).

Ergo, the primary distinction to be realized with regard to the Lucas case is that an attorney lives vastly different than a menial laborer whom lives purely at a subsistence level. Aside from the Lucas case, to which nothing definitive can be resolved in quoting this case, there are other much more applicable SCOTUS cases that do directly bear on the underlying matters and maxims, and which delve in-depth and to lengths on such matters, e.g., Pollock, Stratton’s, Brushaber, Doyle, Eisner, et al.

As to the Helvering case it is referring strictly to upper-management salaried employees working for a state entity that both exists due to a compact with the federal government and that is tasked with handling the transportation between two states (interstate); also this case seems to bear more upon a state’s independent discretion to levy or collect taxes or it’s tax immunity rights (sovereignty) for the overall good of its own residents. Again neither does this case appear to make any serious comparisons with regard to any prior income tax case law (other than referencing the taxing statute itself); therefore at the most what you are attempting to describe is that the justices had made a run at bench law, which consequently would then had created a legal breech unto the federal income tax, thereby, rendering at least that newly proclaimed aspect ultra vires (i.e., as it would directly contradict what was pointedly addressed throughout Pollock and crisply within Eisner, et al).

Now, the remaining question is how exactly does this case bear any relevance to the overall public? Answer, it doesn’t. If you are going to work for the national government or an instrument of it then expect to get taxed for doing so, not to fret though, since all such means of employment are so vastly overly paid and compensated any subsequent taxation is of little consequence to overall fairness or social obligations.

Additionally, as a generalization, a few things to be kept in mind when viewing a case is that cases ‘framing’, so having been stated within its pleadings, as that is all the findings of the case permitted to address. The subject matter of the case must also present at least some reasonable degree of direct association to the matter so being compared. The courts do not hold powers in crafting substantive law as such governmental powers had been provided only to the Legislature.

Also to note a curiosity within the close of this case it was stated: “… As they stood when the cases now before us were in the Circuit Court of Appeals, our decisions required it to hold that the salaries paid by the Port Authority to respondents are not subject to federal taxation. I would affirm its judgments.”

No, not it at all really, Dr. Adam Smith is but one source out of dozens of other sources that I have discovered during the course of my investigation throughout these last many years, albeit he is a very substantial source. Springer did not mention a single word about ‘Wealth of Nations’ (though it did reference Hylton which therein looked toward Dr. Smith’s great work for consideration, but Springer only made the reference in light of both Hamilton and Madison); also Pollock overturned Springer, thereafter further enlightening the constitutional breadth of ‘direct taxation’, so stop referring to that case and as well the income tax law during that time was not being burdened through misapplication upon general labors in the way and manner that it is today via the status quo misconception (or mission creep) that beneficiaries such as yourself espouse. As fact the income tax was not collecting taxes upon common or general labors until the misunderstood Subtitle C was devised in the 1940’s -and the causes of this has much, much more involved with it than simply inflation (e.g., COL/CPI) as you and your ilk seem to desire suggesting.

For instance, Both Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were well influenced by Turgot, our Forefathers were all knowledgeable in Smith’s great work the ‘Wealth of Nations’, Gallatin as well expressed an affinity toward Dr. Smith. Alexander Hamilton himself had clarified the ‘income-as-capital’ principled distinction and had additionally argued that to tax one’s whole property or their worth (which would logically translate to mean one’s whole capital or stock within a given tax period, i.e., annually) is to equate to a direct tax upon that property or worth and that person and would thereby require apportionment via a direct application.

i.e., from Springer quoting Hamilton: “What is the distinction between direct and indirect taxes? … 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.””

Moreover, if you honestly believe it to be justified that the federal income tax -historically realized as an unyielding and trite method of taxation- as a perpetuation, collects one or more trillion Dollars annually than you are absolutely without any doubt mentally insane and possess very poor judgment, lacking both empathy and discernment. The fact remains that the federal income tax is being grossly misapplied and that the majority of states have hopped upon that absolute wreck of a gravy train with biscuit wheels to go along for the very profitable ride as the sole expense of the populace.

No, no, you are incorrect on your assertions concerning SCOTUS that is exactly what it has stated time and time again, see the answer stares you right in the face, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, from your own quotation: “... from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” This is what was postulated throughout the Pollock case it was a prior unconsidered aspect of the income tax as a whole; hence, the shadow must be severed from its source otherwise it stands to be within the head of direct taxation.

Also a great quotation from Brushaber states the XVI’ ratified purpose at 240 U.S. 1, 19 (1916): “… that is, the prevention of the resort to the sources from which a taxed income was derived in order to cause a direct tax on the income to be a direct tax on the source itself, and thereby to take an income tax out of the class of excises, duties, and imposts, and place it in the class of direct taxes.” Now, if you did not catch that there must be a market-valued source, meaning something of inherently verifiable worth that is applied or transferred in some form of capacity (regardless of the legality) and thereafter resulted in yielding-income therefrom; for it is that severing and only that severing, which is to be constitutionally taxed through the federal income tax.

Your quoting of Charles C. Steward Machine Co. is irrelevant as there are no such claims being asserted that the federal government cannot tax an individual, or their labor, or their caste, or their wealth, or their property, or their business arrangements, only that in certain circumstances there exists aspects or subjects of taxation that are the individual’s personalty and thereby require constitutional apportionment through the imposition of whatever proper mode of taxation and are only, therefore, just during exigent circumstances. Anything less is wanton or otherwise done in malice.

I had already told you there are no SCOTUS cases affecting or bearing anything to do with us proletariats -they all have to do with varied business and governmental professional types. There is a very good reason for this, because the federal income tax at present is purely negligent and abusive.

The corruption of the legal system is an entirely separate issue; however, yes, most but not all courts are corrupt, just as they are inconsistent, many have ruled in full support of major issues such as: national security protections for federal bureaucracies (when the issue at bar clearly doesn’t even apply to the intent of such protections), unlawful detainment and loss of habitus corpus, Patriot Acts, lending unconstitutional protections to financial institutions and entities such as Monsanto or Bayer, both Obamacare (that lends false consideration to the ‘commerce clause’) and the DHS’ TSA illegal, belittling, and pointless searches, etc., etc.

In closing, your reply makes it abundantly clear that you simply refuse –likely due to some combination of your own biases and obtuseness on such matters- to comprehend the core distinction between the two legal considerations of what are ‘incomes’, the former being income-as-capital and the latter being its resulting income-as-a-gain-or-profit, which it is the latter that the federal income tax is permitted to consider all else is exempted through our Constitution’s critical logic. The XVI Amendment was written the way it was for a very specific reason, which dovetails with what was found by the Pollock case and was further elaborated upon in the Eisner case, that including many other cases.

What you actually want is for observers to believe that what I am actually advocating are falsehoods such as that the IRS cannot levy any income taxes period (save for federal employees or some similarly presumed variance) or that it cannot whatsoever tax menial labors in any capacity, or that the IRS should be outright abolished; as you wage your blatant illogic and other such false attempts, notice that those are not at all what I defend, not at all.

Thus to clarify, if an individual obtains compensation (e.g., bonuses, tips, special or contractual pay (also including sick pay except when certain contractual requirements have been met), gifts or awards, etc.; essentially anything that is received in addition to your contracted base or standardized pay (with exception, in most cases, to multiplied pay as pertaining to working overtime) and is not otherwise intended as a reimbursement for incurred business related expenses) during the course of one’s employment that is legally taxable under the scope of the federal income tax, if you have obtain gains or profits through the prudent application of your personal wealth from either its conversion or revision then that growth or yield is correctly taxable under the same; however, what is not taxable is one’s means of labor, livelihood, or subsistence, nor is the mere acquisition of money -being as the federal income tax is a tax upon the net and not the gross.

Neither does receiving money in exchange for contacted labor meet the legal context of a ‘gain’ or ‘profit’, as it is the contracted arrangement that binds any pay received as an ‘exchange of consideration’ –quid pro quo. The terms gain and profit are actually synonymous to the term income.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:27 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
Yes, Mr. Springer did indeed rely on Adam Smith in his arguments before the Court, but the Court rejected his theories. Here’s the report of the case, which includes the arguments made by Springer, which appear immediately after the phrase “Mr. William M. Springer for the plaintiff in error.” The Court wasn’t impressed: “The numerous citations from the writings of foreign political economists, made by the plaintiff in error, are sufficiently answered by Hamilton in his brief, before referred to.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... p;page=586
Moreover, Pollock didn't quite overrule Springer. He had two types of income: bond interest and personal earnings. Only a tax on the former would be considered a direct tax under Pollock, not a tax on the latter.
Your entire pathetic argument boils down to two inconsistent premises, neither of which has any legal basis: first, that compensation for work (absent some sort of governmental privilege – you waffle about whether the privilege must be federal or not) cannot be taxed without apportionment. Second, that pay for work is not gain but is rather an exchange of consideration or a quid pro quo. As to your first premise, suffice it to say that no court in the history of the country has ever suggested (much less held) that a tax on pay for work must be apportioned. To the contrary, beginning with Springer’s rejection of such a premise and proceeding to the dicta in Pollock that recognized the validity of such a tax as an excise and on to the adoption of the 16th Amendment (which unambiguously states that no income tax need be apportioned), the courts have uniformly and without exception rejected toe notion that a tax on compensation for work must be apportioned.
So you are reduced to you second premise – that compensation for work isn’t income -- has likewise been consistently rejected. First of all, compensation for work is not to be analyzed in terms of a sale or exchange, simply because the statute says that such compensation is gross income, period, and distinguishes it from the gain from dealings in property. Second, even if it were to be so analyzed, there would still be gain because gain is the difference between what is received and the cost of what was given up (NOT the value of what was given up). Since one has no cost basis in his labor, the entire amount of compensation is income.
Finally, note that if your second premise is correct, then even compensation from a governmentally-privileged activity wouldn’t be subject to the income tax, so that under your “analysis”, even Mr. Earl shouldn’t have been taxed. But he was, wasn’t he?

Wow, so much verbal diarrhea from Weston and so little cogent analysis.

First off, Weston, I note that you failed to cite a single case in which someone avoided paying federal income tax by relying on your idiotic arguments. This isn’t surprising, since there aren’t any – to the contrary, in every single instance where someone has been brain-dead enough to argue that his compensation for work isn’t taxable because of the moronic theories that you espouse, he has lost. Without exception. In many cases he has not only lost but been fined for wasting the court’s time with such frivolous arguments. And no, the courts that have ruled against such morons aren’t part of a massive conspiracy that’s set on ignoring the Supreme Court; they are accurately applying well-settled law instead of the delusions of an uneducated tax denier.

Second, you have demonstrated an amazing inability to read a case and extract the rationale for the court’s decision. Contrary to your delusions, the rationale of the Lucas case did not in any way rest on Mr. Earl’s particular occupation (indeed the SCOTUS decision doesn’t even mention it). Yes, he was an attorney. He was also an employee of the Great Western Power Company, and there is no discussion in any of the opinions of the case as to how much he earned from each of his endeavors. This should come as no surprise, however, since what he did for a living was completely irrelevant to the case, and all of his income was held to be taxable. The rationale for the decision is very simple: as Justice Holmes put it in words that any third grader could understand (but not you, Weston), “There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earn them and provide that the tax could not be escaped by anticipatory arrangements and contracts however skillfully devised to prevent the salary when paid from vesting even for a second in the man who earned it.” In other words, the rule is that compensation for work is taxable, and one cannot shift this burden by an anticipatory assignment of the income. There is nothing suggesting that the occupation generating the compensation or the worker’s position in the hierarchy of the employer is relevant. Such considerations are simply your pathetic attempts to distinguish the case, but unfortunately for you, no court in the history of the country has ever deemed such considerations relevant in determining what is taxable. You might as well argue that Earl was taxed because his name began with “E”.

Your “analysis” of the Gerhardt case is equally inane. The rationale of the case was that state employees are taxable on their compensation just the same as employees in the private sector. The Court rejected the argument that there should be a special exemption for the compensation of such employees because of an alleged adverse impact on the performance of state functions. The employees’ compensation wasn’t taxable BECAUSE of their status as state employees – it was taxable DESPITE such status: “The challenged taxes laid under section 22, Revenue Act of 1932, c. 209, 47 Stat. 169, 178, 26 U.S.C.A. 22, are upon the net income of respondents, derived from their employment in common occupations not shown to be different in their methods or duties from those of similar employees in private industry… A nondiscriminatory tax laid on their net income, in common with that of all other members of the community, could by no reasonable probability be considered to preclude the performance of the function which New York and New Jersey have undertaken, or to obstruct it more than like private enterprises are obstructed by our taxing system.”

Incidentally, your note of curiosity about the closing sentence of the case is curious only to someone who’s too dense to notice that it came from a dissenting opinion.


Well I see that rather then making a concerted effort to either concede on specific matters or thoroughly provide counter-points to my well constructed response, you have instead resorted to your usual degenerate name-calling, which is a wonderful indication that I have gotten the best of you, yet again. In other words you realize in your heart-of-hearts that I am an advocate of the truth, reigning in wisdom, and oh so does this infuriate people exactly like yourself. Personally, for me, dragging you down, time and time again, makes me oh so joyous!

So the court in Springer was not impressed you say? Sounds to me more like that court was downright derelict.

Honestly, you should have readily understood that when I referenced Springer I was referring to the contents as was considered by the justices themselves and not the plaintiff in error. Being that the justices did not bother to lend any serious address to those several sources (which are all just as valid advisory research material for the court to consider as both Hamilton and Madison), having instead hastily cited through them all, while providing not one single quote for resolve; thereby, this case renders itself without much significance at all on the matter; as I had prior stated there are many other much more predominant cases to look toward as they do provide serious discussions with concern to the crux of federal income taxation.

Mr. Springer may had very well included the works of Dr. Adam Smith and others within his pleadings and motions (which was commented on by SCOTUS as being sparse as the primary intention of Springer was just to be heard by the justices), however, the justices did not care to lend any resolve on those works, whatsoever. Ergo, it was not that the justices did not thoughtfully consider such works as Dr. Adam Smith and then discounted them, no, what they did do, however, was not even bother considering them at all; to them it might as well been as if such works were not even included for their dutiful consideration in the first place -plainly, the latter circumstance is vastly different then what you are claiming took place within Springer.

Curiously though, the justices in Springer did opt to make light of the matter in apparent support of solely quoting Hamilton (meanwhile rebuking all other just as relevant sources), whom himself had made the poignant distinctions about the various forms of income that I had referred to earlier (as much more was quoted from Hamilton within Pollock), thereby, clearly the justices themselves, held a misunderstanding as to the fundamental concepts of the subject-matter presently held in debate, still however is the fact that Springer’s own premise appears to have been entirely incorrect (although it should be kept in mind that this case is pre-XVI Amendment and moreover it was not until Pollock came along and discovered the astute realization between a source -that is to be taxed only directly- and its income -that is only to be taxed indirectly). Thus, it was just as well, being that the findings of Springer were left impotent by the determination of the watershed Pollock case (also noting that Pollock made referencing Dr. Adam Smith and such others nothing short of predominant).

As to your position on the non-apportioned taxing of a proletariat’s subsistence, this is entirely the wrong question to be asking [as to the opinion of the court]: “The central and controlling question in this case is whether the tax which was levied on the income, gains, and profits of the plaintiff in error, … is a direct tax.” While this posed question neither has a thing to do with the distinct matters that I have been advocating. As the Springer case was not about receiving salary or wages but “income, gains, and profits”; hence, this case is wholly ineffectual to your cause.

To further galvanize this point, in 1865 Springer had reported to him $50,798, which in today’s market that equates to $714,961, respectively, so don’t you dare go and tell me that Springer was simply a menial day-laborer that dabbled in investments on the side (also noting that general laborers around this timeframe averaged somewhere between only 25-60 cents and hour with no other benefits received), otherwise I will have to call you a liar, ops, too late! So sorry, truly.

To furthermore note, the scope of Springer’s argument was unfounded from the start as he had hedged his bet: “That the tax on the income, gains, and profits of the defendant, assessed upon him, as appears by the evidence in this case, was a direct tax within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States”. This is steeped in utter misunderstanding and is thereby not relevant to my own views on the matter.

The Corrected URL from below is: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 2&page=586

So far as Pollock is concerned, it is those underlying worthwhile and meaningful tenets thoroughly discussed throughout both this case and in its rehearing, which truly matters. Those principles apply just the same to both the bond interest and personal earnings to which you had written upon (or whatever else for that matter), as such, you cannot on the one hand pick and choose one while excluding the other; such tact is blatantly illogical. The only substantive distinction to be noted between them, however, is that bond interest would entail a gain that was derived from invested capital (or principal) -hence taxable by the income tax, while personal earnings would entail the capital to procure that gain -hence not taxable by the income tax.

What you are doing, whether you realize it or not, is convoluting compensation brought in from engaging in privileged vocations, professions, or other such forms of vastly beneficial entrepreneurship, all having always existed as proper subjects of the excise tax, with that of the common right to earn a livelihood so as to provide a secure shelter, clean water, warm bread, fresh milk and butter, etc. to one’s own family. In the final equation of this all it is the latter means that has always been considered inappropriate by the government to levy taxes upon, regardless if done by direct or indirect taxation, as the government cannot possibly get any more personal nor “direct” than to strip-away a portion of what was the sum-total that a given self-sustaining individual could have ever hoped to achieve through singularly in effort by way of their own ability or hand.

QUOTING: “As to your first premise, suffice it to say that no court in the history of the country has ever suggested (much less held) that a tax on pay for work must be apportioned.”
No, there have been several such cases you’re just too dense to truly appreciate the context of how it was stated, as within Pollock, Bowers, and Eisner for example. To further note, such a mode of tax if it were ever to be imposed (though to date such taxes have only ever been sought upon slaves), would be proper only as a ‘personal tax’, specifically as a ‘capitation tax’, either of which are under the head of direct taxation.

QUOTING: “the 16th Amendment (which unambiguously states that no income tax need be apportioned)”
Actually, no, it more correctly stipulates that ‘incomes’, when having derived from a source, may then be lawfully taxed under the head of uniformity; conveniently though you had left that little part out, heh.

QUOTING: “So you are reduced to you second premise – that compensation for work isn’t income”
Well, quite clearly, you’re not fully understanding what is being asserted, as it is the ‘compensation’, such being above and beyond an individual’s nominal pay or remuneration that is most likely intended to meet the legalities of being ‘gross income’ as it is compensation that is a portioned addition to the source in consideration. In general when compensation results in an additional increase unto one’s standard expectation of pay/remuneration it then likely meets the burden of being lawfully taxable via the federal income tax.

QUOTING: “First of all, compensation for work is not to be analyzed in terms of a sale or exchange, simply because the statute says that such compensation is gross income, period, and distinguishes it from the gain from dealings in property.”
No, no, no, go back and reread 26 U.S.C. Section 61 again and then once you finish doing that reread it yet once more. Now at this point it should become readily clear to you that when you receive compensation from a ‘source’ -meaning something possessing an inherent value or that can be monetarily converted or reverted through an exchange or transfer of ownership- then and only then does it qualify as being ‘gross income’; as this is what Eisner had clarified (paraphrasing) that everyone dismisses that innocuous paragraph (a) at the top and just looks toward all of those fancy numerations for the answer to their question. So stated, in plain language, without first a valid source, cannot it provide the gross income sought.

While certainly most all forms of ‘compensation’ (unless intentionally exempted/excluded) are taxable under gross income, the income tax itself is actually a tax upon net income and not gross income; and while corporations are considered as legal persons that are also permitted to deduct most all forms of theft, loss, and expense, however, at the same time it excludes private individuals from being permitted those same advantages (for the most part that is), therefore the income tax laws provide unconstitutional XIV Amendment protections to structured businesses, also called legal “persons”, but not to literal persons, further eroding its overall validity.

As to the contract issue, you are not being forthright, being that the worth of your labor is the exact worth entered into to by that contract; as some feel (e.g., for individual reasons, experience, education, pomp, etc.) their labor is valued more than others for the exact same performance of labor, while some employers feel that labor for a given work assignment should bear them less expense than when performed at other geographical locales or environments, etc., also factors such as COL fit into this equation as well. Otherwise nobody would ever have the capacity to seek out a claim of damages when such classes of contracts are breeched, because the employee would need to prove an element of their injury and would, thus, be incapable of doing so because the employer would simply argue that their loss actually had cost them nothing at all as their injury was merely perceived and nothing more.

Further proving your presumptions entirely incorrect:

In “Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth” [1766] (authored by: Turgot): “6. The wages of the workman is limited by the competition among those who work for a subsistence. He only gains a livelihood.

The mere workman, who depends only on his lands and his industry, has nothing but such part of his labour as he is able to dispose of to others. He sells it at a cheaper or a dearer price; but this high or low price does not depend on himself alone; it results from the agreement he has made with the person who employs him. The latter pays him as little as he can help, and as he has the choice from among a great number of workmen, he prefers the person who works cheapest. The workmen are therefore obliged to lower their price in opposition to each other. In every species of labour it must, and, in effect, it does happen, that the wages of the workman is confined merely to what is necessary to procure him a subsistence.”

And in Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915): “The principle is fundamental and vital. Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property -- partaking of the nature of each -- is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money or other forms of property. If this right be struck down or arbitrarily interfered with, there is a substantial impairment of liberty in the long established constitutional sense. The right is as essential to the laborer as to the capitalist, to the poor as to the rich, for the vast majority of persons have no other honest way to begin to acquire property save by working for money.”
* Also see the Butcher's Union Co. case at: 111 U.S. 746, 757, 762 (1884).

Also to note that Dr. Adam Smith had made reference to a contracting principle between employers and employees as when directly taxing the ignoble, effectively explaining that when taxing an employer’s employees their standard of wages would need to be increased to that proportion so as to cover that incurred loss in their pay, thereby, ultimately resulting in a tax upon the employee but covered for by their employer.

QUOTING: “Second, even if it were to be so analyzed, there would still be gain because gain is the difference between what is received and the cost of what was given up (NOT the value of what was given up). Since one has no cost basis in his labor, the entire amount of compensation is income.”
No, again this is premise is entirely false. A gain does not necessarily involve a loss or expense, gains have more to do with fortuity than anything else -you’re thinking more of profits. A gain first requires the necessary investment capital to provide for the possibility to acquire a ‘gain’ and likely involves an element of risk, chance, or uncertainty, no such elements are involved in the process of common laboring as laboring is usually performed through contractual arrangements (save for when such is also actually your means of laboring as is the case for stock-runners; those playing the slots, bingo, or the lotto; commodity or real estate markets, for example). For profits, those involve an element of business as a mathematical computation, so as to profit is to acquire a financial increase less all related expense, loss, and cost. Neither are subordinate employees SB/SE as the IRS seems to like to mark the down as in their silly little computer program.

Also there are in fact personal costs assumed during the act of laboring just the same as in the running of a business, e.g., your personal wellbeing and stress, necessary education and training (including ongoing in some respects), travel to and from work, clothing and work related supplies or tools, union dues, contractual obligations such as: FICA, Obamacare, additional insurance coverage, etc.; permanent or ongoing bodily wear and tear, which could lead to ever-burdening medical bills and/or unpaid time away from work or loss of work; laboring usually results in additional food and beverage consumption; extended time away from one’s home and family, decreased enjoyment in personal life, or diminished family experiences; etc. Also there are a myriad of other related costs and hazards such as unending and costly vehicle maintenance, personal loss incurred from theft, vandalism, robbery, substance abuse, and other such misfortunes that affect the populace on a daily basis throughout America.

QUOTING: “Finally, note that if your second premise is correct, then even compensation from a governmentally-privileged activity wouldn’t be subject to the income tax, so that under your “analysis”, even Mr. Earl shouldn’t have been taxed. But he was, wasn’t he?”
No, this is just more of your blatant illogic at work –neither do I “waffle about whether the privilege must be federal or not”, see this is what you are failing to grasp, such privileged vocations, occupations, and employments are and have always been justified under the excise tax, as one does not have a right to be employed by the U.S. Military or to become an attorney or an ATF, NSA, IRS, FBI, or CIA agent, etc., as these (including the privilege of running a nationalized business or profiting nationally from resources extracted from land or sea) are all revocable privileges (created and dependant upon the federal government and nothing else), while on the other hand the federal government has absolutely zero authority to restrict the right of common laboring within any state of the Union at least for U.S. citizens (however, this would be limited to the confines of statehood sovereignty).

Additionally, you are further falling behind by failing to comprehend the significant distinction between being compensated for providing a privileged service and being paid as a means of ones livelihood. Although in either case if the former or the latter receives qualifying compensation then that is legally taxable -as this is not to be taken to mean the a menial laborer cannot receive various forms of compensation (that could be considered taxable) in addition to their normal standard of pay, such as is frequently the case for employees that are protected by bargaining groups.

Say what now? The Lucas case does make mention of him being an attorney, and had done so for a reason, but not of being an employee of any specific company, though if he was such an employee, I would surmise that he held a formal position there as an attorney, officer, chairman, board-member of that company, or some combination thereof, so don’t try and tell me that he worked there as wire-stripper & puller, electrical pole installer, lead-worker, truck driver, transformer refurber, or whatever.

Also have you even bothered to actually read that case, you seem to be making statements not based on anything that is true, i.e., “… could [Earl] be taxed for the whole of the salary and attorney's fees earned by him in the years 1920 and 1921 …”? This was the sole consideration with respects to his profession, not his entire work career as you had asserted.

The entirety of the Lucas’ case whopping three paragraphs provides nothing supportive of its conclusions levied therein; it is essentially just a two sentenced “opinion” so far as one can tell of a one Justice Holmes and nothing more. Other than that you seem to be reading way too much in the Lucas case, as I have already emphasized to you.

QUOTE: “There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earn them …” and “In other words, the rule is that compensation for work is taxable …”
Here, I merely note that, yet again, you wage inane and misleading arguments.

QUOTE: “The rationale of the case was that state employees are taxable on their compensation just the same as employees in the private sector.”
No, yea, I got that, it is a given, but what is the point of mentioning this though? Now is it just me or is this not just plain common sense? It is entirely obvious after all, I mean, sure, I could have rubbed it in your face by pointing out this all out to you; informing you that here is a case contradicting that stupid argument you have made in the past when you had attempted to explain why federal employees are specifically signaled out time and time again within all of the Subtitle C and F legalese terms -you know having stated something about how there was some confusion amongst federal employees that they held the impression that they were (for some unexplainable rational) entirely exempt from taxation merely because they were employed by the federal government or some hokey crap to that effect (as even if this were the case they felt that they had to revamp legislation exclusively for their own employees as opposed to just sending out a quick nationwide workforce memo and updating their employee indoctrination policies, like the W-4 they had to turn in during the hiring process and the W-2 they received at the close of each year were not clue enough for them each and all). How utterly ridiculous!

QUOTE: “Incidentally, your note of curiosity about the closing sentence of the case is curious only to someone who’s too dense to notice that it came from a dissenting opinion.”
Actually, I think it was two justices that dissented in that one, with the second being in full agreement to the first, but either way, you seem to have missed my point, which was that a justice not only dissented in that case, but had willfully displayed an intellectual understanding with regard to the federal income tax that you yourself seem to wholly lack.

Alright, so in closing, let’s get this straight, shalt we? You wholly dismiss the truly paramount cases, such as Pollock, Stratton’s, Brushaber, Stanton, Doyle, Southern Pacific, Eisner, Merchant’s, Smietanka, Bowers, Glenshaw Glass, South Carolina, etc., in strict favor of rather irrelevant cases such as Springer and Lucas? That being the case, here is a newsflash for you, there is a very, very good reason that other cases (including the Annotated Constitution) do not lend much weight in consideration or reference to those few cases you persistently quote or cite to (while conveniently ignoring those many others), being as they provide not any thorough insight or substance to the matter of federal income taxation, none at all.

You wrongfully opt to dismiss the core of the matter and instead argue solely in defense of the result (e.g., your employer (or someone) submitted a W-3/W-2 on you so now you owe whatever tax is thereupon stated that informational receipt, regardless if you actually received that money or not; the IRS has penalized you so therefore you must be have acted unlawfully, and consequently because of this you are not entitled to any form of due process being as the IRS has already spoken to your wrongfulness so in the wrong you must of been; there are not any tax cases where a person has gotten out of paying their “fair share”, so that in itself is plenty of evidence proving your fallacies; etc., etc.) As so stated in Eisner: “… it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income," as the term is there used, and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. …”

Other than that you are absolutely making your inferences without first having established a supporting basis to stand upon.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:27 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
Weston's mention of the Glenshaw Glass case is curious, since it cuts his moronic arguments off at the knees. The issue, of course, was whether punitive damages were income. The rationale that the Supreme Court used to hold that they were is quite simple, and its discussion of the nature of Congress' taxing power is plain to all but the most obtuse (that's you, Weston):

"This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power."...Respondents contend that punitive damages, characterized as "windfalls" flowing from the culpable conduct of third parties, are not within the scope of the section. But Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted... Such decisions demonstrate that we cannot but ascribe content to the catchall provision of 22 (a), "gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever." The importance of that phrase has been too frequently recognized since its first appearance in the Revenue Act of 1913 to say now that it adds nothing to the meaning of "gross income."
Nor can we accept respondent's contention that a narrower reading of 22 (a) is required by the Court's characterization of income in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined." The Court was there endeavoring to determine whether the distribution of a corporate stock dividend constituted a realized gain to the shareholder, or changed "only the form, not the essence," of his capital investment. Id., at 210. It was held that the taxpayer had "received nothing out of the company's assets for his separate use and benefit." Id., at 211. The distribution, therefore, was held not a taxable event. In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions. Helvering v. Bruun, supra, at 468-469; United States v. Kirby Lumber Co., supra, at 3.

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." (Citations and footnotes omitted)

Pay for work is an undeniable accession to wealth, clearly realized, over which the worker has complete dominion.

Weston would distinguish between the pay received by a manual laborer and that received by an officer or one higher up in the workforce, suggesting that the latter can be taxed but not the former. Is there any language in the Constitution to support such a distinction? No. Is there anything in the statutes? No. Is there any court decision that has accepted this argument? No. This theory is an invention, pure and simple, to try to support Weston's preconceived anti-tax sentiments. It, like he, is a loser.


Holy cow, Legist most surely has hit the bottom of the barrel now, because he/she is so reaching!

Your newest “witty” retort provides no viable points as detailed below:

* And no, I am not going to bother replying to your insults as it is already more than well-established that I am correct on such points and you are merely grasping at straws. Although, sure it is fine and dandy to throw out a good razz now and then, however, when the ratio of your sentence structures has shifted to that or when the insulting or ridicule has morphed itself into the subject of an entire paragraph then there is no longer a worthy debate occurring -as it is nothing more than a desperado’ bickering that really needs to be quelled.


Well of course punitive damages are most likely to be taxable; as such damages are above and beyond compensatory damages.

As to the reason for citing the Glenshaw Glass case was simply to point out (among other things) support under the principle of pari materia (as was asserted by Henry Black within his “Treatise on the Law of Income Taxation”) [Footnote 11]:

“In discussing § 61(a) of the 1954 Code, the House Report states:

"This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61(a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a)."”

Further noticing that Section 22 (1939 IRC and preceding) reads as: “… includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service …”; but not as: “… includes gains, profits, and income from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service …”; or even as: “… includes salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service …” And thereby, any argument postulating anything to the contrary is discountable as an illogical fallacy and nothing more.

As to the included Eisner quotation, the court was merely noting the out of bounds contextual restriction in which the respondent was relying upon in their quoting of Eisner, so as to argue that because the income tax is a “… gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined” and being that punitive damages do not fit within such a description, it is not to be taxable under the federal income tax.

And I further note supporting my conclusion: “In that context - distinguishing gain from capital - the definition served a useful purpose. But it was not meant to provide a touchstone to all future gross income questions.”


A. An officer of a corporation is most certainly compensated very differently than a menial laborer would be (e.g., Financial Manager $120,000 to start, plus stock options, full medical, dental, and retirement plans, annual two-week all inclusive vacations, including full usage of a company vehicle, cell-phone, with paid lunches; meanwhile, the secretary doing most of their work, $24,000 to start and perhaps a pay-into medical and dental plan or otherwise partial coverage plan and nothing more). Additionally, business executives are most likely actively involved in excise taxable activities -or privileges- that would be construed as taxable via the federal income tax (be it in one form or another and in some instances specifically signaled out, such as certain classes of employments, e.g., foreign commerce or trade, ATFE, military, mining, oceanic, railroad, etc.); just the same as federal employees and those tied to the federal government as its instruments are. Also an attorney is an officer of the court.

B. A menial laborer earns not any gain nor profit but a livelihood, acquiring only their subsistence from one week onto the next.

C. Acquiring a livelihood or subsistence cannot be taken to mean an increase in an individual’s (or an accession to) wealth; as neither is indicative of being a gain or profit but an honest exchange.

D. To experience an “accession to wealth” one must first acquire a financial basis for establishing that experience; for the common laborer this usually entails working one or more full pay-periods in exchange for receiving remuneration, e.g., FRN’, gold, silver, carrot sticks, etc. It is then dependent upon how prudently they apply that financial basis that determines if they are to achieve such an “accession”.

E. Earning a right of livelihood or subsistence is not an appropriately taxable subject under an excise tax and hence neither the federal income tax (the income tax in its present form is but a mode of excise and subject to the breadth thereof); and never has it been considered legislatively appropriate to directly tax the personal property or occupations of individuals.

F. The federal income tax is not a tax upon a given source it is a tax upon what has emanated out from a given source.

G. Ergo, there must first be a source substantiating capital -something tangible of inherent value- for which to realize a gain or profit as intended by both constitutional and common law.


Finally, yes, a most resounding yes that there is language within the U.S. Constitution and common law as well; it is right there were it says the word ‘capitation tax’, and in further support are the many SCOTUS cases I cited to, oh and let’s not forget about all of the historically supportive reference materials written during the last 240-something years.

No it is not an “invention”, you simply fail to grasp the entire ethical logic of it all (which is actually quite simple in hindsight); being that you keep writing things such as this, inferring, incorrectly I add, that I am claiming that the federal government cannot tax the manual laborer, when the fact of the logic dictates that in fact yes they can, such as by the means of: (1) directly though a capitation or personal tax, (2) indirectly through their gains and profits in the form of an ‘income tax’, or (3) indirectly through their expense or privileged employments or activities as an excise tax.

And no I do not express sentimentalities for anti-tax, anti-government, tax-protesting, etc., etc. (hell, I am not even anti-IRS or anti-income-tax), I am rather all about governmental accountability and responsibility, such as honesty in taxation. I believe in live and let live, I believe in our great American heritage and birthright that is our U.S. Constitution; in that spirit that our Founding Fathers had instilled within us all. Clearly, these are concepts and appreciations that progressives such as you entirely lack in understanding; instead and rather tritely believing that simply because you hold accolades you rein dominion over the minds of individuals such as me. And you presume to call me a loser? Well a foolhardy art thou!

P.S. Man alive! Debating with you is almost as pointlessly childish as arguing with one of those misled 9/11 Truthers that support the no-plane-theory (NPT), laff.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
"Finally, yes, a most resounding yes that there is language within the U.S. Constitution and common law as well; it is right there were it says the word ‘capitation tax’, and in further support are the many SCOTUS cases I cited to"

So now the income tax is a capitation? Care to cite a single case that has agreed with such nonsense?

And out of "the many SCOTUS cases I cited to", please cite just one that distinguishes between the compensation received by a manual laborer and that received by someone higher up.


Seriously now, so we are back to this yet again? Wow, you cannot possibly be this obtuse can you?

Alright then, no the federal income tax is not a capitation tax, which is precisely the point. So far as cases are concerned they include: Pollock, Flint, Stratton’s Independence, Brushaber, Stanton, Doyle, Southern Pacific, Eisner, Merchants’ Loan, Bowers, Glenshaw Glass, and South Carolina (so reaffirming Brushaber in 1988); with Pollock leading the dovetail factor of all succeeding cases. As well keeping in mind that it is the underlying principle and foundation -the tenets- of which these cases (and the myriad of additional cases therein cited to) are speaking of, as there are no cases saying it outright -ergo, neither has there yet to be any such case for with to directly attribute such a framing from; however, all subsequent cases as cited to are congruous with Pollock, which itself has thus far come the closest to directly exposing the recondite foundation of all that is national taxation, be it direct or indirect, within the United States of America.

We have already been through this point as well; regardless, there are none such SCOTUS cases involving day-laborers, not by singularly nor via class-action. And for a very good reason, as the ramifications would be utterly devastating to the causation for the federal income tax status quo. Thereafter shocking this well planned conversionary ponzi-scheme into oblivion.

I have already explained to you in just about every possible way that the compensation of either class or caste of individual are federally taxable all the same; therefore, about the only remaining way left for me to explain it to you is with a few backhand smacks to your braincase -so I jest.

However, evermore elaborating is the quotation from Pollock (158 U.S. 601, 628 (1895)):

“...
There can be but one answer, unless the constitutional restriction is to be treated as utterly illusory and futile, and the object of its framers defeated. We find it impossible to hold that a fundamental requisition, deemed so important as to be enforced by two provisions, one affirmative and one negative, can be refined away by forced distinctions between that which gives value to property and the property itself.

Nor can we perceive any ground why the same reasoning does not apply to capital in personalty held for the purpose of income or ordinarily yielding income, and to the income therefrom. All the real estate of the country, and all its invested personal property, are open to the direct operation of the taxing power if an apportionment be made according to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say that no direct tax shall be laid by apportionment on any other property than land; on the contrary, it forbids all unapportioned direct taxes, and we know of no warrant for excepting personal property from the exercise of the power, or any reason why an apportioned direct tax cannot be laid and assessed, as Mr. Gallatin said in his report when Secretary of the Treasury in 1812, “upon the same objects of taxation on which the direct taxes levied under the authority of the State are laid and assessed.”
...”

SOURCE: http://supreme.justia.com/us/158/601/case.html#628

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:29 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Ivor T'Infoilat wrote:
>Weston said BTW, what ever happened to that poor little ol' Ivor?

I'm back but I see nothing much has changed with Weston.

It's always the same

1) Weston makes his idiotic claim and quotes a case
2) It's pointed out to him that the case doesn't mean what he'd like it to and that he's an idiot.
3) Weston claims that the case isn't really the important one.

repeat


And, exactly, why would anything change with me? Sorry, I must have missed that memo, was something supposed to have changed? Oh now I get it, you must be a Barry Soetoro supporter, you know chasing after that dwindling hope, change, and all.

Say, though, is such a statement not a tad-bit presumptuous of you? Which, by the way, at least I stand for something, am honest in my regards, and am wholly capable of defending my personal beliefs, unlike yourselves (this including Famspear, LPC, MacNab, etc. etc.) You people are a FRN a dozen! Any one of you are just as indistinguishable as the next.

But I suppose that whomever of you simpletons simply come here just to degrade, belittle, and marginalize people such as myself -you know because you enjoy and care about your profession just oh so very much and all (oh yes, sure, sure), as this is all the triteness that you have to grasp onto, as you cannot discuss the real issues after all, this is evermore than apparent for neither the facts or the law favor your untenable position. Epic failures are all that you Quatloos people actually are.

I am as to a steamroller as you Quatloos are the asphalt being compacted beneath its roller.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:30 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
Time to translate Weston's gibberish:

"As well keeping in mind that it is the underlying principle and foundation -the tenets- of which these cases (and the myriad of additional cases therein cited to) are speaking of, as there are no cases saying it outright -ergo, neither has there yet to be any such case for with to directly attribute such a framing from"

Translation: "No, there are no cases supporting my claims, but I'll throw some of these other ones against the wall and hope something sticks."

"there are none such SCOTUS cases involving day-laborers, not by singularly nor via class-action. And for a very good reason, as the ramifications would be utterly devastating to the causation for the federal income tax status quo. Thereafter shocking this well planned conversionary ponzi-scheme into oblivion."

Translation: "The absence of any cases supporting my arguments is proof that there's a conspiracy to hide the real law."

"no the federal income tax is not a capitation tax"

Translation: "I really screwed up when I cited the capitation tax provision of the Constitution as a justificaton for my argument."

"all subsequent cases as cited to are congruous with Pollock, which itself has thus far come the closest to directly exposing the recondite foundation of all that is national taxation, be it direct or indirect, within the United States of America."

Translation: "I'm oblivious to the fact that Pollock has been completely eviscerated by the 16th Amendment and later cases, including several that I cited. The fact that the source of income is irrelevant to the constitutionality of an income tax and the fact that income taxes needn't be apportioned have completely eluded me."


Well, that is all you have, this was your big retort? I laugh at you; Legist, you are as a simple harlequin to a jaded monarch.

You have already lost the argument. And yet, still you have not any clue what you are debating against. I have already laid it out all very clear and poignantly for you anything more is just going in circles. Thus, you are without adroitness and left wanting.

Perhaps it might be best for you to redress yourself by actually becoming learned in what you are debating both for and against. As without such a fundamental understandings, always you will lack in moral principle, and thus will lose your battles before such has even begun.


To those visiting this thread because they are actually interested in discovering a few truths about federal taxation in America I do not want to leave you feeling avoided.

So, to reiterate on the matter of the XVI Amendment -which as you know resulted from the Pollock case- the sole purpose and intended breadth of this Amendment was to forever and thereafter prevent the resort of individuals from making a claim upon the source from whence their income had derived. Meaning that prior to the XVI Amendment individuals could legally make a valid claim that the money the IRS had taxed them on had actually came from, for example, realty rents and being that real estate (land, chattel, fixtures, etc.) can only be taxed constitutionally by apportionment through the mode of 'direct taxation' the non-apportioned taxing of such finances is (or was) unconstitutional -as such was the federal income tax; enter, Pollock and subsequently the XVI Amendment. Thereafter, rendering all such claims to be legally frivolous.

Just the same (as another yet much more relatable and predominant example) such as claiming simply because the money I had initially used to invest in say Microsoft, IBM, Halliburton, Monsanto, and Roche stocks, which subsequently yielded a doubling of my initial principal that the beneficial windfall I had experienced was not constitutionally taxable because it was attributed from money obtained through my laboring, which itself may only be constitutionally taxed ‘directly’ through say a capitation tax. Such claims cannot any longer be alleged. And that and nothing more, was the very simple intent of the XVI Amendment.

These are the true distinctions between the severing of one’s income-as-capital (ergo, their source) and income-as-the-gain-or-profit or yielding-income (ergo, their ‘incomes’) as was originally referenced by Alexander Hamilton.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:30 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
"money obtained through my laboring, which itself may only be constitutionally taxed ‘directly’ through say a capitation tax."

Such is not and never has been the law. Even Pollock recognized the validity of an unapportioned tax on income from laboring:

"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."
Pollock II, 158 U.S. at 600.


Legist wrote:
The notion that taxability of compensation for work has anything to do with whether one is in or out of the Federal Reserve System is an unbelievably idiotic delusion, devoid of any legal support whatsoever. But considering you got it from someone who's mentally ill, it's not surprising.


Graciousness, that quotation of which you just referenced has nothing, at all, whatsoever, to do with contractual laboring for sustenance the context of that entire quote is addressing businesses, professionals, and entrepreneurship; such engagements and activities have always been appropriate with regard to excise taxation -I had already explained this copious times for your weak shriveling sodium-fluoridated tiny-mind and yet you still fail to grasp even this basic concept. That is to say: “We do not mean to say that an act laying by apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal property … might not also lay excise taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations.”

That quote has nothing to do with the non-apportioned taxing of an individual’s acquired personal property or contracts, or livelihood; such are and have always been contained within the designation of ‘capitation taxes’, also known to those that know it, ‘personal taxes’.

There are tons and tons of other great quotations throughout Pollock, including its rehearing (as to one such example you may refer the quote from Pollock I had included a few posts ago), which serves to entirely disprove what you have just postulated, neither may you correctly take a few words out of context -from either the entirety of the case and the paragraph being quoted- to lend a minuscule favoring unto your position, just as a foundation set into stone cannot thereafter be razed.

Neither am I saying that the federal income tax cannot tax a menial laborer; however, it cannot ever tax that menial laborer’s acquired capital, which is to say their source to become the basis in realizing whatever future ‘taxable income’ they may or may not acquire. The federal income tax is a tax not upon the gross, but the net; it is a tax on what has derived from a source and not the source itself. A source must be something tangible that possesses an inherent value, this cannot be said to be the case of the menial laborer or the exertions of their own free will.

* Also noticing that in further and direct support to my favor -that is post-XVI Amendment- are pages 206-208 of Eisner (1920).

Again, you are making inferences that you cannot support. You, Legist (and Ivor) each lack the fundamental and requisite ethical considerations on the matter of federal taxation as a whole. Neither do you even appear to have a general understanding on the various mode-classes of taxation; either that or you’re just playing ignorance to a new level. Regardless, the premise of your position is entirely -blatantly- illogical.

Unread post January 10th, 2012, 11:32 pm
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Legist wrote:
John, you fool, I can't cite a case that says left-handed, one-eyed chiropractors who were born on February 29 in Bozeman, Montana and who wear size 10 1/2 C shoes have to pay income tax. But the fact that there is no such case doesn't mean they don't.

If your bitcoins have any value (on which I have no opinion), they are just as taxable as if you were paid in FRN's, smoked hams, or autographed photos of Elvis.


QUOTING: “… But the fact that there is no such case doesn't mean they don't.”
Oh my, oh my, cannot you just sense the hypocrisy abounding both Ivor and Legist?

QUOTING: “… smoked hams, or autographed photos of Elvis.”
Such possessions only become taxable after having been monetarily converted and in that process has resulted in a positive -net- increase for the possessor.

Just as laboring for sustenance is not taxable under the federal income tax, neither is bartering for sustenance.


For those unfamiliar with bartering, here is a somewhat elaborate example, say you were going to repair a shed door for your neighbor at a cost to the them of $15 (they have already sprung for the necessary repair materials), but shortly thereafter, while looking around in their shed they counteroffer instead to just give you their old lawnmower that is broken (as they are wanting to get ride of all of that junk anyways as part of their spring cleaning), you say sure and complete the work for them.

Later that day you clean up the lawnmower and in doing so you realize all it needs is a new sparkplug and distributor wire as its insulation has worn down, you make a special order at Lowe’s Hardware for $5 in replacement parts and then call up your Aunt Sally to arrange for her to sell the lawnmower at her next yard sale, she agrees to do so for a $10 fee. That next week she phones you over to pickup your $65 remaining Dollars after she deducted her $10.

So that night, you being the tax aficionado that you are, decide to note this accomplishment in your personal receipt book before heading off to bed by deducting the sum of $30 ($15+$5+$10) out from the total of your newly acquired $75, which then leaves you with your reasonably determined gain of $45 of which is itself reportable income at the close of the federal tax period (if the annual sum is above the federal established exemption amount that is), while the rest of that money is constitutionally exempted from federal income taxation.

This is such because the contracted expectation was for you to acquire only $15 for the work you had performed, however, in reality you had acquired much more money then that, so it is a gain, above and beyond your contracted labor.

* And just to pose a negative spin to this scenario, let’s presume that you were unable to repair the lawnmower and were only able to sell it for $20 at your Aunt Sally’s yard sale, the result is that you are left eating a $5 negative loss ($15+$10= $25; $20-$25= -$5).

Next

Return to General Tax Questions

cron