Definition of Income

[ThomPaine]

Going back a few pages, I believe Joseph asked for some clarifications from a previous post:

NFTL is Notice of Federal Tax Lien. It is EXACTLY what it says on its face, A NOTICE. It is NOT a lien. The creation and filing of liens are governed by strict federal and state procedures, which the IRS, a private corporation does not follow. Therefore most IRS 'liens' are not liens at all and can be used as TP...

and

DM is David Merrill

I will read through some of the other stuff, but much of it is lawyerdawg blathering on and I desire not to refute each of his contentions on a point by point basis.

If you have questions, please let me know and I will try to help...

In closing I will say this: Gross income is clearly defined in the code, Net or taxable income is clearly defined in the code. The key to both of those definitions is the source of the income. Grants are not taxable in most cases, life insurance proceeds are not taxable in most cases, gifts from one 'person' to another (under 10,000 dollars) are not taxable. These are common things that are 'known' by most people who know the code. So there are things that are 'income' that are not 'taxable income' These are all items of income that originate from a non taxable source, so as you see, the source is the key.

Where many people fail is that they read what they want to read and they dont read far enough. If i earn 'gross' income from an untaxable source, then I have no gross income or I have gross income that is untaxable and the whole title goes out the window right there.. I dont know everything about taxes by any means, but I realised about 12 - 13 years ago that I had no tax liability and have not paid a dime since then. I am not getting out of anything or avoiding anything, I simply have no tax liability and do not earn taxable income.

Do you pay property taxes when you live in an apartment?? Of course not the property owner does.. Why?? They do not apply to you, they apply to the property owner.

Thom

[Lawdog]

Try the WHOLE quote from Kerbaugh-Empire:

“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).

The Supreme Court said that Congress had the power, even before the 16th Amendment, to tax ALL INCOMES. The 16th removed a restriction on that power...namely, that if the courts decided an income tax was direct, it had to be apportioned. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that a tax on the income from land was a direct tax and had to be apportioned to be constitutional. The 16th Amendment was ratified specifically to overturn that decision, just as the 11th Amendment was ratified to reverse the Supreme Court ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia.

By the way...actor Wesley Snipes is on trial right now in federal court in Florida for tax evasion. He is facing something like 20 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Now, surely being an actor is not something even you guys would argue is a "priviledged activity." So why haven't his high priced lawyers gotten the charges dismissed if there is no law that makes him liable for income taxes?

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

In closing I will say this: Gross income is clearly defined in the code, Net or taxable income is clearly defined in the code. The key to both of those definitions is the source of the income. Grants are not taxable in most cases, life insurance proceeds are not taxable in most cases, gifts from one 'person' to another (under 10,000 dollars) are not taxable. These are common things that are 'known' by most people who know the code. So there are things that are 'income' that are not 'taxable income' These are all items of income that originate from a non taxable source, so as you see, the source is the key.

Where many people fail is that they read what they want to read and they dont read far enough. If i earn 'gross' income from an untaxable source, then I have no gross income or I have gross income that is untaxable and the whole title goes out the window right there.. I dont know everything about taxes by any means, but I realised about 12 - 13 years ago that I had no tax liability and have not paid a dime since then. I am not getting out of anything or avoiding anything, I simply have no tax liability and do not earn taxable income.

Do you pay property taxes when you live in an apartment?? Of course not the property owner does.. Why?? They do not apply to you, they apply to the property owner.

Thom

Well put Thom. Those are good points.

[indago]

Lawdog wrote:

Try the WHOLE quote from Kerbaugh-Empire:
---------------------------------
“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).
----------------------------------

Why don't you put the whole quote on there: "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.' Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17"

And that wasn't what was written in Brushaber at all. Mr. Brushaber was a stockholder in the Union Pacific Railroad Company, and he filed the lawsuit to try to stop the company from paying the new "income tax" because if they did his dividends would be reduced.

The Solicitor General for the government, in an amicus curiae brief, had made the argument: "The Sixteenth Amendment removed the restriction of apportionment as to such income taxes as before were subject thereto." The Court, in their opinion, in which there was no dissent, and noting this "confusion", declared this to be an "erroneous assumption" on the part of the government, and "wholly without foundation". The Court declared that "it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation"; and that the amendment simply prohibited the income tax from being taken from the category of indirect taxation, and being placed into the category of a direct tax.

It was also explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise, and because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...



-

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

indago wrote:

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

not as long as the following:

Lawdog:
...actor Wesley Snipes is on trial right now in federal court in Florida for tax evasion...So why haven't his high priced lawyers gotten the charges dismissed if there is no law that makes him liable for income taxes?

Exactly. Why indeed.

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by indago

It was also explained that the Congress of the United States had no intention of destroying the two great classes of taxation by the wording of the Sixteenth Amendment, but placed an income tax into the category of taxation in which it inherently belonged; the indirect class, or excise, and because the tax is not apportioned, nor subject to the census or enumeration, it is an excise tax, a tax upon the exercise of privileges, such taxes not being subject to the condition of apportionment to the States.

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

-

I doubt it will ever end as long as the legal profession exists.

There is a post in this thread where I suggested that lapdog not embarrass himself. Like most lawyers, he just doesn't know when to shut the hell up.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

:EVERY decision ever made in any court affirming the validity of the 4th amendment and state equivalents, as well the rules of legal procedure come to mind..."probable cause"!

All cases proceed upon a valid stated cause of action as to every element of the claim, civil or criminal.

So someone has got to claim 1st hand "gross income", to be charged or sued upon "gross income" (or "vehicle", or whatever the issue might be).

Since we live under an adversarial system, not the rule of justice, courts operate under the presumptions established in the pleadings. I don't know anything about Wesley Snipes, but I heard he was under the "counsel" of some 'tax protester theory', which usually goes like this:

"I have taxable income and it isn't taxable", which seems like a good way to lose a case, under adversarial rules.

And so once again the point is made by none other than Lawdog- acting, like mowing lawns or anything else, is excluded from direct taxation. Its no government privilege to exist. (contrary to popular belief) So the benefits of excluded activity can't be the subject of taxation. Mr Snipes does ordinary work like acting, yet is charged w/ "gross income". From what source does that claim derive?

There must be some presumption or other evidence operating here, and it ain't acting in movies, or just handling money, or even spending it.

[joseph sugarman]

Good Afternoon Thom Paine,

Thank you for providing the whole words for the letters. I can now go back and read with clarity your earlier post which included them.

[Smith]

Why we are at it we should ask ....

Lawdog when USC 26 was enacted into positive law ?

Every copy of title 26 I have got a hold of reads something like this .

This title shall be treated as Prima facie until enacted into positive law .

After studying on and off for years I have yet to find when it was enacted into positive law.

Better yet if it is positive law ...Why is the assumption made that the only way to enforce title 26 is to piggy back on title 27 ATF ?

Sounds like USC 26 can not stand by itself .

Personally I like the correction by DM under title 12..

Accepted for credit on account or exchange for Non negotiable Federal Reserve Notes of face value.

Read this http://www.redamendment.net/main.php

weishaupt1776 said it after it had been posted


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

[Shoonra]

Title 26 was first enacted as the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, then, shortly after its enactment, the entire Internal Revenue Code was adopted by reference to be Title 26. This is not the usual method for enacting a title as Positive Law but there is an official note to the Title 1 section on making USC titles into Positive Law regarding this. Acts of Congress amending the tax law explicitly reference sections of Title 26, which is usual with titles that are Positive Law.

If Title 26 is not Positive Law, then it is at least Prima Facie law, so that any challenge to the text of a section must necessarily refer to the original Acts of Congress; and the burden is on the person challenging the Title 26 text. I, myself, have not heard of such a challenge to a Title 26 section but maybe someone else knows of such a case.

There is no requirement that Title 26 piggyback on Title 27.