Definition of Income

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Questionmark_Y

" Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance "

How does this fit in?

JG: If paid from the So******t system, they're funded by the so******t tax. If I recall, some states also require employers to contract for a private disability insurance contract.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

When I use or refer to the meaning of any word that has a legal definition, in addition to any other workaday definition, I am using the legal definition only.

JG: I agree that the legal definition supersedes colloquial definitions. I also note that many statutes redefine terms, but redefinitions are often limited to those specific sections.

Example:
From the Official Code of Georgia Annotated-
OCGA 40-2-1. As used in this chapter, the term:

(2) "Resident" means a person who has a permanent home or abode in Georgia to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. For the purposes of this chapter, there is a rebuttable
presumption that any person who, except for infrequent, brief absences, has been present in the state for 30 or more days is a resident.

--- This is a prime example of the art of legal word twisting. Note how the phrasing sounds like the definition for domicile.

Resident = "a person" + "permanent home" .

If you quickly read the section, you might presume that it means one who is in the state 30 or more days is a resident, for motor vehicle code purposes.

But if you dissect it, the meaning is just the opposite.
"A person" + "permanent home" + "present for 30 or more days" = rebuttable presumption that HE IS A RESIDENT.

In plain English, a Georgia resident is one who has a permanent home but is in the state LESS than 30 days out of a year (A transient). If one is present in
the state 30 or more days out of a year, he can REBUT THE PRESUMPTION that he is a resident.

If one is NOT a resident, but has a legal and permanent home in Georgia, is he not an inhabitant (domiciled) at his permanent home?

Check your own state's code to see if they use similar negative logic.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Despite your theoretical scenario of an agent receiving 10% of a clients income as wages; it was a condition I ignored since it did not bear on the legal condition of income being the source of wages.

JG: A commission is not a wage. An agent may negotiate a contract, but I think you'll agree that the small amount of time and effort does not equal the magnitude of the client's labors.
Therefore the fee is income, not a wage. But I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

If you wish to parse words and phrases it would have more correct, using workaday parlance, to say the agents wages were 10% of the clients wages.

JG: See above.

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

I have not read all your posts, but that which I have seems to indicate you possess a penchant toward the easy shift between utilizing legal definitions for terms and workaday definitions indiscriminately. In the long run this practice will only cause you great personal discomfort at the hands of the government.

JG: If you would please identify a specific instance where I inadvertently made an error, please let me know.

I am not infallible.

The overall issue is that "persons liable" to pay a tax have many questions regarding the means by which they became liable.

Over the years, we all have witnessed the victories and disasters of well meaning folks.

To the best of my personal knowledge, based on observation and research, to be a 'person liable' for the individual (not corporate) income tax, one must:
(a) have an account with the Social Security administration, and
(b) have an open, interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve system.

My anecdotal observations are not to be construed as legal research. In the early 1990s, during the rise of the Pilot Society "untaxing" scam, one of my friends who "bought in" was "scared" by a visit from the Eye Are Us. They showed up at his doorstep with the "request" that he start withholding for one of his employees. The back story was that both he and his employee filed "untaxing" boiler plate with the local office of the Eye Are Us. In trepidation, my friend gave me all his legal papers to hold, in the event of his imminent arrest for "willful failure to file", etc, etc. Months passed. I would see my friend at Church every Sunday, and ask him the same question - Did the Eye Are Us come after him yet?
Though they DID seize / clean out his employee, they never, ever came after him.
Months passed, and I asked that we review EVERYTHING that happened. Their paperwork was identical. Then I had him recite what happened to his employee. My alarm bells went off when he related that "they" cleaned out his employee's bank account.
BINGO.
I asked him if he had an account. He replied that he hadn't had an account for seven years.
There you have it - despite filing identical paperwork, the guy without a personal bank account (and owning a business no less) was LEFT ALONE. But the poor schnook with a personal bank account was treated to EXTENSIVE ATTACK.

I was privy to another victim of an extended vacation at Club Fed, and he related that the prosecutor did enter in to the court a record of a long forgotten bank account, that was opened when he was an infant. He concluded that without that bank account he would've won his case - or never have been brought to trial.

So, if you can live outside of national so******m and usury, you may not be bothered by the Eye Are Us. Furthermore, if you can establish a domicile, you can assert your sovereign prerogatives of natural and personal liberty.

(P.S., though I was arrested by Federal Marshals in 1996, and at booking, they sneered that I was a "Tax protester", I have never, ever been hassled by the Eye Are Us for liability for any individual income tax. Since 1992, it was and is against my religious beliefs to participate in the abomination of so******m and usury.
)

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA102.html

"Resident."
A person dwelling permanently or continuously for a period exceeding 60 consecutive days within this Commonwealth, except that a person who regularly dwells in two or more states shall declare residence to be in any one of the states.

-----------------------------------------

What is your state of residence (not "where resident")
for vehicle purpose? Foreign, or domestic?

RESIDENCE. The place of one's domicil. (q. v.) There is a difference between a man's residence and his domicil. He may have his domicil in Philadelphia, and still he may have a residence in New York; for although a man can have but one domicil, he may have several residences. A residence is generally tran-sient in its nature, it becomes a domicil when it is taken up animo manendi. Roberts; Ecc. R. 75.

2. Residence is prima facie evidence of national character, but this may at all times be explained. When it is for a special purpose and transient in its nature, it does not destroy the national character.

RESIDENT, international law. A minister, according to diplomatic language, of a third order, less in dignity than an ambassador, or an envoy. This term formerly related only to the continuance of the minister's stay, but now it is confined to ministers of this class.

2. The resident does not represent the prince's person in his dignity, but only his affairs. Vattel liv. 4, c. 6, 73.

RESIDENT, persons. A person coming into a place with intention to establish his domicil or permanent residence, and who in consequence actually remains there. Time is not so essential as the intent, executed by making or beginning an actual establishment, though it be abandoned in a longer, or shorter period. See 6 Hall's Law Journ. 68; 3 Hagg. Eccl. R. 373; 20 John. 211 2 Pet. Ad. R. 450; 2 Scamm. R. 377.
__________________

There is a big difference between being "resident", and having a "residence". The first one is domestic, the second transient and under international law.

[indago]

jetgraphics wrote:

The Federal Insurance Contribution Act a.k.a. Social Security Act of 1935 instituted national so******m. Participants surrendered their private property rights in exchange for access to charity from the public treasury (entitlements). They also became "contributors" (equally liable) for the national debt, and thus are pledged as 'human resources'.

"An employer is liable for payment of the employee's share of FICA whether or not he withholds the required amount of the employee's contribution." — US v Lee 455 US 252, 254 (1982)

The FICA tax is an excise tax upon the employer. Business was "authorized" to collect half from the employee. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by indago

jetgraphics wrote:

The FICA tax is an excise tax upon the employer. Business was "authorized" to collect half from the employee. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

First of all, the Supreme Court has said that income taxes, including for Social Security, are indirect. But I am curious as to why you think Congress cannot levy a direct tax?

“It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.”
License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462, 471 (1866) (emphasis added).

The 16th Amendment removes the apportionment requirement in the event that any type of income tax is deemed to be direct.

“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment.

The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not,

and yet, after 100 years or so of legislative history-

the Supreme Court has said that income taxes, including for Social Security, are indirect

So what the first quote means, given the second quote, is that all taxes measured by income were now legally classed as 'indirect', clearing up any confusion that had been prior to this amendment.

This is interesting- it took a constitutional amendment for these sorts of taxes to be 'excise', or indirect, because: form-following-function, these same would otherwise appear to be 'direct' and subject to the rule of apportionment.

It took an entire amendment just to properly classify these special administrative excises, which goes to show how much of a "no-no" direct taxes on people are in America. (and around the world, as well).

There is no tax on working.
There is no tax on owning.
There is no tax on breathing.
There is no tax on driving.
There is no tax on 'keep and bear arms'.
and so forth...

An activity must register administratively to be taxable (regulated, etc)

[indago]

Lawdog wrote:

First of all, the Supreme Court has said that income taxes, including for Social Security, are indirect.

I agree with that.

Also:

But I am curious as to why you think Congress cannot levy a direct tax?

I never said they couldn't.

[indago]

Lawdog wrote:

The 16th Amendment removes the apportionment requirement in the event that any type of income tax is deemed to be direct.

Quote:
“The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or the effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had the power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. [cites omitted] The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’”
Bowers, Collector v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 173-174 (1926).
_______________________

This has already been addressed: see post #54

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

http://members.aol.com/StatutesPA/75PA102.html
-----------------------------------------
"Resident."
A person dwelling permanently or continuously for a period exceeding 60 consecutive days within this Commonwealth, except that a person who regularly dwells in two or more states shall declare residence to be in any one of the states.

What is your state of residence (not "where resident")
for vehicle purpose? Foreign, or domestic?

JG: Was that a general definition or specific definition for a statute?

Since I do not have private property to establish a permanent legal home, I am a "resident".
:-(

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

There is a big difference between being "resident", and having a "residence". The first one is domestic, the second transient and under international law.

JG: It would appear that those terms are often vague and redefined.

"INHABITANT -One who resides actually and permanently in a given place, and has his domicile there."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.782

"DOMICILE - A person's legal home. That place where a man has his true, fixed, and permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he has the intention of returning."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.484

"RESIDENCE - Place where one actually lives ... Residence implies something more than physical presence and something less than domicile. The terms 'resident' and 'residence' have no precise legal meaning... [One can have many residences but only one domicile]
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p.1308, 1309

I haven't found any state laws (not code) that identify inhabitants (with domiciles) as residents (with residences).

Characteristics that determine domicile from "not domicile":
Permanent versus Transient
Legal Home versus Legal Residence
Right versus Privilege
Absolutely owned versus qualified ownership

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by indago

jetgraphics wrote:

"An employer is liable for payment of the employee's share of FICA whether or not he withholds the required amount of the employee's contribution." — US v Lee 455 US 252, 254 (1982)

The FICA tax is an excise tax upon the employer. Business was "authorized" to collect half from the employee. Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

JG: Methinks you misread it. The tax is imposed upon the employee, but if the employer fails to "enforce" compliance (withhold), he's liable for the employee's share.

And no participant in national so******m is an inhabitant, anyway.

SS-5 form is restricted to U.S. citizens (who can only reside in a state) and U.S. residents (ditto, ditto). Inhabitants with domiciles are ineligible to participate.