old news.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Since you never answered my question, I'll take that as a concession.

Likewise..

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1868) (emphasis added)

therein lies the rub: which subjects? every= all of the. not "any and all", but every; 'each one of the'

what is the subject of internal revenue collections?

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The 8th section of the 1st article [of the Constitution] gives to Congress the 'power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,' for the purposes thereinafter mentioned. This grant is general, without limitation as to place. It, consequently, extends to all places over which the government extends.Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820)

"to all places"; "over which the government extends."

thats a qualification. what are these places? While we are on the subject of constitutional power its a fact of general common knowledge that the government is limited and extends to a limited area of both territory and society.

Here's my 2 cents: activities are general and everywhere, and their presence is indicated by income. No one can really say what an activity is, but if there is income there must be activity.

There is income to the extent someone can legally prove it. Since income is just an accounting term.

It's all beliefs and "good faith"- either show your heresies were accidental or show you are outside the belief system of the temple.


If you act like you have something to hide, you do.


I haven't got any income, I am independently wealthy- I am a pauper.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

from the Tom Cryer "motion to dismiss"

http://www.truthattack.org/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf

The 16th Amendment did not expand the scope of Congress' power to tax (Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, supra et al.), thus although the source of income is no longer a factor in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect, neither the jurisdiction of the federal government nor its taxing authority was enlarged to include authority to tax activities and privileges that it could not have taxed before the 16th Amendment.

Source of income, then, is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing authority of the federal government.

(See discussions of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); and others, infra)

As we will see, those factors were also taken into consideration in the determination of taxable income in
the Code and regulations.

all that happened with the 16th is that income may be taxed in any direction: but the source is still crucial and required.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

therein lies the rub: which subjects? every= all of the. not "any and all", but every; 'each one of the'

what is the subject of internal revenue collections?

What part of "thus limited, and thus only" is so hard to comprehend? The Court is saying that the subject is anything Congress wants to tax, except for exports.

Now based upon later decisions of the Court, there are probably one or two additional areas that are off limits: Congress can't tax the States or their property if to do so would unduly interfere with the States' performance with their governmental functions, and it's probable it can't tax the exercise of First Amendment Rights (this is based on a line of cases overturning state taxation of these rights). But if you're talking about the income tax, even the First Amendment doesn't mean that the media don't have to pay taxes on their income.

Look, if you think there's a kind of income that Congress can't tax, just give us a citation to a case that says so.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

unless the constitution changed since 1954...

Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied upon "net income". Gross income was, pursuant to the preceding act, the 1939 Code, determined in accordance with the 1940 regulations, of which § 19.22(b)-1 provided:

"(b) Exclusions from gross income — The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter:

"Sec. 19.22(b)-1. Exemptions—Exclusions from gross
income—Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items are exempt from gross income except

(1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government;

(2) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any Act of Congress still in effect: and

(3) the income exempted under the provisions of section 116.

(http://www.truthattack.org/CRYER--MotiontoDismiss.pdf)

I suppose that would be these "...items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government..."

Its the same constitution as far as taxation since the 1930's

all of this is of course irrelevant since the presumption is going on the private "belief-contract"- ever hear of a tax prosecution against someone with little or no connection to the system? There are laws against heresies, you know... nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Congress can't tax...the exercise of First Amendment Rights (this is based on a line of cases overturning state taxation of these rights)

which follows that no Constitutionally protected rights may be taxed. Including the 9th and 10th amendment, and the preamble rights, and all incorporated historic charters and rights of which that constitution was merely a final add-on.

Like "Life, Liberty, Property, Reputation, Pursuit of Happiness..."

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I suppose that would be these "...items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government..."

Its the same constitution as far as taxation since the 1930's

Not quite. The interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is what changed since the 1930's.

Look, if you examine the text of the Constitution, there's no language that puts any particular type of income off limits to Congress' taxing power. So what determines whether there is any such exempt income? Decisions of the courts, that's what. And the courts decided, in the late 19th and early 20th century, that there were indeed certain types of income that were constitutionally exempt (e.g., interest on state bonds and the salaries of state employees). But each case that found such an exemption to exist was later overturned by the Court itself. The last time this happened was in 1987, when the Court overruled its holding in the 1895 Pollock decision that interest on state and local obligations was constitutionally exempt. The result is that under current law there is no kind income that can't be taxed.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

which follows that no Constitutionally protected rights may be taxed.

Sorry, that doesn't follow at all. Rights under the First Amendment have been held to have a "preferred position" with respect to constitutional protection, so that you can't automatically extend the First Amendment cases to other constitutional protections (see the Murdock v. Pennsylvania case, which is one of the cases I referred to).

You also need to distinguish between taxing the exercise of a First Amendment right and taxing the income generated from the exercise of the right. The former may be off limits to taxation, but the latter isn't. As I said before, the fact that the Constitution guarantees you the right to publish a newspaper doesn't mean you can't be taxed on the income you earn from publishing it. Even the income of religious institutions can be taxed. The fact that it isn't is due solely to Congress's decision to grant them tax-exempt status, not because the Constitution demands such an exemption.

Like "Life, Liberty, Property, Reputation, Pursuit of Happiness..."

Sorry, only the first three are mentioned in the Constitution as being protected. Moreover, they are protected only against deprivation by government without due process of law. The 5th Amendment does not prevent Congress from levying taxes.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The result is that under current law there is no kind income that can't be taxed.

The code itself contains exceptions, which may be due to current interpretations. It seems a bit odd that after a long history of constitutionally excluded items now there are none, just by judicial change of opinion.

I did ask you to speculate so I bought this one, and now we are off track. (get what you pay for, without fail, is a rule of life)

More to the point: what is currently taxed. Apparently "taxable income" is the subject of levy, and the qualification "taxable" implies there must be some that isn't.

Since the supremes have currently determined that the now-existing internal revenue system is indirect taxation, that's where we are today.

The very nature of indirect taxation is that it is construed to be invoked voluntarily- one can avoid it by abstaining from something superfluous.

So where that line is located is the subject of court rulings. Like any provision of law (for example- "cruel and unusual punishment") this depends on customs standards and traditions.

Since so far the exercise of basic rights is immune from taxation, it stands to reason that "income" from those rights is also immune, given the history of immune items ever existing in the first place.

But this is meaningless, because "taxable income" really means "whatever is called taxable income", which indirectly shows the presence of a voluntary and avoidable activity.

Because it IS an indirect tax- basically an "excise" on the benefit of any activity that produces such results. So while in theory there are excluded items, that misses the point- the determination of "taxable income" proves the taxable event.

So the definition of "taxable income" is..."taxable income". The opposite of normal procedures- here, the conclusion proves the evidence.

Now prove it in a given case. Thats why this can go in circles for ever, there is no absolute 'taxable income' because everything is such if proven.

Which takes us right back to the point/counter-point of competing informations- or rather, mere information versus sworn testimony. Its always comes down to a clash of beliefs.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

The code itself contains exceptions, which may be due to current interpretations. It seems a bit odd that after a long history of constitutionally excluded items now there are none, just by judicial change of opinion.

The exceptions in the Code are purely statutory -- they're not constitutionally required. For example, there's nothing in the Constitution that prevents Congress from imposing an income tax on life insurance proceeds, even though in most cases Congress has decided not to.

There's nothing odd about the Supreme Court changing its mind, although it doesn't happen very often. Remember that all these exemptions were given by the Court in the first place.

More to the point: what is currently taxed. Apparently "taxable income" is the subject of levy, and the qualification "taxable" implies there must be some that isn't.

Taxable income is simply gross income minus deductions. As stated before, Congress has decided to exclude certain thins from gross income so that they don't enter into the calculation of taxable income (life insurance proceeds, gifts, employer-provided health insurance, etc.)

The very nature of indirect taxation is that it is construed to be invoked voluntarily- one can avoid it by abstaining from something superfluous.

Except that the Court has never adopted this as a defining characteristic of indirect taxes. Consider the estate tax: since we're all going to die, the tax isn't avoidable. Of course, you could avoid it by giving away all your property during your lifetime, but then you're subject to the gift tax.

Since so far the exercise of basic rights is immune from taxation, it stands to reason that "income" from those rights is also immune, given the history of immune items ever existing in the first place.

As I said before, this doesn't follow. Newspapers have to pay income taxes regardless of the First Amendment. And the Court long ago held that even if the right to work for a living is an inalienable right, it can nevertheless be taxed:

We learn that employment for lawful gain is a 'natural' or 'inherent' or 'inalienable' right, and not a 'privilege' at all. But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of less importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right. Charles C. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937)

Its always comes down to a clash of beliefs.

No, what it comes down to is that you're arguing what you would like the law to be. I'm arguing what the law is.