Net income and activities of labor are on the same team.

[jeagas68]

Net income defined elsewhere other then the Tax code:

TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 10B > SUBCHAPTER I
SUBCHAPTER I—NET INCOME TAXES
How Current is This?
# § 381. Imposition of net income tax
# § 382. Assessment of net income taxes
# § 383. “Net income tax” defined
# § 384. Separability

If Net income cannot be taxed which such provision is found in Title 15 and also Labor in 15 USC 17 which
is stated as not being a commodity or act of commerce
thus having no commercial value, why the hek is
everyone always trying to prove that labor is not to
be taxed in Title 26 then?

We know that the Internal Revenue Service is registered as a Federal Corporation in commerce and they are trying to create commerce out of natural law of labor so we should be beating them over the head with what dirty dead they are trying to pull holding feet to the fire of Sections in Title 18 usc 3, 241, 242 & 1589.

I know most employers want a tax ID when they do exchanges for your labor, so if an agent puts his name on a certificate of liability, if one discharges it R4C, we should submit these forms to that agent,
IRS forms 56 and W-9.

'SD

[yebliker]

Did anyone miss this? Of course "employee wages" are taxable, because when 26 USC defined these terms, they made sure that the terms meant being employed federally ONLY. Look it up.
-Yebliker

Originally Posted by mertensv16

A tax on the income from common labor has never been viewed in this country as a poll or capitation tax.



Nonsense. Employee wages have been included as gross income ever since the first federal income tax (enacted in 1861).

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by yebliker

Did anyone miss this? Of course "employee wages" are taxable, because when 26 USC defined these terms, they made sure that the terms meant being employed federally ONLY. Look it up.
-Yebliker

Wrong. In fact, this ridiculous argument has been characterized by the courts as "inane" and "preposterous":

The other jury instructions proffered by the defendant are equally inane. Thus we hold that the district court did not err in refusing the other instruction offered by Latham implying that 26 U.S.C. § 7343 defining "person" does not include natural persons. Similarly, Latham's instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of "employee" does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious that within the context of both statutes the word "includes" is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others. U.S. v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747 (7th Cir. 1985)

[jeagas68]

Are you affecting commerce?

Originally Posted by jeagas68

Title 15 Section 17:
The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be
held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.

Lawson v. United States of America 300 F.2d 252
Jan. 26, 1962
A 'labor organization' is defined in 3(i) of the Art, 73 Stat. 520, 29 U.S.C.A. 402(i), as one 'engaged in an industry affecting commerce and includes any organization of any kind * * * dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment, * * *.' 'Industry affecting commerce' is said to mean 'any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity or industry 'affecting commerce' within the meaning of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, * * *.' 3(c), 73 Stat. 520, 29 U.S.C.A. 402(c).

[mertensv16]

15 USC 17 is an antitrust statute that has absolutely nothing to do with federal taxation.

Congress' authority to enact antitrust statutes is based upon its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. On the other hand, its authority to tax isn't based on the commerce power at all, but rests instead upon the independent power to tax granted by the Constitution.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

15 USC 17 is an antitrust statute that has absolutely nothing to do with federal taxation.
Congress' authority to enact antitrust statutes is based upon its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. On the other hand, its authority to tax isn't based on the commerce power at all, but rests instead upon the independent power to tax granted by the Constitution.

Ok, step back and look at what you just posted.
Do you believe you are protected by the Constitution?

Also do you understand the full implications of accepting a benefit of any kind from the United States? See the description for "Federal Employee" at 5 USC 552a(13).

Welcome to interstate commerce, anything you do that is licensed, tagged, Certified or otherwise by government is in interstate commerce of a subjecated warehouse if you will.

[mertensv16]

What does all of this have to do with federal taxation?

You haven't bought into the myth that receiving some sort of federal benefit is a prerequisite to taxation, have you?

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What does all of this have to do with federal taxation?
You haven't bought into the myth that receiving some sort of federal benefit is a prerequisite to taxation, have you?

Depends on your thought process.
You have to pull yourself out of the 1 dimensional world that you live in and rise above it. This is all about in the way you affect interstate commerce, you can either contribute to the free flow of it, stand outside of it as a trustee or be an obstruction. Courts have consistently contended that obstructions must be removed. It's all a matter of the way accounting is handled.
In the movie the Matrix, Neo had to learn this the hard way in the end.

Consumers have an overwhelming power they do not understand, if they get all these revenues from the employees, who needs small businesses, mom an pop shops e.t.c.
Just look at the way the Organic market has blossomed over the last couple years in grocery stores.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

This is all about in the way you affect interstate commerce, you can either contribute to the free flow of it, stand outside of it as a trustee or be an obstruction.

What is the antecedent of the word "This"? It can't be federal taxation, since there's no necessary connection between interstate commerce and taxation.

Courts have consistently contended that obstructions must be removed.

No, they haven't. What they have held is that States can't obstruct interstate commerce (although States can tax such commerce in certain circumstances). Congress, on the other hand, can obstrust interstate commerce if it wants to -- e.g., it can make it a crime to transport certain articles in interstate commerce.

[jeagas68]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

What is the antecedent of the word "This"? It can't be federal taxation, since there's no necessary connection between interstate commerce and taxation.

This = warehouse, much like a bar code ID on a product in a store their is a tax ID in the warehouse.

I guess your not familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act – what does it mean?
You must determine if the business falls under the provisions of the Federal Wage and Hour laws, which are numerous and somewhat complicated.
Many states have additional sets of regulations and reporting requirements concerning the employee.
The FLSA applies to all employees of enterprises engaged in interstate commerce, producing goods intended for interstate commerce or working on goods that have crossed state lines (if two or more employees meet the definition of "engaged in interstate commerce," then the FLSA covers the entire business).

Interstate commerce is quite broadly defined as employees who:

* Work in communications or transportation
* Regularly use the mail or telephone for interstate communication
* Keep records of interstate transactions
* Handle, ship, or receive goods that have crossed state lines
* Cross state lines for employment purposes

As you said below " Congress, on the other hand, can obstrust interstate commerce if it wants to ". How do you suppose they will use OR ABUSE the standards set forth in the FLSA? You got to be a real idiot to think they will not try this as they have successfully done in the past.

Just look at the definition for "Actions in Commerce",
even 2 Citizens procreating can be broadly defined as Interstate Commerce. The reward is just another stock certificate in the warehouse to them.

No, they haven't. What they have held is that States can't obstruct interstate commerce (although States can tax such commerce in certain circumstances). Congress, on the other hand, can obstrust interstate commerce if it wants to -- e.g., it can make it a crime to transport certain articles in interstate commerce.