Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joseph sugarman
Lawdog,
There are some statements you have made in this thread, and there is some case law you have provided with which I agree.
There are some statements you have made in this thread, and there is some case law you have provided with which I disagree. Now I recognize that could be just because you have only been able to post one headnote from a case. That headnote may not have been clearly dispositive of the decision.
Perhaps I will have something to add regarding the above at a later date based on your response to that which follows.
You can settle it all for me with just one other case law cite. Please supply any Supreme Court decision, dealing with one human person, or at most a married couple, who have advanced the theory the definition of income, defined correctly in a series of cases involving corporations, does not apply to him, her or them; and the finding by the Supreme Court it does.
Thank you for your time and effort.
|
You must have missed this part of the above case citations:
Quote:
In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on “every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources”.
|
Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:
“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”
Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).
“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).
“[The tax 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.”
C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).
“Wages usually are income ....”
Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).
“[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”
Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).
“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).”
United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992). Later in the same opinion, the Supreme Court referred to the compensation received by the taxpayers as “the wages properly due them - wages that, if paid in the ordinary course, would have been fully taxable.” 504 U.S. at 241.
“It [I.R.C. section 104, relating to compensation for personal injuries] also excludes from taxation those damages that substitute, say, for lost wages, which would have been taxed had the victim earned them.”
O’Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996).
“Even if we suppose that strike benefits are made to compensate in a sense for the loss of wages, the principle of payments in compensation does not apply because the thing compensated for, the wages, had they been received, would have been included in gross income.”
United States v. Kaiser, 363 U.S. 299, 311 (1960).