Definition of Income

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by Livefire
Dont call it a demurrer..... Motion to Dismiss Rule 12(b) Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

This is what I meant. My speech is often inaccurate...Rottweiler, what is the correct answer to

"defendant required to file"?

Do you agree with

Motion to Dismiss Rule 12(b) Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted

or...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

and I get the feeling that the "definition of income" is like the "definition of required to file"... if the pleading accuses income then that's the definition.

[rottweiler]

Neither, stipulating to the facts "defendant is required to file" and "defendant failed to file" in a superior court/court of record is suicide.

The reason Rule 12(b) is so effective in inferior nisi prius/statutory courts is because it has been long established that the government has sovereign immunity in that jurisdiction. The only way to proceed in that jurisdiction is for the government to grant a waiver of sovereign immunity. USC 26 section 7432 in conjunction with section 6325 is such a waiver.

The rebuttle to "defendant failed to file" and "defendant is required to file" in a court of record is a counterclaim that the United States can not possible be sovereign over you because you are one of the people.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

This is what I meant. My speech is often inaccurate...Rottweiler, what is the correct answer to

"defendant required to file"?

Do you agree with



or...

[rottweiler]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

and I get the feeling that the "definition of income" is like the "definition of required to file"... if the pleading accuses income then that's the definition.

Yes, that's the law, if the sovereign declares it, that makes the law. In a statutory court the "law" is statutes and code. In a court of record the sovereign declares the law. You must counter claim that the government has no jurisdiction because you are one of the people and the government can not possible be sovereign over one of the people.

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426

COURT. ...
INTERNATIONAL LAW

The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be.

[indago]

I had posted: "Is the lawyer, then, a "tax denier"?"

Lawdog, then, posted: "In a word, yes."

I wrote: "Then the jury are all a bunch of "tax deniers" also?"

No response! And why am I not surprised...

It is fair enough to say that Lawdog believes that the Justices in THIS CASE are all a bunch of "tax deniers" also, as are the Justices in the Pollock case. And the legislators that brought the lawsuit in THIS INSTANCE would be considered "tax deniers" too.

The fact is SOME FOLKS ARE JUST NOT DRINKING GOVERNMENT KOOLAID ANYMORE.



-

[mrg]

Originally Posted by indago

The fact is SOME FOLKS JUST ARE NOT DRINKING GOVERNMENT COOLAID ANYMORE.

Which is why those
who are making $$$$$$ at their "licensed"
Flavor-Aid™ concession stands "post" here.

[rottweiler]

I am a "United States is sovereign over the people denier". I will call myself a USSOPD.

Originally Posted by indago

I had posted: "Is the lawyer, then, a "tax denier"?"

Lawdog, then, posted: "In a word, yes."

I wrote: "Then the jury are all a bunch of "tax deniers" also?"

No response! And why am I not surprised...

It is fair enough to say that Lawdog believes that the Justices in THIS CASE are all a bunch of "tax deniers" also, as are the Justices in the Pollock case. And the legislators that brought the lawsuit in THIS INSTANCE would be considered "tax deniers" too.

The fact is SOME FOLKS ARE JUST NOT DRINKING GOVERNMENT KOOLAID ANYMORE.



-

[ezrhythm]

OK! NOW I have located THIS.

Taken from, The Federal Zone;
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-g.htm

"INCOME"

Most people mistakenly believe all moneys they receive, such as wages, salaries, and tips, are "income". However, for years, IRS publication #525, entitled "Taxable and Nontaxable Income", has acknowledged that wages and salaries are NOT "income". Publication #525 states: "Wages and salaries are the main SOURCE of income for most people." In the court decision of Graves v. People of the State of New York ex rel O'Keefe, 59 S.Ct. 595 (1939), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a source of income is not income, and the source is not subject to income tax. In that decision, the Court stated: "A tax on income is not economically or legally a tax on its source." However, wages, salaries, commissions, and tips (sources) are considered to be "income" for an individual when he lists them as "income" on an IRS tax return form. When he signs the tax form under penalty of perjury, he has made a voluntary oath that his wages, salary, commissions, and tips listed on the return are "income" and that he is subject to the tax.

In the still standing decision of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal income tax is an excise tax under the Sixteenth Amendment (the income tax amendment). The Court explained that THE INCOME TAX CANNOT BE IMPOSED AS A DIRECT TAX (A TAX ON INDIVIDUALS OR ON PROPERTY) because the United States Constitution still requires that all direct taxes must be apportioned among the States. "Apportioned" means that a direct tax is laid upon the State governments in proportion to each State's population. The Court ruled that income tax can be constitutional only as an indirect (excise) tax -- that is, a tax on profits earned by corporations or privileges granted by government. In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government. As an example, a lawyer is granted the government privilege of being an officer of the government court when he represents clients in litigation.

At law, labor is property. In fact, the Supreme Court has identified labor as man's most precious property. Therefore, the exchange of one's labor for wages or salary (which are also property) is considered by law to be an exchange of properties of equal value in which there is NO gain or profit. Such a property exchange of equal value cannot be taxed because there is no profit or gain. Also, one who works in an ordinary occupation is not a recipient of any privilege granted by government, because he is merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed right to work and earn an living. Courts have repeatedly ruled that no tax may be placed upon the exercise of rights. Their reasoning was sensible. If the exercise of rights could be taxed, government could destroy them by excessive rates of taxation.

Items that the law includes in "income" are described in Code sections listed under the title of "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income", which covers Sections 71 through 86. Nowhere in these sections and nowhere else in the Code is there any mention of wages, salaries, commissions, or tips as being "income". For example, to deceive and intimidate waitresses into declaring their tips to be income is a double fraud. First, tips are gifts, not wages. According to the IRC, gifts are not subject to income tax. In fact, even if tips were considered to be wages, they would still not be "income" and would not be subject to an income (excise) tax unless one enters them as "income" on a tax return form.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

OK! NOW I have located THIS.

Taken from, The Federal Zone;
http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/append-g.htm

This nonsense from The Federal Zone would be best found at the bottom of a birdcage.

The Court ruled that income tax can be constitutional only as an indirect (excise) tax -- that is, a tax on profits earned by corporations or privileges granted by government. In other words, said the Supreme Court, in order for there to be "income", there MUST be profits or gains received in the exercise of a privilege granted by government.

A lie. Neither Brushaber nor any other court has ever held that the income tax is limited to corporate profits or the exercise of privileges.

Therefore, the exchange of one's labor for wages or salary (which are also property) is considered by law to be an exchange of properties of equal value in which there is NO gain or profit. Such a property exchange of equal value cannot be taxed because there is no profit or gain.

This idiot doesn't understand the concept of basis.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that no tax may be placed upon the exercise of rights.

No, they've held that the exercise of certain rights (i. e., First Amendment rights) can't be taxed. They have consistently upheld the taxation of wages, salaries, and other compensation received for working, and they have sanctioned people who have made moronic arguments to the contrary.

Items that the law includes in "income" are described in Code sections listed under the title of "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income", which covers Sections 71 through 86. Nowhere in these sections and nowhere else in the Code is there any mention of wages, salaries, commissions, or tips as being "income".

This idiot conveniently forgot to read Section 61.

[mrg]

Unread Today, 10:19 AM
mertensv16
This message is hidden because mertensv16 is on your ignore list.

Let me guess.

"This idiot is a nut case whose frivolous legal theories have a success rate of zero, and have never been accepted by any court."

There is an ample amount of name-calling, denigrating arrogant condescension, and unsubstantiated counter-claims?

Just a blind guess.

Am I close?