Definition of Income

[Lawdog]

Number of courts that agree with you guys = zero

Number of courts that agree with me = all of them

You're delusional. You're like the knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who has all his limbs hacked off and says, "Okay, we'll call it a draw."

Wages are taxable income. Salaries are taxable income. Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code has a table for "Married persons filing jointly". Can a corporation be married?

THINK!!! I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. If tax protester theories worked, I'd use them...more money for me. And the Bill Gates and Warren Buffett types out there can afford the very best tax attorneys and CPAs that money can buy. Don't you think those guys would use these arguments if they had any merit? The millions they would save their clients would surely get them some nice bonuses.

You guys really, really, really need to go to Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ website, for which I previously provided a link. He goes through every popular tax protester argument, and then shows, with copious citation to the law, why they are wrong.

[joseph sugarman]

Good Afternoon,

I suppose my posts in the balance of this thread might as well be to everyone else, except Lawdog. Even I have to accept the obvious; he is never going to directly address my request to provide a case based on the requirements I proposed. He will continue to obfuscate the issues. Following is one example of a case he used from his post, #11, in which he supposedly pulls a quote from a Supreme Court case that supports his position that he is answering my request:

From Lawdog,
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”.

Following is the actual quote from the case in question:

The act provides, in section 2, paragraph A, subdivision 1 (38 Stat. 166), 'that there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year' to every person residing in the United States a tax of 1 per centum per annum, with exceptions not now [247 U.S. 330, 334] material. By paragraph G (a), p. 172, it is provided 'that the normal tax hereinbefore imposed upon individuals [1 per cent.] likewise shall be levied, assessed, and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year to every corporation ... organized in the United States,' with other provisions not now material.

My point is this. When one reads the quote as provided by Lawdog, it appears there is a tax imposed on every person residing in the United States accruing from all sources.

When one reads the actual wording of the case a different condition is actually described than the one seemingly described by Lawdog. The tax imposed on individuals arises from all sources arising or accruing to every corporation. There is tax imposed on the net income to individuals based on cash earnings paid to them for stock which they own. But this is not exactly what happened in the case at hand

The case is based on dividends paid out to stockholders, in 1914, by one corporation from money they took out of the surplus of another corporation owned by the first corporation in 1914, but declared as dividends in 1913, before the effects of either the 16th Amendment or Title 26 took effect. The district court found in favor of the plaintiff government to tax the dividends. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court.

I have tremendously simplified my analysis of the case, not for your purpose, dear reader, but for mine. There is some analysis and much dicta I have not bothered to discuss.

However the finality of it is the use of this case in support of Lawdog fails on a number of points. It is not dispositive in support of him based on my request of a certain type of case be presented to me. He has cobbled his quote from the case either knowlingly or unknowingly; and the actual quote from the case contradicts him. Finally, knowingly or unknowingly he has chosen a case in which the Supreme Court decision was against him and for the individuals who received dividends from a corporation that were not taxable as income. I would have to conclude his was fooled because the case was heard in 1918. He probably was not aware the crucial events took place early in 1913.

If I were keeping a box score, in a similar manner to that which Lawdog keeps; I would have to conclude, and I think you will all agree, on this one he is 0 for 3.

I think I shall be shredding a few other of his chosen cases in a similar manner. Please excuse me for not being humble.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

The upshot of this has been illustrative: like all other bodies of administrative law (motor vehicles come to mind), these start out with "corporations", and "carry for hire" and "privileged activity", and morph into a broader range of the same category, without changing the basic premise.

The law's application comes from the source derived.

Which is really funny, this morph; because under administrative law corporations ARE married, can drive cars, and commit crimes.

But give Lawdog his due, for here he keeps to the Rules of Professional Conduct- a zealous advocate for his client's position. It's not his job to be "right", but to persuade. He just got the wrong court, is all.

[joseph sugarman]

From Farmer Giles of Ham:

"But give Lawdog his due, for here he keeps to the Rules of Professional Conduct- a zealous advocate for his client's position. It's not his job to be "right", but to persuade. He just got the wrong court, is all."

I cannot side with you on this. The reason this country is in the state it is in is because of the professional, zealous advocates of stare decisis whether the position is correct of not. Bad law has been cobbled together with bad law for decades, and we are all its victims. This is a true condition at the federal and the state level. The advocates job, whether a professional or a pro se is to be zealous and correct.

A case in point. I had the privelege of meeting a sign painter in Tulsa, Oklahoma when I lived there. For a time he was the pro se of pro se's, and the paralegal of parlegals. He may well be the only one of his kind to have two separate landmark decisions to his credit. One involved him personally; the other he helped a friend and fellow sign painter.

This man, on his own, overturned over twenty five years of bad case law based on stare decisis. If you want to read the cases: they are Buis v State, 792 P. 2d, 427; and Priddy v City of Tulsa, 908 P. 2d, 808. Both cases can be found using Google. It helped greatly that he had an honest Court of Criminal Appeals, at the time, in Oklahoma for him personally. The case in Priddy was so obvious the make up of the court did not really matter.

In my opinion, for all of us amateurs to eventually be successful, we are required to be zealous and right. In my opinion, a good and decent advocate is zealous and right.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by joseph sugarman

Good Afternoon,

I suppose my posts in the balance of this thread might as well be to everyone else, except Lawdog. Even I have to accept the obvious; he is never going to directly address my request to provide a case based on the requirements I proposed. He will continue to obfuscate the issues. Following is one example of a case he used from his post, #11, in which he supposedly pulls a quote from a Supreme Court case that supports his position that he is answering my request:

From Lawdog,
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”.

Following is the actual quote from the case in question:

The act provides, in section 2, paragraph A, subdivision 1 (38 Stat. 166), 'that there shall be levied, assessed, collected and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources in the preceding calendar year' to every person residing in the United States a tax of 1 per centum per annum, with exceptions not now [247 U.S. 330, 334] material. By paragraph G (a), p. 172, it is provided 'that the normal tax hereinbefore imposed upon individuals [1 per cent.] likewise shall be levied, assessed, and paid annually upon the entire net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year to every corporation ... organized in the United States,' with other provisions not now material.

My point is this. When one reads the quote as provided by Lawdog, it appears there is a tax imposed on every person residing in the United States accruing from all sources.

When one reads the actual wording of the case a different condition is actually described than the one seemingly described by Lawdog. The tax imposed on individuals arises from all sources arising or accruing to every corporation. There is tax imposed on the net income to individuals based on cash earnings paid to them for stock which they own. But this is not exactly what happened in the case at hand

The case is based on dividends paid out to stockholders, in 1914, by one corporation from money they took out of the surplus of another corporation owned by the first corporation in 1914, but declared as dividends in 1913, before the effects of either the 16th Amendment or Title 26 took effect. The district court found in favor of the plaintiff government to tax the dividends. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court.

I have tremendously simplified my analysis of the case, not for your purpose, dear reader, but for mine. There is some analysis and much dicta I have not bothered to discuss.

However the finality of it is the use of this case in support of Lawdog fails on a number of points. It is not dispositive in support of him based on my request of a certain type of case be presented to me. He has cobbled his quote from the case either knowlingly or unknowingly; and the actual quote from the case contradicts him. Finally, knowingly or unknowingly he has chosen a case in which the Supreme Court decision was against him and for the individuals who received dividends from a corporation that were not taxable as income. I would have to conclude his was fooled because the case was heard in 1918. He probably was not aware the crucial events took place early in 1913.

If I were keeping a box score, in a similar manner to that which Lawdog keeps; I would have to conclude, and I think you will all agree, on this one he is 0 for 3.

I think I shall be shredding a few other of his chosen cases in a similar manner. Please excuse me for not being humble.

Emphasis added.

Thanks for your analysis.

In my opinion, no apologies are necessary, by the way.

[weishaupt1776]

If you are a "U.S. Citizen", or presumed to be, you are liable no matter what the definition of income is.

You are subject to their private law pursuant to the law of persons unless you can rebut the status presumption and demonstrate a lawful standing

Unless you want to correct your status to that of a state national, you will forever be running on the Title 26 hamster wheel

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

Unless you want to correct your status to that of a state national, you will forever be running on the Title 26 hamster wheel

Open revolution is also an option.

[joseph sugarman]

Good Morning Bob T12,

Thank you for your kind and supportive words. It is most meaningful when a person who is as dedicated to the correct use of the law as you posts in a thread.

Joseph Sugarman, design@dream-home.com.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

But give Lawdog his due, for here he keeps to the Rules of Professional Conduct- a zealous advocate for his client's position. It's not his job to be "right", but to persuade. He just got the wrong court, is all.

I would give LD his due if he understood what he is defending; he does not.

This is evident here:

Originally Posted by Lawdog

THINK!!! I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. If tax protester theories worked, I'd use them...more money for me. And the Bill Gates and Warren Buffett types out there can afford the very best tax attorneys and CPAs that money can buy. Don't you think those guys would use these arguments if they had any merit? The millions they would save their clients would surely get them some nice bonuses.

IF LD understood, he would know he is engaged in a trade/business where he must be licensed by the state. He must pay taxes according to the code.

Bill Gates is an officer and founder of a publicly traded corporation. He must pay taxes according to the code.

Warren Buffett "types" are officers of publicly traded corporations and licensed commodity traders. They must pay taxes, according to the code.

As Weis pointed out, there is the issue of being US Citizens. So by accepting the benefit of US citizenship, there is the additional entanglement whereby they must pay taxes according to the code.


His lack of understanding is further exhibited when he refers readers to the website where he obtained most, if not all the material he posted earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Lawdog

You guys really, really, really need to go to Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ website, for which I previously provided a link. He goes through every popular tax protester argument, and then shows, with copious citation to the law, why they are wrong.

I called him to the floor on his misrepresentation of the Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert cite and he did in this thread exactly what he's done in other threads: avoid addressing the deficiency, switch tracks and go to another topic. This is straight out of high school debate club tactics.

I agree with joseph; he gets no due from me.

[joseph sugarman]

Good Morning All,

Since I have some free time today, I plan to go back and work on that which Lawdog admonished me to do, which was go back and study the line of cases he uses to support his position.

First, I thought it pertinent to comment on a statement of his from a previous post,

"THINK!!! I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person. If tax protester theories worked, I'd use them...more money for me. And the Bill Gates and Warren Buffett types out there can afford the very best tax attorneys and CPAs that money can buy. Don't you think those guys would use these arguments if they had any merit? The millions they would save their clients would surely get them some nice bonuses."

This statement is telling for a number of reasons. In his dealings with me on at least one other thread, I have found Lawdog to be disingenuous. I pointed out a mistake he made, and his reponse to me was an insulting point about whether I would contradict a medical professional's opinion on a matter. In his mind I have absolutely no standing to question him. When he made another mistake, and I pointed it out; his best retort was that I was splitting hairs. I suppose that was as close to admitting I was right and he was wrong as he could muster; in a most dismissive manner.

I think this statement to be just one more example of his perfidy. He says he would use "tax protester" theories if they worked. If he was, in the remotest way, one who thought that; he would have used the term tax honesty theories, or some other like term. If he was at all open to finding the solution we are looking for; he would be commenting on Tommy Cryer's win, and the facts and law that man used to accomplish the victory.

There is one other pertinent point. If this person is a practicing, or has been a practicing, legal professional; he certainly must be aware of the following. Over the past decades, since the supposed ratification of the 16th amendment and the concomittant legislation, there have been scores of people who have won in District Court, in practically every state, on the income tax issue, and its applicablility to them. Because they have won at that level, and the government has not dared to appeal the verdicts of honest juries; there is no trail of written evidence of the victories. Most of the early victors demanded anonymity from those who knew about the cases. The only outstanding example I can think of concerning one who did not is Vivian Kellems.

That people live in constant fear of a lawless, corrupt federal government should be of paramount concern to this supposed protector of that which is just and right. His only stated concern is that if we are right, and can one day prevail, he gets to keep more money.

The attitudes about himself he exposes are telling, don't you think?