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.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

This is a designated archiving area for posts made at Ron Paul Forum's concerning a debate over taxation:

There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country


Wheeljack wrote:
Why do I state this?

Because the people of this nation have been conditioned to believe that employment (working for someone else) is the equivalent of providing a service. It is not.

This is where Ron Paul can win over the working people of this country, by showing that businesses have been giving away a portion of their paychecks to the government for the last 70 years.

This knowledge will have a dramatic impact on the Accounting industry, as well as, the Retirement Financial industry.


This from a Human Resources site on the internet:

Employment Status – Employed or Self-employed?

What is the difference between a “contract of service” and a “contract for services”?

These are common-law terms used to distinguish employees from persons who are self-employed.

The term:
-“contract of service” relates to a person in employment (as in the case of a domestic servant who is described as being “in service”.)
-“contract for services” relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.

The term “contract of service” is referred to in employment and tax legislation. A person who works under a contract of service is:
-an “employee” for payroll purposes, and
-an “employee” for employment rights purposes, and
-a “worker” for other employment rights purposes.

In contrast, a person who works under a contract for services, i.e. a self-employed person, is neither an employee nor a worker. There is no requirement for an employer to put such a person on the payroll; rather payment may be made on invoice. There is no entitlement to any of the employment rights available to employees and workers.

How, then, are these terms to be distinguished? Traditionally, there are two key tests to identify an employee, i.e. a person who works under a “contract of service”.
These include:
-“mutuality of obligation”, i.e. both parties to the contract have obligations to each other, the employee to perform the work as directed, the employer to pay for the work performed.
-the “degree of control” exercised by the employer over the work performed by the employee.

Other factors, however, have been taken into consideration when courts and tribunals have endeavored to distinguish between employment and self-employment.
These include:
-whether the individual must perform the work personally, or is able to send a qualified substitute.
-the nature of the pay and benefits that are provided by the employer.
-whether or not the individual has a business structure.
-who decides on how the contract should be performed.
-the extent of the financial risk borne by the individual.
-who provides the materials and equipment necessary for the work.
The duration of the contract is also important, the longer the engagement, the more likely it is that the relationship is employment.

Another simple way of distinguishing employment from self-employment is to consider what it is that the employer is “buying”:
-if the employer is “buying” an employee, there will be a lengthy recruitment process in order to find just the right person.
-if the employer is “buying” a service, the person who will provide the service is likely to be selected by recommendation or simply by choosing an ad in the Yellow Pages.


The Internal Revenue Service has a form which is used for this purpose.
(Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status)
This form is used to determine who is liable for the employer side of the Social Security and Medicare taxes, if either side questions who is liable.


If we go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) we will find the following definitions, laid out in the Social Security Act of 1935.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter C > § 3121
§ 3121. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed


Here we see that employment is defined as service, of whatever nature, thus either performing service (employment) or performing a service (self-employment) is liable to this taxation.




Now, we come to the crux of the matter.


In 1942, Congress passed the Current Tax Payment Act to collect federal income tax at source on wages. Let’s go to the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26) to find this definition from that Act.



TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24 > § 3401
§ 3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash;


Here we see that wages is not defined by employment, but by services.


As discussed earlier, employment (labor) is not a service. An employee is “in service” to his employer, he does not “provide a service or services” to his employer. An employee may perform services for the employer, but it should be clearly understood that these services are those provided by the employer to his customers.



All remuneration paid expressly for employment, such as hourly wages do not fall under the scope of this definition of wages.

On the other hand, when an employer provides a service or services to his clients, it is an employee who will perform this service. Now if the employee is paid compensation based on the performance of this service or services, usually in the form of a commission, a fee, and/or a tip, then the employee has received remuneration for services and this compensation is fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

Also an employee may receive fringe benefits, such as paid insurance, access to recreational facilities, sick leave, paid holidays and vacation, profit-sharing plans, year-end bonuses, etc. All these are funded through the profits of the employer and therefore fall under remuneration for services and are fully within the scope of this definition of wages.

However, holidays, vacation, sick leave and year-end bonuses may be paid in the form of an hourly wage. This does not make all hourly wages subject to, nor does it relieve fringe benefits from, the scope of this definition of wages.

Federal Income Tax

Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, also supports what I have stated.


TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
§ 61. Gross income defined
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;




I welcome your comments



Wheeljack wrote:
Ron Paul says the U.S. is slipping into fascism. He is correct, but he is 70 years behind the fact.

The U.S. slipped into fascism in 1942 when the Congress gave the reporting of the peoples wages into the hands of business and the people of this country perfected this fiction by allowing themselves to become ignorant of their own laws.

When the employer issues a W-2 to the employee, the employer also reports to the IRS the same info by the transmittal of a W-3.

So, why does the IRS require the employee to submit a copy of the W-2?

It is the legal verification by the employee that what the employer reported is true and correct. When the employer reports a falsehood, through his ignorance in the language of the Law, and the employee validates that falsehood, again through their ignorance of the Law, it becomes perfected as the truth.

Ron Paul wants to repeal the 16th Amendment.

This is totally unnecessary, as the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th Amendment did not grant Congress any new power, thus its repeal would not deny Congress this power.

The 16th Amendment established a protection for the people by defining what income the Congress could tax. Congress can not tax all income. It was limited by the four words following income..., from whatever source derived,.

These words protect capital, for it is the source, when it is returned from its investment in the form of income.


Ron Paul does not need to convince anybody to repeal any law to obtain a 0% income tax on working wages. The Law is already in place, all that is needed is to show the people what this law actually does.:)



Wheeljack wrote:
rockerrockstar wrote:
If that was true imagine all the back taxes the government would owe the people.


It is true. And Yes, the government does owe the people refunds, but the people have to claim them, which requires the people to be educated.

There have been people who have raised this issue over the years, but when you read the court rulings you will see that they did not know how to defend their position, thus they lost.

I would very much like to show the Ron Paul campaign this simple truth, which could be used to open the eyes of the working people and their employers.

The money in the peoples pockets would make the payroll tax reduction look silly and unnecessary.:D



Wheeljack wrote:
Crickett wrote:
Wording aside, Obamacare makes a provision for 1099s to be given to just about anyone who sells anything to anyone. At losthorizons.com this tax thing has been explained for years, and people did not even wake up enough to see this new thing in that new legislation.


Crickett,

I have read Hendrickson's book. He does not defend himself with actual case law rulings. He attacks the position of the government, which is supported by their case law, thus he loses.

W-2's are covered by what I have said. 1099's are not. As you have said, 1099's are given for services, not for employment.

This is the difference;
Employment is an investment in a business the value of which is determined by the employer, not the employee.
Services are things purchased the value of which is determined by the provider, not the customer.

The income tax is an indirect tax, and a hidden tax, thus it can be passed on to the customer.

Why did the Congress go to the income tax? And, why is it graduated?

Because the excise taxes they were tacking onto goods were killing the working class. The working people were paying a much higher percentage of their wages, in taxes, as compared to the richer people. The excise taxes were also not hidden thus the consumer knew the tax.

Congress wanted to get the richer middle and upper classes to contribute equally on the percentage of their income.

With the income tax, Congress could eliminate almost all the excise taxes.

So what happened?

The businesses had to figure what they would pay in income tax up front and incorporate it into the pricing of their goods and services.

The working class is still paying the tax, but it was hidden and still passes through the businesses. Thus the lower rates in the scale usually cover the increase paid by the consumers, while the upper rates actually get into taxing the profits of the businesses.

With the withholding of income tax at source in 1942, and the subsequent failure of the people to know the law, the working class is now being taxed twice on their wages.

So, all this malarkey we hear on TV about 49% of the people not having any skin in the game is pure BS.



Wheeljack wrote:
Enforcer wrote:
The 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. I don't need the United States Supreme Court to tell me if / when the rules are being broken.

http://www.freedom-school.com/16th.html

As a matter of fact, the de facto (illegal) courts have tried to suppress the truth from being told

Additionally, the income tax is voluntary. How can you compel anyone to volunteer?

We've known these arguments for years. It does little to cry about it when the only avenue of redress left is to exit the system and refuse to have our earnings extorted by an illegal government. Is that dangerous? Let me quote someone who was active in REALLY fighting the system... an ex - slave:

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
" (Frederic Douglass)

http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1857-frederick-douglass-if-there-no-struggle-there-no-progress


Enforcer:

As I pointed out before, the 16th Amendment did not give the Congress any new power, therefore if it was properly ratified or not, it is of no consequence whatsoever to the implementation of the income tax.

Also, as stated before, the 16th Amendment was intended as a protection to the people. To clarify what exactly the tax applied to.

The income tax is voluntary in the sense that when you pursue the creation of profits, you have volunteered into the system.

When the income tax was created, the working class simply received a paycheck for the time spent working and possibly a year-end bonus.

If you worked in sales and were paid by commission, then your pay was controlled by how well you created profits for the company.

With the unionization of the workforce, the workers began to reach into the profits of the companies for benefits, such as vacation and holiday pay, sick pay, profit sharing and pension plans.

It's only these things that fall under the auspices of the income tax.



Wheeljack wrote:
Enforcer wrote:
As I understand the IRS Tax Code, the income tax taxes profits. Profits are:

"The amount of money received for goods and services minus the amount spent on same; excess revenue..."

Would that definition be correct? If I work for wages and derive NO benefits from a company, then I would have no taxable income since there is no profit on labor. My time is a straight across the board trade for a set amount of money. Wage earners make no investment and realize no "profit."

Secondly, if one does not volunteer to pay the income tax (i.e. having a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "Social Security Number") then you would be hard pressed to convince me that an individual working for wages and having no company benefits is making any profit; therefore, not subject to any such income tax under a constitutional Republic.


Enforcer:

Your definition is correct. The first two sentences are correct. The third sentence is not.

Wage earners are making an investment. They invest their time, which the employer has established a value for, in the wage. The wage is the return of the investment (capital). If there is no benefits paid, then there is no return on the investment (profit).

On your second point, when you accept an offer of employment, from an employer who has accepted the social security plan, you have volunteered to enter the system.

Regardless of this, I am not trying to convince you that working for wages without benefits is making profits.



Wheeljack wrote:
Enforcer wrote:
So, what is at dispute here is whether or not wages equal income? How do you respond to this?

* Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9
"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

* Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245. US Supreme court, never overruled
"After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. " (A tax on salary)

* Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113
"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

* Brushaber v Union Pacific R/R 240 U.S. I, 17; 36 S.Ct. 236, 241.
"Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services"

* Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31
"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."

* Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE..."

Okay, that's my research so far. I welcome another explanation.


When you make the blanket statement that wages are not income you will run afoul the law.

You must understand what the law is calling "wages".

What workers receive as compensation for labor is commonly referred to as wages. Compensation for labor is the pay for the actual hours worked.

What the law calls "wages" is defined as compensation for services.
Compensation for services includes commissions, fees, and fringe benefits. (Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code)

Go back to my original post and reread it.:cool:



Wheeljack wrote:
Working people did not pay an income tax on their wages or salaries until 1943 when the Current Tax Payment Act was passed.

Why did they suddenly start? We are led to believe that the Victory Tax Act of 1942 brought the income levels down to $624, which encompassed many workers. Then with the passage of the Current Tax Payment Act the determination of wages, and the withholding of taxes on them, was given to the employers. Who then, because they had been withholding for Social Security for 5 yrs., promptly did not comprehend the difference between employment and services.

The Current Tax Payment Act was championed by Randolph E. Paul, General Counsel of the Treasury.

In an address to the Philadelphia Bar Association, on June 14,1943, Mr. Paul stated the following; (Copied from the text of his speech)

The duty to withhold an amount for income and victory taxes is net imposed on all persons making payments of compensation for personal services rendered. First, there must exist, as in the Social Security tax, the employer-employee relationship, as distinguished from the relationship of independent contractors. Then even where this relationship exists, wage payments in certain enumerated types of occupations, are excepted from the withholding requirement. The three main peacetime groups to which this exception applies are (1) agricultural laborers, (2) domestic servants in private homes, college clubs or fraternities, and (3) casual laborers not engaged in the course of the employer's trade or business. In addition, the service pay of members of the military or naval forces is excluded from the withholding provisions. Services performed for a foreign government or instrumentality and services performed while outside of the United States, where a major part of the services for an employer during the calendar year is to be performed outside of the continental limits, are also excluded. In this regard, however, the law specifically states that services performed on or in connection with an American vessel, or as an employee of the War Shipping Administration, are not services performed outside the United States. A further exception, new to withholding, is made in the case of remuneration paid for Services performed by a minister of the gospel.

From the letters we have received at the Treasury while this Act was under consideration, I know that many persons, particularly in the lower wage levels, have been greatly alarmed at the prospect of having 20 percent of their salaries withheld from them. Much of this alarm arises from an inaccurate conception of the withholding provisions. For the most part these persons fail to recognize that withholding does not result in the imposition of any new tax but is merely a convenient method of paying the tax liability which existing law imposes.


Since it was an R. E. Paul that brought the withholding tax to life. I believe that it should only be fitting that another R. E. Paul show the American people what the extent of that life was to really be.


What say you.:cool:



SOURCE: Economic: Taxes: There is no federal or state income tax on working wages by law in this country.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wheeljack wrote:
heavenlyboy34 wrote:
Didn't Irwin Schiff make all the same arguments you're making? (haven't thought about the Schiff case in years)


The arguments may be the same, the defense of these arguments is totally different.

Schiff and all the others tried to defend their arguments with their own interpretations of the law.

What I am attempting to show you is that the use of the word "service" has been corrupted and that by using the governments positions I can defend my argument.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wheeljack wrote:
WilliamC wrote:
I suppose if you're self employed and don't pay income tax that's possible, but my only real jobs have been through employers who withold for me.

I do know people get killed over not paying taxes, so I'm wary of actually encouraging folks to do this.

But of course anything one can do with cash and a handshake is fine with me ;)


WilliamC,

If I was self-employed, then I would owe income tax. But I, like you, am a laborer.

I refute my employer's W-2 and only claim as taxable income for the federal, state and local income taxes the remuneration I received for vacation and holiday pay, and a yearly bonus.

Yes, freedom is a very scary thing, but once you go there, you never want to go back.

I have done this for the last 5 years.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wheeljack wrote:
Danke wrote:
No, I am not self employed.

I work in the private sector.

Just increase your exemptions to not pay income tax outside of FICA.


Danke,

Just increasing your exemptions only affects what your employer takes out for income tax. It does not settle the record for what your employer claims he paid you as taxable wages on your W-2 to the IRS or the state.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wow, Wheeljack what a great thread. I must say that you are probably the first person I have come across that I agree with on all points -that is so far as federal income taxation is concerned.

To quickly add (at least to my current understanding), Mr. Schiff operated a business and moreover many of his charges involved off-shoring several million Dollars in profits; thus, he had as fact been engaging in a taxable activity and subsequently had committed serious crimes in attempting to conceal his realized wealth from the knowledge of the government.

I myself file a complete tax refund (a joint claim of refund) with the IRS (from TY-2007 to present). The IRS has in turn to date, and I add unlawfully, has or had:

(1) imposed over $30,000 in individual, ‘frivolous’ penalties against both me and my wife;
(2) issued a ‘lock-in letter’ at “single and zero” on me as of 2008;
(3) issued separate public liens on both me and my wife;
(4) issued separate levies on both me and my wife;
(5) began garnishing my pay since 2011;
(6) claimed that both me and my wife have yet to file any tax returns since TY-2007;
(7) denied me and my wife all administrative due process, while flagging our IRS accounts into an entirely automated “ACS-FRP” based out of both Ogden, UT and Fresno, CA;
(8) failed to reduce our already withheld amounts from whatever penalties imposed, and;
(9) has SFR both me and my wife, but only for TY-2008, and issued related penalty interested;
* This is just a general outline, there are many, many additional issues pertaining to both me and my wife’s classification within the IRS’ internal procedures and documents, assessments, certifications, etc.

Last I heard, the IRS had alleged in court testimony that over 10,000 individuals file for what they have (unlawfully) termed ‘frivolous refund filings’. We need to dramatically increase that sum to at least a very high six-figured number.

Personally, I think this is what we all need to begin doing; we should all be calling out these conversionists for what they really are, by standing up to those tyrannous without any fear whatsoever, regardless of whatever type of sorted hullabaloo-scaremongering they devise or retort upon.


The basis of my own research as to taxation is available for consumption below:

The Crux of Federal ‘Taxation’ (CFT) [PDF]
Points in Further Support of the CFT [PDF]

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Also, regarding the earlier SCOTUS quotes:

In: Evans v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, 263 (1920)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/245/case.html#263

I do not think that quote is really relevant to anything relating to the populace. That case was about certain constitutional protections afforded judges, which at the time was being related to the unconstitutional taxing of their earnings; also if I recall that case has since been overturned, as judges are now taxed on their earnings.


In: Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/240/1/case.html

None of this quote appears to be from that case: “Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services”

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Also do not forget that to do so is a crime under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7205(a) Withholding on wages

“Any individual required to supply information to his employer under section 3402 who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information, or who willfully fails to supply information thereunder which would require an increase in the tax to be withheld under section 3402, shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7205?quicktabs_8=1#quicktabs-8

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

As to the terms themselves, this is a bit gravy:

Many of the pertinent terms used within the Internal Revenue Code, that including its manuals, publications, and forms derives from H.R. 8928, the ‘Classification Act of 1923’ [CHAP. 265, 42 Stat. 1488, March 4, 1923, Public, No. 516].

Specifically, for 26 USC § 61(a)(1) – ‘Compensation for services’ and 26 USC § 32(c)(2)(A) – ‘Earned income’: “The term “compensation” means any salary, wage, fee, allowance, or other emolument paid to an employee for service in a position.”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(c) – ‘Employee’: “The term “employee” means any person temporarily or permanently in a position.”.

Specifically, for 26 USC § 3401(a) – ‘Wages’: “The term “service” means the broadest division of related offices and employments.”.

“The term “position” means a specific civilian office or employment, whether occupied or vacant, in a department other than the following: Offices or employments in the Postal Service; teachers, librarians, school attendance officers, and employees of the community center department under the Board of Education of the District of Columbia; officers and members of the Metropolitan police, the fire department of the District of Columbia, and the United States park police; and the commissioned personnel of the Coast Guard, the Pubic Health Service, and the Coast and Geodetic Survey.”

“The term “department” means an executive department of the United States Government, a governmental establishment in the executive branch of the United States Government which is not a part of an executive department, the municipal government of the District of Columbia, the Botanic Garden, Library of Congress, Library Building and Grounds, Government Printing Office, and the Smithsonian Institution.”

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wheeljack wrote:
Sorry to hear about this. I have to ask this, Are you filing using Henderickson's method?


The IRS is not being unlawful in calling these frivolous return filings.

What we need to do is correct how these individuals present their info to the IRS.
To increase the number is simply to send more sheep to be slaughtered. I will not be a party to that.


We do need to call out the employers, but to do so we need to be clear on what they are doing.

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Wheeljack wrote:
Weston,

As for the judges, a tax is not a diminishment of their earnings, therefore it was not unconstitutional to apply the tax to them.



The worker quote is a prime example of the misuse of the word "service".

It should have been worded as follows;

The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for performing service.


Oh absolutely, one has to wonder why such arguments are even brought forth in the first place and of the impartiality of the courts as a reflection upon their own (self-serving) interests. It was not after all as if the tax in question was specifically imposed upon jurists and nobody else, which then there may be a valid constitutional issue to debate.

And yes, for clearly the writings of major legists in economy Turgot, Smith, and Gallatin, et al, undoubtedly crystallized that the ignoble, the bourgeois, etc., earn merely a livelihood, nothing more. Alexander Hamilton himself had clarified the concepts of one’s whole income (gross receipts) as only a direct tax and of the exemption of income-capital as personalty.

Next

Return to General Tax Questions

cron