Definition of Income

[David Merrill]

What Shoonra said is explained much better in this 1984 Freedom League article.

http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/convincing.html

Even in Washington's best legaleze, Title 26 is not positive law. (see attachment)

It only serves as evidence of contract. Not evidence of law. But if you do not understand how to redeem lawful money, you're had.



Regards,

David Merrill.


P.S. I have some fluff around the article about fiat money during emergency:

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...06869308133588

You can pull the text up while listening to the computer voice if that helps you get it.

[Shoonra]

This is what I referring to, the Official Note (by the House Legislative Revision Counsel) to 1 USC sec 204:

Title 26, Internal Revenue Code

The Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted in the form of a separate code by act Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 1. Pub. L. 99-514, Sec. 2(a), Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095, provided that the Internal Revenue Title enacted Aug. 16, 1954, as heretofore, hereby, or hereafter amended, may be cited as the "Internal Revenue Code of 1986''. The sections of Title 26, United States Code, are identical to the sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

The last sentence is indicative of the nature of Positive Law, even if Title 26 is not ordinarily categorized as Positive Law. In any case, a challenge to the text of the Title puts the burden on the challenger to show the original Acts of Congress said something else.

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Try the WHOLE quote from Kerbaugh-Empire:

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?

From what I remember fed income taxes are based on "employment". Employment is an admiralty word and denotes working under the direction of another person. Being under the direction of another person, control and responsibility are held by the "employer". When people engage in employment they do so voluntarily. In order to protect workers the nat'l government steps in with social legislation, creates an admin, and taxation to support that admin. If we measure a person in employment for taxation purposes how should we measure the tax? By the size of the foot, by the size of their height or a common element by what they all receive? Wages then in a generic sense become that measure of a tax on employment. If X is under the control of another person while laboring then X should pay employment taxes if due. Sounds like a lot of people haven't done their homework. It's a privilege to have Congress protect your economic well being. Your name is not, We the People. Get it? South Sea Company, East India Company, Hudson Bay Company, United States Company. Get it?

[KarenM]

Employment?

What about stock dividends, interest, alimony payments, business profits, capitol gains, and so on?

The income tax is based on and measured against income.

[ThomPaine]

Lawyerdawg gets it wrong again...

Wesley Snipes is NOT on trial for Tax Evasion, get your facts straight. The main charges are willful failure to file and there is another another charge in there too, but its not EVADING a tax by any stretch of the imagination, which is to elude or avoid the performance or duty of a known obligation. (as in contract)

Secondly, the 16th ammendment gave no new taxing powers to Congress as you stated. However, the 'removal' of the direct tax without apportionment restriction mattered not, as the 'income' tax is an indirect tax. Always has been and always will be.

What is the nature of an INDIRECT TAX?? oh oh oh, pick me pick me... its an EXCISE TAX!!!!!!!!!!

The 'income' tax is not a tax on income any more than a highway is an elevated road or path or Republicans are men who support the concept of a Republic..

And finally, Congress has NEVER had the power to tax all incomes, as you point out using Kerbaugh. Can the Congress tax a Parisian living in Paris and working at the corner bakery?? Can they tax life insurance proceeds or grants? Can they tax a Chinese man living and working in Shanghai? How about the sale of a principle residence sold after 3 years of residency?

In case you dont know, the answer to all of those is no, they cant. There are key elements to determining the taxability of income, they are proven, straightforward and conclusive. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on certain items or souces of income resulting from participation in priviledged or excise related activity or participation in private credit if you ask David...:-)

Snipes' high priced lawyers are interested in lawyering, just like you are. They are occifers of the court, members of the BAR and probably 'pay their taxes' So, how would it look to go in front of the black robe and argue that there is no law that makes one liable for income tax, as you say. See one of my earlier post for the answer.

Maybe he should have hired an attorner in their private capacity to advise him and act in his stead without the capacity of an 'Attorney at Law'


Thom

[amenmesse]

Originally Posted by KarenM

Employment?

What about stock dividends, interest, alimony payments, business profits, capitol gains, and so on?

The income tax is based on and measured against income.

That is correct. Your list is about derived gains, indirect taxes. In each example I see the government has a legal presence of protection given, stock dividends-SEC, interest-bank examiners, alimony payments-equity decrees, business profits-police powers, capitol gains-federal courts, and would like a share in the proceeds.
As it relates to humans it seems many people can see the object(the human) but not the presence of person (POP) nor presence of property (POP). People say a tax on a human is a direct tax, which is true if the indivdual stands alone and works by contract. But if the same individual is under the control of another and responsibility is carried by the other than that is the definition of employment in the English Common law. Back in the early 20th century a lot of legislation was directed at the evil consequences deriving from employment, sweat shops etc. Congress acting to regulate interstate commerce moved against the element of employment.

SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. JENSEN , 244 U.S. 205 (1917)

Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court:

Upon a claim regularly presented, the Workmen's Compensation Commission of New York made the following findings of fact, rulings, and award, October 9, 1914:

1. 'Christen Jensen, the deceased workman, was, on August 15, 1914, an employee of the Southern Pacific Company, a corporation of the state of Kentucky, where it has its principal office. It also has an office at Pier 49, North river, New York city. The Southern Pacific Company at said time was, and still is, a common carrier by railroad. It also owned and operated a steamship, El Oriente, plying between the ports of New York and Galveston, Texas.

Notice the status term of employee being used, the interstate nature of the plaintiff. Government has a presence of protection here.
I dug this out.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter A > § 3101
§ 3101. Rate of tax

(a) Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance
In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages (as defined in section 3121 (a)) received by him with respect to employment (as defined in section 3121 (b))—

TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 21 > Subchapter C > § 3121
§ 3121. Definitions

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed
(A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either,
(i) within the United States, or..................................

Maybe if government was offering its protections it should be paid in some form that can be construed as equitable, and people get to vote for those who will define equitable?

[Lawdog]

It's technically true that Snipes is not on trial (note proper spelling of that word) for income tax evasion. I should have been more precise with my terminology. Income tax evasion is at 26 USC section 7201.

You can read the entire indictment of Snipes here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...61snipes1.html

Snipes is on trial for six counts of failure to file returns, 26 USC section 7203. The penalty for each count, if convicted, is one year in prison and/or a $25,000 fine, plus costs of prosecution.

He is also charged with violating 18 USC section 371, conspiracy to defraud the United States, along with his co-defendant and tax protester guru, Eddie Kahn. That could get him another five years in prison.

Finally, Snipes is charged with violating 18 USC section 287, presenting a fraudulent claim against the United States. The allegation here is that Snipes claimed a refund for all income taxes paid for taxable year 1997, which was more than 7 million dollars. That could get him another five years at "Club Fed."

By the way...when things started going bad, Snipes tried paying off his tax debt with one of those Bills of Exchange some of you think are so neat. Not surprisingly, it was worthless and of no legal effect.

If convicted of all counts, Snipes could get a maximum of 16 years in a federal prison.

By the way, Thom: the reason you got out of your ticket after losing in municipal court is because your appeal was to Superior Court. The DA's office usually only handles felony level cases (misdemeanor cases in county court are handled by the Solicitor's office, not the DA). Since trying murderers, rapists and robbers is more important than dealing with you, they chose not to pursue the case. You didn't win on the merits. It was prosecutorial discretion not to go forward. And your claim that Alpharetta city court would not have any records is wrong. I checked the Georgia code, and when probate or municipal courts handle misdemeanor traffic offenses, they have to keep records. See Ga. Code 40-13-27.

[Lawdog]

Christ, you can't read. When the Supreme Court said in Kerbaugh-Empire that "Congress already had power to tax all incomes," of course they didn't mean the income of every person in the world. There's this basic concept of law called territoriality. No, Congress cannot tax someone living in France or China or any other foreign country who is not an American citizen and has no income from doing business in the United States.

But can they tax the income of every person residing in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States, whether a citizen or not? Absolutely.

Some things they have decided not to tax, like life insurance proceeds. But that is merely a matter of legislative grace.

Again, you guys need to read Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ page. Every common tax protester argument is analyzed and refuted there with tons of citations to the actual law.

[mrg]

Exactly where is the specific, particular, stand-alone term "income" precisely, plainly, and clearly defined in "the law?"

[Shoonra]

You're not going to find a definition of stand-alone "income". The IRC defines "gross income", then provides all sorts of exemptions and deductions by which gross income is adjusted downward, and then imposes the tax upon the "adjusted income".