Has the Supreme Court defined what income is?
Robert Miller
I'm told on one side that it includes all monies a person earns, on the
other side I'm told that it is corp. profits, or both.
Richard Macdonald
news:288bb$46624fe1$4b5b23f8$15...@ALLTEL.NET...
"The question is one of definition and the answer to it may be found in
recent decisions of this court.
The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909, c. 6, 36 Stat. 11, 112,
was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word "income" was so
necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as
"the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined."
Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415.
This definition, frequently approved by this court, received an addition, in
its latest income tax decision, which [*518] is especially significant in
its application to such a case as we have here, so that it now reads:
"'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or
from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained
through a sale or conversion of capital assets." Eisner v. Macomber, 252
[***15] U.S. 189, 207."
-- Merchants' Loan & Trust Company, Trustee of Estate of Ryerson, v.
Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509. (1921)
joeu2004
> I'm looking for the scientific definition for income, as in the income tax.
There is no single "scientific" definition of income that applies to
all classes of taxpayers (individuals, corporations, trusts, etc).
Moreover, it is not necessary for the courts per se to define terms,
if they are already defined unambigously in law.
When looking to the appellate courts -- the US Supreme Court, in
particular -- for definition, it is important to consider only
decisions that interpret Amendment 16 of the US Constitution, which
was ratified in 1913, and later law.
Before 1913, there was disgreement among the appellate courts about
what Congress could and could not tax within the limitations of
Section 8 of the US Constitution. That is why Amendment 16 was passed
and ratified -- to resolve those disagreements and to reverse some
court decisions that concluded that Congress could not tax certain
income.
Some tax dodgers try to argue that Amendment 16 was not never
correctly ratified. The US Surpreme Court has repeatedly rejected
such claims.
> I'm told on one side that it includes all monies a person earns, on the
> other side I'm told that it is corp. profits, or both.
The simple answer is "both". The more complete answer is: Congress
has defined by law what constitutes "gross income" and "taxable
income" separately for individuals, corporations, trusts, etc.
The simplest way to understand those definitions is to look at the
appropriate tax returns. Bear in mind that this system of income
taxation has been in place -- and has been challenged unsuccessfully
-- for nearly 100 years.
Tax dodgers argue that the congressional definitions (in the part of
the US Code known as the Internal Revenue Code and in related
regulations written by the IRS, as authorized by Congress) are
circular. For example, for individuals, "gross income" is define as
"all income from whatever source derived" -- the same language that
appears in Amendment 16, I might add. But exactly what "income"?
Well, the Congress defines that by example in the law. The law
states: "including (but not limited to) the following items" (I
abbreviate): compensation for services, gains derived from dealings
in property, interest, rents, royalties, allimony, annuities, income
from life insurance, pensions. And those are only the categories of
income that I deem applicable to individuals.
That's about all I will say on the subject. I am sure that we will
hear from chorus of tax dodgers who will make outrageous claims.
But for any reasonable individual, the take-away is: the "definition"
of income is only by example and apparent from the tax return forms,
related instructions and regulations. To my knowledge, there is no
canonical and exhaustive definition of income other than, perhaps,
money or equivalent value of property received from whatever source
derived.
Robert Miller
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wzv8i.8301$bZ1.4977@trnddc08...
or
other.
"...Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise scientific definition
of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from
principal
or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax;
conveing
rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate acivities."
Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S.179, 185, 38 S.Ct.467 (1918)
This is after the 1913 16th Amendemnt.
Richard Macdonald
But, Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co. is a case regarding the 1909 Corporate
Excise Tax; Eisner v. Macomber and Merchants' Loan & Trust Company,
Trustee of Estate of Ryerson, v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509. (1921)
are both cases regarding the 1913 Income Tax. So when the income tax
expanded to encompass income beyond that of Corporations, the source
of the definition of income stayed the same as in Stratton's Independence v.
Howbert (another 1909 law case) but applied to ANY individual or entiry.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
Be thankful we're not getting all
the government we're paying for.
-- Will Rogers
Paul Maffia
more convince this boob than you can Dale, or Rosie or any of the other
morons than you could convince a rock. In fact, you would have more luck
with a rock since it has more intelligence than all the screwballs put
together.
"Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:uZP8i.6010$t84.3167@trnddc04...
joeu2004
> Miller has been here before spewing his anti-tax gibberish. You could no
> more convince this boob than you can Dale, or Rosie or any of the other
> morons than you could convince a rock.
Thanks for the (belated) heads-up. I did not recognize the name; if I
had, I would not have responded. Normally, my policy is not to
dignify tax dodgers' trolls with a response. Although I was
suspicious of Miller's motives, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
My bad!
PS: I am ignoring Macdonald's misleading contributions for the same
reason.
Paul Maffia
"joeu2004" <joeu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180997481.6...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Too bad, McDonalds contributions are not misleading. They are accurate and
on point.
Robert Miller
WILLIAM E. PECK & CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
247 U.S. 165
WILLIAM E. PECK & CO., Inc.,
v.
LOWE.
No. 234.
Argued Dec. 10 & 11, 1917.
Decided May 20, 1918.
The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real
bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions,
it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but
merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an
apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on
income,
whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B,
713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 ,
112-113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278.
"it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects"
What is "it"? "it" is the 16th Amendment. If "it" does not extend the
taxing
power to new or excepted subjects.
And, if the Congress did not have the power to lay an un apportioned tax
on wages before the 16th Amendment. How can the 16th Amendment give
the Congress tax wages without being apportioned?
Is Paul Maffia you real name? if it is it suits you well because the Maffia
lies,
cheats, steals, and murders for the sake of money. Much as it would appear
has in common with the IRS.
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:hYKdnW2Yz-JhoPnb...@centurytel.net...
joeu2004
> And, if the Congress did not have the power to lay an un apportioned tax
> on wages before the 16th Amendment. How can the 16th Amendment give
> the Congress tax wages without being apportioned?
This is too easy....
The federal government's power is derived from the US Constitution.
That is, the Constitution spells out in broad terms the structure of
the federal government and what federal government -- including
Congress -- can and cannot do.
Before the 16th Amendment, some people interpreted Article 2 Section 8
to mean that taxes imposed by Congress must be "apportioned" because
they must be "uniform throughout the United States". (I disagree with
that interpretation. But that does not matter.)
The 16th Amendment, ah, __amended__ (changed) the Constitution,
explicitly giving Congress the power to impose taxes "without
apportionment among the several States".
The purpose of amendments is to add to or supersede powers and
limitations outlined in the original part of or earlier amendments to
the Constitution.
> Is Paul Maffia you real name? if it is it suits you well because the Maffia
> lies, cheats, steals, and murders for the sake of money.
Gee, I have not heard such juvenile word-play since elementary school.
Robert Miller
If an exchange of property is not gain it is not income, so why do they call
it the income tax?
Yet not define what income is or what taxable income is? Other than profits
and gain from corporate activities?
Or even to point to the law that specificly says Americans in the 50 States
must file an income tax form that can be used in a court of law to
incriminate
themselves.
If the Congress uses force and intimidation to scare people into filing
wouldn't
that make them a terrorist organization? In the original definition of the
word.
Paul Maffia
to do so.news:bc2c2$4669dce7$4b5b2328$31...@ALLTEL.NET...
> U.S. Supreme Court
> WILLIAM E. PECK & CO. v. LOWE , 247 U.S. 165 (1918)
> 247 U.S. 165
>
> WILLIAM E. PECK & CO., Inc.,
> v.
> LOWE.
> No. 234.
>
> Argued Dec. 10 & 11, 1917.
> Decided May 20, 1918.
>
>
> The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real
> bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions,
> it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but
> merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an
> apportionment among the states of taxes [247 U.S. 165, 173] laid on
> income,
> whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union
> Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B,
> 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 ,
> 112-113, 36 Sup. Ct. 278.
>
> "it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects"
>
Because, as the Court has pointed out over and over again, Congress has
always had the power to tax incomegiven to it by Article I, Section 8
> What is "it"? "it" is the 16th Amendment. If "it" does not extend the
> taxing
> power to new or excepted subjects.
That's right, Congress always had the power to tax income given to in the
Constitution Articlke I, Section 8.
> And, if the Congress did not have the power to lay an un apportioned tax
> on wages before the 16th Amendment. How can the 16th Amendment give
> the Congress tax wages without being apportioned?
Congress has always had the power to tax income without apportionment. Given
to it by Article I, Section 8.
Even the Court in the Pollack case, went out of its way to point that out.
But then, the comic books you read don't point that out.
> Is Paul Maffia you real name? if it is it suits you well because the
> Maffia lies,
> cheats, steals, and murders for the sake of money. Much as it would
> appear
> has in common with the IRS.
Displaying the depth of your stupidity evern more. Moron, the organization
you refer to is the MAFIA, not Maffia. And the Maffia and the IRS have
nothing in common. On the other hand, anti tax morons, like yourself, do.
You give being stupid a bad name.
Robert Miller
the
IRS Code is income defined? So what is income? I watched a video where
Aaron
Russo asked Sheldon Cohen. Former IRS Commissioner what "income" was with
no answer. He said the Courts have defined it.
It seems the Supreme Court has defined it, but the lower courts do not
comply with
the definitions of the Supreme Court's definitions that "income" is gain
from corporate
activity.
> Even the Court in the Pollack case, went out of its way to point that out.
> But then, the comic books you read don't point that out.
>
>> Is Paul Maffia you real name? if it is it suits you well because the
>> Maffia lies,
>> cheats, steals, and murders for the sake of money. Much as it would
>> appear
>> has in common with the IRS.
>
> Displaying the depth of your stupidity evern more. Moron, the organization
> you refer to is the MAFIA, not Maffia. And the Maffia and the IRS have
> nothing in common. On the other hand, anti tax morons, like yourself, do.
>
I'll ask you the same question that Sherri Jackson a former IRS agent asks.
Where is the statute that says "wages, tips, and salaries" have been defined
as
income and that the average American is liable to pay an income tax on his
wages. In violation of his 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination.
I am asking a rational question, which seems to generate irrational
responces.
If my labor is my property, and I exchange it for someone else's property
"money" there is no "gain".
I apoligize about the crack on your name, I had been away for sometime and
thought it might easily have been a psedonym <sp?> It's not my place to
make
cracks about people over things they can not or could not control. Like
name,
race, or body type.
Having just watched the video "Freedom to Facism" by Aaron Russo where
Judges, lawyers, Congressmen, former IRS agents all say the law does not
exist, and Sheldon Cohen. Former IRS Commissioner could not say what
section or paragraph the law can be found leads a rational person to the
conclusion that the Income Tax Laws are purposely mis-applied.
Paul Maffia
> I do not dissagree with what you said, but nowhere in the what 5400 pages
> of the
> IRS Code is income defined? So what is income? I watched a video where
> Aaron
> Russo asked Sheldon Cohen. Former IRS Commissioner what "income" was with
> no answer. He said the Courts have defined it.
>
> It seems the Supreme Court has defined it, but the lower courts do not
> comply with
> the definitions of the Supreme Court's definitions that "income" is gain
> from corporate
> activity.
The Court has never limited the definition of income to corporate profit.
The law begins with the commonly understood dictionary definition of income
as anything you acquire and then further refines that defintion with
exclusions, exemptions and deductions to arrive at taxable income.
You are just a moron who gives being a moron a bad name.
>> Even the Court in the Pollack case, went out of its way to point that
>> out. But then, the comic books you read don't point that out.
>>
>>> Is Paul Maffia you real name? if it is it suits you well because the
>>> Maffia lies,
>>> cheats, steals, and murders for the sake of money. Much as it would
>>> appear
>>> has in common with the IRS.
>>
>> Displaying the depth of your stupidity evern more. Moron, the
>> organization you refer to is the MAFIA, not Maffia. And the Maffia and
>> the IRS have nothing in common. On the other hand, anti tax morons, like
>> yourself, do.
>>
> I'll ask you the same question that Sherri Jackson a former IRS agent
> asks.
> Where is the statute that says "wages, tips, and salaries" have been
> defined as
> income and that the average American is liable to pay an income tax on his
> wages. In violation of his 5th Amendment rights against self
> incrimination.
>
> I am asking a rational question, which seems to generate irrational
> responces.
>
> If my labor is my property, and I exchange it for someone else's property
> "money" there is no "gain".
>
Your labor cost you nothing so you have no cost to offset or reduce the
gain. Your labor is not taxed, you retard, you income is.
> I apoligize about the crack on your name, I had been away for sometime and
> thought it might easily have been a psedonym <sp?> It's not my place to
> make
> cracks about people over things they can not or could not control. Like
> name,
> race, or body type.
BS, you and your fellow morons can't help yourself.
Richard Macdonald
>
> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:75dfb$466a443b$4b5b2328$19...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> "money" there is no "gain".
>>
> Your labor cost you nothing so you have no cost to offset or reduce the
> gain. Your labor is not taxed, you retard, you income is.
It is not your labor that is taxed, it is the results of the sale
transaction.
I just finished laboring all morning in my yard and will not owe a penny's
tax on that labor, ergo labor is not taxed, only any gain recognized from
that labor that is taxed.
Robert Miller
>
> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:75dfb$466a443b$4b5b2328$19...@ALLTEL.NET...
>> I do not dissagree with what you said, but nowhere in the what 5400 pages
>> of the
>> IRS Code is income defined? So what is income? I watched a video where
>> Aaron
>> Russo asked Sheldon Cohen. Former IRS Commissioner what "income" was with
>> no answer. He said the Courts have defined it.
>>
>> It seems the Supreme Court has defined it, but the lower courts do not
>> comply with
>> the definitions of the Supreme Court's definitions that "income" is gain
>> from corporate
>> activity.
>
> The Court has never limited the definition of income to corporate profit.
> The law begins with the commonly understood dictionary definition of
> income as anything you acquire and then further refines that defintion
> with exclusions, exemptions and deductions to arrive at taxable income.
>
> You are just a moron who gives being a moron a bad name.
>
liable to
pay an income tax? Sherry Jackson an IRS agent took the challange to find
the
law and win a $50,000 bounty. She couldn't find it and quite the IRS. If
you
know where to find the law why don't you claim the bounty?
If there is no law, and you can't claim the bounty why are you calling me a
moron?
Just because I want to be able to look up the law for myself? An implied
tax is
not good enough. I want an explicit tax definition in the law.
Robert Miller
(labor)
for someone else's property (money). An even swap. There is no profit or
gain.
If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
including
"Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
Richard Macdonald
>
> "Richard Macdonald" <rmacd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:nnCai.2327$yS4.1137@trnddc04...
>> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>> news:xNqdnUwzfLzOQPfb...@centurytel.net...
>>>
>>> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
>>> news:75dfb$466a443b$4b5b2328$19...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>>>
>>>> If my labor is my property, and I exchange it for someone else's
>>>> property
>>>> "money" there is no "gain".
>>>>
>>> Your labor cost you nothing so you have no cost to offset or reduce the
>>> gain. Your labor is not taxed, you retard, you income is.
>>
>> It is not your labor that is taxed, it is the results of the sale
>> transaction.
>> I just finished laboring all morning in my yard and will not owe a
>> penny's
>> tax on that labor, ergo labor is not taxed, only any gain recognized from
>> that labor that is taxed.
>>
> So your labor has no value?
My labor has great VALUE, but ZERO COST BASIS
as I paid nothing to obtain my labor.
> I exchange my labor at par.
So, you give it away free then.
> My property (labor) for someone else's property (money).
> An even swap. There is no profit or gain.
You show an error in gain calculation comprehension.
FMV received - Basis given = Gain recognoized
> If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
> including "Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
The receipt of payment, in money, goods, securities, or service,
in compensation for labor is Gross Income per 26 USC 61.
Your labor is not taxed, the payment for your labor is.
Paul Maffia
> So tell me what law do I look up that tells me in plain english that I am
> liable to
> pay an income tax? Sherry Jackson an IRS agent took the challange to find
> the
> law and win a $50,000 bounty. She couldn't find it and quite the IRS. If
> you
> know where to find the law why don't you claim the bounty?
Moron, just look in USC 26. It does require that you have the reading
ability beyond the third grade, qand that is obviously a problem for you.
> If there is no law, and you can't claim the bounty why are you calling me
> a moron?
I don't "call" you a moron. I merely accurately describe your mental
capacity. and I do so because you are moron.
> Just because I want to be able to look up the law for myself? An implied
> tax is
> not good enough. I want an explicit tax definition in the law.
I have told you where to look, USC26. Its even available on line. Have your
neighbors 3rd grader help you.
Paul Maffia
>
> So your labor has no value? I exchange my labor at par. My property
> (labor)
> for someone else's property (money). An even swap. There is no profit or
> gain.
No one said that even your labofr has no value. We said it has no cost. So
if you sell someone your labor for $1 and subtract your cost of $0.00 you
end with a profit (to use the simple term that apparently a moron like you
understands) of $1. That is income subject to the tax since it is something
that has come in that you did not have before.
> If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
> including
> "Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
Labor is not income. And wages for labor are specifically spelled out as an
item of income subject to the tax in the law.
You give being stupid a bad name!
Robert Miller
> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:c3866$466bb77b$4b5b220d$26...@ALLTEL.NET...
>> So tell me what law do I look up that tells me in plain english that I am
>> liable to
>> pay an income tax? Sherry Jackson an IRS agent took the challange to
>> find the
>> law and win a $50,000 bounty. She couldn't find it and quite the IRS.
>> If you
>> know where to find the law why don't you claim the bounty?
>
> Moron, just look in USC 26. It does require that you have the reading
> ability beyond the third grade, qand that is obviously a problem for you.
>
either. He
can't even find it for himself. If a Congressman can't find it with all his
staff, how
does one expect anyone else to find it?
Do you know which section and paragraph it's in? Is it a secret?
>> If there is no law, and you can't claim the bounty why are you calling me
>> a moron?
>
> I don't "call" you a moron. I merely accurately describe your mental
> capacity. and I do so because you are moron.
>
>> Just because I want to be able to look up the law for myself? An implied
>> tax is
>> not good enough. I want an explicit tax definition in the law.
>
> I have told you where to look, USC26. Its even available on line. Have
> your neighbors 3rd grader help you.
>
but you can't say where in Title 26, because you don't know! and you call me
a
moron. Have you ever seen this law? Or heard only rumors of it?
Robert Miller
to
find it. Even Sheldon Cohen former IRS Commissioner and author in the
Tax Code couldn't cite it. You would think he was familiar with what he
wrote.
Robert Miller
>
> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:532b9$466bb882$4b5b220d$26...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>
>> So your labor has no value? I exchange my labor at par. My property
>> (labor)
>> for someone else's property (money). An even swap. There is no profit
>> or gain.
>
> No one said that even your labofr has no value. We said it has no cost. So
> if you sell someone your labor for $1 and subtract your cost of $0.00 you
> end with a profit (to use the simple term that apparently a moron like you
> understands) of $1. That is income subject to the tax since it is
> something that has come in that you did not have before.
>
page
and paragraph of the tax code? Just so I can check for myself! I might
even claim
the $50,000 bounty for finding the law if it hasn't already been claimed.
Don't worry, I'll share the money 50/50. fair enough?
>> If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
>> including
>> "Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
>
> Labor is not income. And wages for labor are specifically spelled out as
> an item of income subject to the tax in the law.
>
> You give being stupid a bad name!
It seems a rational discussion is impossible with you on this sugject..
You can call me stupid all you want, but you claim to be something of an
expert
on this subject and you can't find a simple law. That says wages are a
source of
income outside the federal zone.
I don't suppose, you are much of an expert in Constitutional Law are you?
No
matter, I see it is painfully obvious. On matter concerning what does or
does not
pass constitutional muster. I'll trust experts on the Constitution itself,
not a tax accountant.
>
Paul Maffia
> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:bZqdnVRk09UjsfHb...@centurytel.net...
>> ability beyond the third grade, qand that is obviously a problem for you.
>>
> Congressman Ron Paul can read, I think! He can't tell me where it is
> either. He
> can't even find it for himself. If a Congressman can't find it with all
> his staff, how
> does one expect anyone else to find it?
He also thinks bozos like you should just go away.
> Do you know which section and paragraph it's in? Is it a secret?
Macdoanld told you that in his answer to your earlier note.
>> I don't "call" you a moron. I merely accurately describe your mental
>> capacity. and I do so because you are moron.
>>
>>> Just because I want to be able to look up the law for myself? An
>>> implied tax is
>>> not good enough. I want an explicit tax definition in the law.
>>
>> I have told you where to look, USC26. Its even available on line. Have
>> your neighbors 3rd grader help you.
> but you can't say where in Title 26, because you don't know! and you call
> me a
> moron. Have you ever seen this law? Or heard only rumors of it?
I'll give you a little more help, go to Dan Evans' web site you will find it
all there. And yes, moron, I have read the law, it is explicit. As dumb as
you are, even you should be able to understand it. But then you morons keep
surpricing me we the depths of your stupidity.
Paul Maffia
>
> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:q5adnWFtcbDps_Hb...@centurytel.net...
>>
>> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
>> news:532b9$466bb882$4b5b220d$26...@ALLTEL.NET...
>>>
>>> So your labor has no value? I exchange my labor at par. My property
>>> (labor)
>>> for someone else's property (money). An even swap. There is no profit
>>> or gain.
>>
>> No one said that even your labofr has no value. We said it has no cost.
>> So if you sell someone your labor for $1 and subtract your cost of $0.00
>> you end with a profit (to use the simple term that apparently a moron
>> like you understands) of $1. That is income subject to the tax since it
>> is something that has come in that you did not have before.
>>
> And the actuall law that says I am liable for the tax can be found on
> which page
> and paragraph of the tax code? Just so I can check for myself! I might
> even claim
> the $50,000 bounty for finding the law if it hasn't already been claimed.
>
> Don't worry, I'll share the money 50/50. fair enough?
And you believe the bounty offer is genuine? That plumbs the depth of your
stupidity even more. You apparently forgot or did n ot understand the terms
which has the offerer keeping himself as the final arbiter of whether or not
you succeed. A little hint, you never could even if you had God himself
there to vouch, your fellow moron would merely say you were wrong and refuse
to pay.
The bozo challenged Dan Evans who said he would be more than willing to meet
the challenge if the boob put the mney in escrow and had qualified third
parties juge the accuracy of his answer. Your fellow moron ran away because
he knew with those conditions, assuming he even had the money in the first
place, it would go from escrow to Dan.
>>> If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
>>> including
>>> "Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
>>
>> Labor is not income. And wages for labor are specifically spelled out as
>> an item of income subject to the tax in the law.
>>
>> You give being stupid a bad name!
>
> It seems a rational discussion is impossible with you on this sugject..
Excuse me, when someone takes a position completely opposed to the words in
the law that even a moron like you should understand, and opposed to 94
years of court decisions at every level that say exactly the opposite of
your moronic position, then the only one able to carry on a rational
discussion is not you.
> You can call me stupid all you want, but you claim to be something of an
> expert
> on this subject and you can't find a simple law. That says wages are a
> source of
> income outside the federal zone.>
Hey dufass, The Federal Government has sole jurisdiction on all Federal
issues anywhere and on anone in the US, its 50 states as well as territories
and possesions. It has concurrent juisdiction with the states on even more
issues. That means its tax laws apply to everyone in any of the 50 states,
and that means you.
> I don't suppose, you are much of an expert in Constitutional Law are you?
Never claimed to be an expert. But compared to you I am an Einstein. Even a
rock is an Einstein compared to you. My dogs, which have been dead for many
years, at this moment are smarter than you.
> No
> matter, I see it is painfully obvious. On matter concerning what does or
> does not
> pass constitutional muster. I'll trust experts on the Constitution
> itself, not a tax accountant.
And what makes you rhink I am a tax accountant? What is that old saying
about people who make ASSumptions?
Paul Thomas
"Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote
> Which law is that? I'm told it's in Title 26, but nobody seems
> to be able to find it. Even Sheldon Cohen former IRS
> Commissioner and author in the Tax Code couldn't cite it. You would think
> he was familiar with what he wrote.
Hey moron. The IRS Commissioner doesn't write tax code. Congress does.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Robert Miller
>
> "Robert Miller" <robe...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> news:860df$466c92d9$4b5900f8$15...@ALLTEL.NET...
>> "Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
>> news:bZqdnVRk09UjsfHb...@centurytel.net...
>>> Moron, just look in USC 26. It does require that you have the reading
>>> ability beyond the third grade, qand that is obviously a problem for
>>> you.
>>>
>> Congressman Ron Paul can read, I think! He can't tell me where it is
>> either. He
>> can't even find it for himself. If a Congressman can't find it with all
>> his staff, how
>> does one expect anyone else to find it?
>
> He also thinks bozos like you should just go away.
>
>> Do you know which section and paragraph it's in? Is it a secret?
>
> Macdoanld told you that in his answer to your earlier note.
>
>>> I don't "call" you a moron. I merely accurately describe your mental
>>> capacity. and I do so because you are moron.
>>>
>>>> Just because I want to be able to look up the law for myself? An
>>>> implied tax is
>>>> not good enough. I want an explicit tax definition in the law.
>>>
>>> I have told you where to look, USC26. Its even available on line. Have
>>> your neighbors 3rd grader help you.
Well you sure are no help. I hear a lot of talk but no statute.
>
>> but you can't say where in Title 26, because you don't know! and you call
>> me a
>> moron. Have you ever seen this law? Or heard only rumors of it?
>
> I'll give you a little more help, go to Dan Evans' web site you will find
> it all there. And yes, moron, I have read the law, it is explicit. As dumb
> as you are, even you should be able to understand it. But then you morons
> keep surpricing me we the depths of your stupidity.
>
> You give being stupid a bad name.
Point it out to me and I will read it. If you can't point it out how do I
know
you've ever read it or not?.
But if it doesn't exist, then you can't show it to me even if you wanted
too.
I didn't think you could anyway so I'm not too dissapointed.
Robert Miller
Unless someone has tried to collect on it and was refused, then I'll believe
there
might be some truth there. I've never found the law, I started looking for
it in 1996.
>
> The bozo challenged Dan Evans who said he would be more than willing to
> meet the challenge if the boob put the mney in escrow and had qualified
> third parties juge the accuracy of his answer. Your fellow moron ran away
> because he knew with those conditions, assuming he even had the money in
> the first place, it would go from escrow to Dan.
>
Really when was that? where? How can I check it out?
>>>> If labor is income let the IRS define income in the Revenue Code as
>>>> including
>>>> "Wages for Labor". Why is that so difficult?
>>>
>>> Labor is not income. And wages for labor are specifically spelled out as
>>> an item of income subject to the tax in the law.
>>>
>>> You give being stupid a bad name!
>>
>> It seems a rational discussion is impossible with you on this sugject..
>
> Excuse me, when someone takes a position completely opposed to the words
> in the law that even a moron like you should understand, and opposed to 94
> years of court decisions at every level that say exactly the opposite of
> your moronic position, then the only one able to carry on a rational
> discussion is not you.
>
Do the lower courts have to be in compliance with the Supreme Court?
If a person has the right not to incriminate himself in court, how can he be
compelled
to supply documents that can be used agianst him in court? I can volunteer
the documents
but if he does not volunteer them he is exercising his right agianst
incriminating himself.
>> You can call me stupid all you want, but you claim to be something of an
>> expert
>> on this subject and you can't find a simple law. That says wages are a
>> source of
>> income outside the federal zone.>
>
> Hey dufass, The Federal Government has sole jurisdiction on all Federal
> issues anywhere and on anone in the US, its 50 states as well as
> territories and possesions. It has concurrent juisdiction with the states
> on even more issues. That means its tax laws apply to everyone in any of
> the 50 states, and that means you.
But you can not supply the page or paragraph for the law that says so.
Very Interesting!
>
>> I don't suppose, you are much of an expert in Constitutional Law are you?
>
> Never claimed to be an expert. But compared to you I am an Einstein. Even
> a rock is an Einstein compared to you. My dogs, which have been dead for
> many years, at this moment are smarter than you.
>
>> No
>> matter, I see it is painfully obvious. On matter concerning what does or
>> does not
>> pass constitutional muster. I'll trust experts on the Constitution
>> itself, not a tax accountant.
>
> And what makes you rhink I am a tax accountant? What is that old saying
> about people who make ASSumptions?
I didn't say you were a tax accountnt did I? I just gave that as an
example.
I don't know what you are, but if you can't point the the specific law, you
can't
be much of an expert now can you!
It would have to suck to always have to take a position you know to be
false, and
sound like an idiot to yourself rather than simply cite the law and be done
with it.
Put it out there for everybody to see and say "Told you so!"
You and many other's say it exists, but nobody seems to know where to find
it.
A little like worshiping magic if you ask me. "We can't prove it but we
know it's
real!" Trust Us! Why would we lie to you?
>
> You give being stupid a bad name!
Strange! In high school I was told I had an I.Q. of between 125 and 135. I
must
have caught A.S.S. Aquired Stupidity Sydrome or something. I wonder why it
didn't
effect my understanding of Mathmatics, Electronics or Computer science in
Collage?
Both the Army and the Navy thought I was pretty smart, said I could have any
job I
wanted in their catalog of ratings.
Robert Miller
After weeks in the Google Top 100, AFTF now has over a quarter-million views
on Google Pay Per View!
Cannes Premiere Gets Standing Ovation
Aaron Russoâ?Ts AMERICA: FREEDOM TO FASCISM
To Open Across America July 28
CANNES, FRANCE â?" Aaron Russoâ?Ts incendiary political documentary which
exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have
abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at
Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach
and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people
who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film.
Through interviews with U.S. Congressmen, as well the former IRS
Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents, tax attorneys and authors, Russo
proves conclusively that there is no law requiring citizens to pay a direct
tax on their labor. His film connects the dots between money creation,
federal income tax, voter fraud, the national identity card (which becomes
law in May 2008) and the implementation of Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) technology to track citizens. Neither left nor right-wing in
perspective, the film concludes that the U.S. government is taking on the
characteristics of a police state. Doc will open on multiple screens in
cities across the U.S. beginning July 28.