Definition of Income

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by indago

A vehicle on the road for the former purpose is there as of 'right'; one using it in the latter manner has only a 'privilege' of use."
...
By now you can see how the right to drive an automobile has been relegated to the status of "privilege"; mostly through neglect, and apathy of the individual. Now most individuals actually believe that driving an automobile is a "privilege" granted by the State.

JG: I agree that the civil liberty of a driver's license is for a privilege to trespass upon the public highways. It is also true that prior to the 1930's, government assumed we were inhabitants and were capable of exercising personal liberty, the right of locomotion upon the public roads.

However, the task is to discover what mechanism was involved that transferred a right (personal liberty) into a privilege (civil liberty).

The target timeframe is the 1930s.

Suspects:
1. Pauperization
2. Residency
3. Bankruptcy
4. Capitulation to foreign powers
5. Commerce

1. Paupers, being parasites on the body politic, are stripped of their rights, powers, privileges and immunities of the free citizens (See Art IV of Confederation). Eligibility is created via participation in national socialism.

2. All licenses for driving are restricted to "residents". There are no provisions to grant licenses to inhabitants with domiciles. Were Americans shifted from inhabitants to residents via U.S. citizenship or participation in national socialism or something else?

3. Bankrupts are economically impaired, and may be "reorganized" for the benefit of the creditor (whomever that is). Were the highways claimed as collateral by the creditor, so that we were all trespassers? Or was it tied to our inability to exercise unlimited liability?

4. Since SocSec is tied to an international treaty (and the Totalization Agreement that FDR made with other nations), enumerated socialists are reduced to civil liberty, having lost their natural and personal liberty. Are we "Trading with the Enemy"?

5. Perhaps all obligated parties are not unlike sharecroppers who are required to treat themselves and their automobiles as if in commerce, for the benefit of the "Massuh". Are we penalized for failure to use "estate" for commercial purposes?

What do you think was the event that was instrumental in changing State law or our relationship to "traffic"?

[] Bankruptcy in 1933
[] Socialist Insecurity in 1935
[] End of the Federal Common law in 1938
[] Admiralty / Maritime insurance requirements (limited liability)
[] Your idea here

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by indago

Licensing to drive an automobile is permission granted by the State to drive. The State does not have a program for those who wish to drive an automobile as a basic right. All are lumped into the category of "artificial person".

JG: It is also a matter of legal terminology.

For example, we presume that we "drive" or "operate" a "motor vehicle" or "passenger automobile".

However, there is no license requirement for 'riding' a 'private automobile'.

You can verify that "riders" are distinct from "passengers". I've seen many 18 wheel rigs with the sign "NO RIDERS!".
I presume that since the truckers have a license to engage in commerce, they can't merely state "NO PASSENGERS".

Passenger is a commercial term, so one who "operates" a "passenger auto" is declaring a commercial intent. Motor vehicle is also defined as a vehicle engaged in commerce. It may well be that we have impaired ourselves by using incorrect terminology.

I have found no law prohibiting the "riding" of private automobiles on the public roads.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by franklin

It's easier to deal with the skeptics I think by simply saying...the 16th amendment is obviously a Constitutional excise tax (even though on what and on whom is left to one's imagination -- which has no legal effect).

As far as one can tell by adhering to the actual language...the 16th Amendment can only refer to an indirect tax when it tells the reader emphatically...twice in fact...that the tax is not, cannot be, a direct tax as defined in the Constitution because...it is laid (1) "without apportionment" and then again (2) it is laid "without regard to any census or enumeration".

It's simply a contradiction to say that it is a direct tax, as defined in the Constitution, when the author's of the Amendment assert...unequivocally...that it has none of the required elements that define a Constitutional direct tax.

The Amendment's authors did not give a new definition to 'direct' tax. They were only at pains to say that the tax has none of the defining elements of a Constitutional direct tax. And since 'direct' taxation is not redefined...the only alternative for Congress then is an indirect tax.

(The author's of the Amendment were equally at pains not to say what exactly is taxed [income is not defined] and who exactly is to be taxed [presumably those with 'income'...whatever that is]).

If the skeptics claim the 16th Amendment proposes a Constitutional direct tax on property, they simply and irrationally disagree with the plain language of the Amendment.

If in their immunity to the words on the page they still claim it is a direct tax...where is the new definition of direct taxation specified (as the Constitutional definition is clearly excluded in the language of the Amendment itself)? And, if this new definition of direct taxation exists somewhere, who authorized it, and what are the defining rules for its application?

Good work.

The 16th Amendment overturned the legal theory behind the Pollock case, that is all.

Originally Posted by POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This was a bill filed by Charles Pollock, a citizen of the state of Massachusetts, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the defendant company similarly situated, against the Farmesr' Loan & Trust Company, a corporation of the state of New York, and its directors

[…]

It was then alleged that the management of the stock, property, affairs, and concerns of the company was committed, under its acts of incorporation, to its directors, and charged that the company and a majority of its directors claimed and asserted that under and by virtue of the alleged authority of the provisions of an act of congress of the United States entitled 'An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes,' passed August 15, 1894, the company was liable, and that they intended to pay, to the United States, before July 1, 1895, a tax of 2 per centum on the net profits of said company for the year ending December 31, 1894, above actual operating and business expenses, including the income derived from its real estate and [157 U.S. 429, 432] its bonds of the city of New York; and that the directors claimed and asserted that a similar tax must be paid upon the amount of the incomes, gains, and profits, in excess of $4,000, of all minors and others for whom the company was acting in a fiduciary capacity. And, further, that the company and its directors had avowed their intention to make and file with the collector of internal revenue for the Second district of the city of New York a list, return, or statement showing the amount of the net income of the company received during the year 1894, as aforesaid, and likewise to make and render a list or return to said collector of internal revenue, prior to that date, of the amount of the income, gains and profits of all minors and other persons having incomes in excess of $3,500, for whom the company was acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Emphasis added.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Keep in mind that Pollack won the case.

Drum roll, hereee it is:

DOYLE V. MITCHELL BROS., 247 US 179, 183 (1918):
"An examination of these and other provisions of the Act (the 16th Amndment) make it plain that the legislative purpose was not to tax property as such, or the mere conversion of property, but to tax the conduct of the business of corporations organized for profit upon the gainful returns from their business operations."

The Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. -Hamilton, Federalist No. 78

The defining characteristic of a tyrant is a belief that a power not expressly denied is granted by implication; that a right not expressly reserved is surrendered by implication -George Mason

The End of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom. -Locke

Chief Justice John Marshall warned us about: "The power to tax involves the power to destroy."

The duty of the courts of justice must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the constitution void. -Hamiton, Federalist No. 78

Senator Rue (1845-1937) said:

I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law, I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who do not have sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it.

Originally Posted by Republic Magazine

The Federal Income Tax Scam

Slaying the Beast - Tommy Cryer's win against the IRS, Tax Honesty Movement - a history by Michael Lemieux, Exposing IRS Tactical and Psycological Warfare on Americans- Peymon Mottahedeh, Flex Your Rights, Activist Profile: We the People Foundation, The IRS and the Federal Reserve.. Fraternal Twins - G. Edward Griffin, Joe Banister - His Legal Defense, 60 Sec Activism: Republic Magazine, Constitutional Discipline - 16th Amendment by Michael Badnarik, Tyranny in America - Jeff ****stein, Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund... - Devvy Kidd, Militia and the Economy - Mark Keornke, No Law! - Marcy Brooks, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and more...

http://www.republicmagazine.com/

[BOBT12]

For many opponents of the income tax the name Brushaber is magical. It comes from Frank R. Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., the 1916 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the 1913 income-tax law passed under the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That income-tax opponents would look with favor on a Supreme Court opinion that affirmed, in the most sweeping terms, Congress’s power to tax incomes “from whatever source derived” seems incomprehensible. But according to their reading of the case, Brushaber is salvation.

That reading, I’m sorry to say, is wrong — in the extreme.


Beware Income-Tax Casuistry, Part 1


A warning against
casuistry



Main Entry: ca·su·ist·ry
Pronunciation: ˈkazh-wə-strē, ˈka-zhə-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ca·su·ist·ries
Date: 1723
1 : a resolving of specific cases of conscience, duty, or conduct through interpretation of ethical principles or religious doctrine
2 : specious argument : rationalization

I must disagree with the author, the Brushaber case doesn't support the auther's claims.

BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Originally Posted by BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC

As a stockholder of the Union Pacific Railroad Company, the appellant filed his bill to enjoin the corporation from complying with the income tax provisions of the tariff act of October 3, 1913 ( II., chap. 16, 38 Stat. at L. 166). Because of constitutional questions duly arising the case is here on direct appeal from a decree sustaining a motion to dismiss because no ground for relief was stated.

Emphasis added.

As you can see, Brushaber was a stockholder, as in the Pollock situation. Thus, the Pollock case is the case mentioned regarding this case, however, Pollock won and Brushaber lost, due to the 16th Amendment, or lack thereof.

Yet, no matter how it is twisted, this is not a case where someone is working for a living! The Brushaber case makes it very clear that it is not expanding the authority of the 16th Amendment beyond what is the topic of discussion in this case, stockholders.

Originally Posted by BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)(But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12

under it, if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.

Correction.

BRUSHABER undid Pollock that is all.

Originally Posted by Brushaber

At the very beginning, however, there arose differences of opinion concerning the criteria to be applied in determining in which of the two great subdivisions a tax would fall. Without pausing to state at length the basis of these differences and the consequences which arose from them, as the whole subject was elaborately reviewed in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & T. Co. 157 U.S. 429

If the case is what the author suggest, by some sort of magic, there is no effective apportionment clause, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment protections, to name just a few. Yet, even if Pollock lost the case, as in Brushaber, this would not have been the case, hence, it is still not the case today.

Originally Posted by POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895)

This was a bill filed by Charles Pollock, a citizen of the state of Massachusetts, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the defendant company similarly situated, against the Farmesr' Loan & Trust Company, a corporation of the state of New York, and its directors

[…]

It was then alleged that the management of the stock, property, affairs, and concerns of the company was committed, under its acts of incorporation, to its directors, and charged that the company and a majority of its directors claimed and asserted that under and by virtue of the alleged authority of the provisions of an act of congress of the United States entitled 'An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government, and for other purposes,' passed August 15, 1894, the company was liable, and that they intended to pay, to the United States, before July 1, 1895, a tax of 2 per centum on the net profits of said company for the year ending December 31, 1894, above actual operating and business expenses, including the income derived from its real estate and [157 U.S. 429, 432] its bonds of the city of New York; and that the directors claimed and asserted that a similar tax must be paid upon the amount of the incomes, gains, and profits, in excess of $4,000, of all minors and others for whom the company was acting in a fiduciary capacity. And, further, that the company and its directors had avowed their intention to make and file with the collector of internal revenue for the Second district of the city of New York a list, return, or statement showing the amount of the net income of the company received during the year 1894, as aforesaid, and likewise to make and render a list or return to said collector of internal revenue, prior to that date, of the amount of the income, gains and profits of all minors and other persons having incomes in excess of $3,500, for whom the company was acting in a fiduciary capacity.

Emphasis added.

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

Gentle-readers, please read the cases and Constitution. Then you should feel free to vote against the unjust positions taken by the author, and those often taken by our rogue government servants, as part of a jury! Be like Marcy Brooks, or the jury in Seattle, Washington, that found defendants James and Pamela Moran NOT GUILTY on all 64 counts of their indictment for alleged crimes of tax evasion, money laundering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit each of the above stated crimes, or the jury that found Tommy Cryer NOT GUILTY, etc.

Originally Posted by Republic Magazine

The Federal Income Tax Scam

Slaying the Beast - Tommy Cryer's win against the IRS, Tax Honesty Movement - a history by Michael Lemieux, Exposing IRS Tactical and Psycological Warfare on Americans- Peymon Mottahedeh, Flex Your Rights, Activist Profile: We the People Foundation, The IRS and the Federal Reserve.. Fraternal Twins - G. Edward Griffin, Joe Banister - His Legal Defense, 60 Sec Activism: Republic Magazine, Constitutional Discipline - 16th Amendment by Michael Badnarik, Tyranny in America - Jeff ****stein, Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund... - Devvy Kidd, Militia and the Economy - Mark Keornke, No Law! - Marcy Brooks, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and more...

Emphasis added.

REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT - REPUBLIC MAGAZINE | VOICE OF THE PATRIOT MOVEMENT

If anyone should want a FREE copy of the above magazine (max. 5 mags. per request), just PM me, while supplies last. Note the above offer may change without notice.

I will stand upon my rights as suggested by the Declaration of Independance, and the Constitution. Yet, I don't disagree with BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) or POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), the Supreme Court. Of course, I prefer POLLOCK over BRUSHABER.

By the way, isn't strange that no one can point to a provision in the tax code that clearly states that someone working for a living is liability for a Subtitle A tax? The code uses millions of words and spans thousands of pages, are they just trying to save paper by not clearly stating the above liability? Why should anyone need to assume such a liability? Or perhaps, the ONLY, 16TH AMENDMENT, liability is stated in POLLOCK? This my view.

[Shoonra]

It doesn't matter if the income tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. Or an excise or otherwise. Whatever it is, the 16th Amendment enables the government to collect it.

It also doesn't matter if the money being taxed was obtained this way or that way; the 16th Amendment enables Congress to tax income "from whatever source derived".

The Internal Revenue Code does define "gross income", and then it provides hundreds of exemptions, deductions, and the like that can be applied to calculate the "adjusted income". And then it authorizes taxation of the adjusted income. The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income", all by itself, because that's the term in the 16th Amendment and it would seem to be improper and inappropriate for Congress to manipulate, by statute, the meanings of the words of the Constitution itself.

There are very few countries that have no income tax. If someone is unwilling to share his prosperity to support the United States then maybe he ought to move to one of those non-taxing countries. The rest of us can try to abolish death and after being victorious at that, move on to abolish taxes.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

It doesn't matter if the income tax is a direct tax or an indirect tax. Or an excise or otherwise. Whatever it is, the 16th Amendment enables the government to collect it.

Not according to the Supreme Court:

Originally Posted by BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)

(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment

It also doesn't matter if the money being taxed was obtained this way or that way; the 16th Amendment enables Congress to tax income "from whatever source derived".

It matters to me! Sure a non-BRUSHABER tax may be obtained through an "apportionment", however, this not what the IRS is doing! An apportionment is based upon a census, not upon a 1040 confession statement.

By the way, What do you think the "source" is? Can a "income" tax be "direct" and "indirect^ at the same time? I don't think so. However, if so, what Supreme Court cases support this view?

The Internal Revenue Code does define "gross income", and then it provides hundreds of exemptions, deductions, and the like that can be applied to calculate the "adjusted income". And then it authorizes taxation of the adjusted income. The Internal Revenue Code does not define "income", all by itself, because that's the term in the 16th Amendment and it would seem to be improper and inappropriate for Congress to manipulate, by statute, the meanings of the words of the Constitution itself.

True. So we have to look at what the term "income" means to those who approved the 16th Amendment.

There are very few countries that have no income tax. If someone is unwilling to share his prosperity to support the United States then maybe he ought to move to one of those non-taxing countries. The rest of us can try to abolish death and after being victorious at that, move on to abolish taxes.

I am sure this has something to do with the price of tea in China, although I am not sure what.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Hey, Shoonra is hungry! Give her a break.

[indago]

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by BOBT12

Not according to the Supreme Court:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRUSHABER v. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 240 U.S. 1 (1916)
(a) The Amendment authorizes only a particular character of direct tax without apportionment

This is not what the Court held. This statement is simply one of the arguments made by Mr. Brushaber that the Court rejected. This is what the Court really held:

That the authority conferred upon Congress by 8 of article 1 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises' is exhaustive and embraces every conceivable power of taxation has never been questioned, or, if it has, has been so often authoritatively declared as to render it necessary only to state the doctrine. And it has also never been questioned from the foundation, without stopping presently to determine under which of the separate headings the power was properly to be classed, that there was authority given, as the part was included in the whole, to lay and collect income taxes...

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.(emphasis added)

Look, the Supreme Court held in 1880 (33 years before the 16th Amendment) that an income tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax and was constitutional. See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880). This case has never been overruled and is still good law. To think that the drafters of the 16th Amendment wanted to narrow Congress' power to tax is absurd. Not only does the Brushaber case make this clear, common sense does too. Do you honestly think that Congress would willingly give up a taxing power it already had?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Look, the Supreme Court held in 1880 (33 years before the 16th Amendment) that an income tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax and was constitutional. See Springer v. U.S., 102 U.S. 586 (1880). This case has never been overruled and is still good law. To think that the drafters of the 16th Amendment wanted to narrow??? Congress' power to tax is absurd!!!. Not only does the Brushaber case make this clear, common sense does too. Do you honestly think that Congress would willingly give up a taxing power it already had?

What is absurd is to read any of the posts here and get that anyone said the 16th amendment "narrowed" the power to lay indirect taxes, since the very opposite was stated: the power of indirect tax firmly includes income from any source, without running into the trouble of the "Pollock" case. The power was broadened, to clarify the situation, and include "income from any source".

The source still has to be taxable, and there is no way to run an "income tax" without being indirect- no one could ever come up with a 100% inclusive and positive list of taxable activities based on physical reality, like "there is a tax on painting", or "there is a tax on talking"- it just aint happening under any circumstance, not coherently and isnt enforceable even by trying.

!!!

Originally Posted by mertensv16

an income tax on personal earnings was an indirect tax

!!!

Income tax is indirect.

Income tax is indirect.

Income tax is indirect.


However what a 'twister' does is misdirect and change the subject til' one cant tell which end is up...ignore this troll.