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

[jeagas68]

Direct/Indirect Cases ... Context and Commentary

As long as the Steward Machine Case is kept within its context, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court makes perfect sense. The case was about "privileges" associated with the operation of "business," not that every conceivable activity was "business".

Excise taxes had always been levied upon the "gains and profits" derived from the operation of business, whereas, excise taxes upon the "privilege" of employing others in the operation of that "business" had never been attempted. The court simply concluded that both fell within the operation of an excise.

For a better understanding of what the court was saying read "Taxing the Exercise of Natural Rights" by John M. Maguire, Harvard Legal Essays, 1934. This essay was cited by the court in the Steward Machine case as authority for the imposition of excise taxes upon "business privileges," not common labor for hire [common law, master-servant relationship], as such would be seen as "poll" or "capitation" taxes.

Congress departed from the "net-income" tax in 1942 when they lowered the "personal exemption" to a point below the "wages" earned by common labor, then included those common laborers within the "net-income" tax through the new concept of "adjusted gross income". [The definition, provided by Congress, for the term "adjusted gross income" is: the net-income derived from business and professional activities, and the gross "wages" of the common law employee.] For "business owners" there is no difference between the deductions allowed by section 62 (a) (1) and those allowed by section 63 (a), such "expenses" are deducted from gross income (business receipts) above the line, i.e., in order to establish net-income subject to Subtitle A taxes. Whereas the employee's "wages" (gross receipts) are shown on the same line as their employer's net profits. Follow the entries on the 1040 tax return; line 22 is "total income". Really, what happened to the business receipts? Follow section 22 (n) through the transition from the 1939 to the 1954 Code section 62 (a), it did not change. Gross income was defined under section 22(a) of the 1939 Code as "gains, profits and income derived from", as such; it did not include the employee's gross receipts (wages) as such receipts were not "derived from" commercial and financial receipts. Congress invented the concept of "adjusted gross income" so that they could include the employee annual receipts in commercial net income, thereby making the employee's "wages" comparable to their employer's "compensation for personal service." The "withholding tax" is not a "tax," it is a collection method for "taxes" imposed under Subtitle A.

Title 15 Section Section 382. Assessment of net income taxes:
(a) Limitations
No State, or political subdivision thereof, shall have power to assess, after September 14, 1959, any net income tax which was imposed by such State or political subdivision, as the case may be, for any taxable year ending on or before such date, on the income derived within such State by any person from interstate commerce.

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.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

For a better understanding of what the court was saying read "Taxing the Exercise of Natural Rights" by John M. Maguire, Harvard Legal Essays, 1934. This essay was cited by the court in the Steward Machine case as authority for the imposition of excise taxes upon "business privileges," not common labor for hire [common law, master-servant relationship], as such would be seen as "poll" or "capitation" taxes.

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

Gross income was defined under section 22(a) of the 1939 Code as "gains, profits and income derived from", as such; it did not include the employee's gross receipts (wages) as such receipts were not "derived from" commercial and financial receipts.

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

[indago]

mertensv16 wrote:

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

That was based on the Hylton case, which was overturned, based upon "a century of error".

[FreeFromContract]

Originally Posted by indago

That was based on the Hylton case, which was overturned, based upon "a century of error".

Not to mention that mertens links which he provides and the conclusion he reaches is a complete fabrication upon the facts. Given that the act of which he continually references and the decided case have no bearing on one another.

Why? The case references an act which was enacted several years later and not the one he references.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by indago

mertensv16 wrote:

That was based on the Hylton case, which was overturned, based upon "a century of error".

Hylton hasn't been overturned. If you think it has been, please give us a citation to the case that did so.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by FreeFromContract

Not to mention that mertens links which he provides and the conclusion he reaches is a complete fabrication upon the facts. Given that the act of which he continually references and the decided case have no bearing on one another.

Why? The case references an act which was enacted several years later and not the one he references.

Fine. The Springer case dealt with the income tax act of June 30, 1864, as amended by the act of March 3, 1865, which (just like the 1861 act) included employee wages in the tax base. Here's the 1864 act:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=310

Here's the 1865 amendment:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=508

Here's the 1861 act:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage....db&recNum=340

Aside from the amount of the deductible, the acts are very similar insofar as the tax base is concerned.

Happy now?

[mrg]

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.

"common labor?"

Never???

"viewed???"

Depends upon who is doing the "viewing?"

Yes or no?

[mertensv16]

Point taken. The statement "The moon has never been viewed as made of green cheese" would be incorrect because there are deluded idiots who think it is. Similarly, there are deluded idiots who think a tax on wages is a capitation or poll tax.

I should have said that no American court has ever held a tax on wages to be a capitation or poll tax, and since under our legal system the courts, and not deluded idiots, are the arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution (subject to being overturned by the people via the amendment process), the courts' opinions are what count.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

the acts are very similar

Are things similar the same?

Nullum simile est idem.

Blackstone Commentaries

So, Nullum simile est idem?


What is a maxim?

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

Point taken.

Please provide substantive examples of those "deluded idiots who think it is."

You know, names, contact information, etc.

Nullum simile est idem?

How, precisely, "would" "[t]he statement 'The moon has never been viewed as made of green cheese'" "be incorrect" simply because, in your opinion (belief) "there are deluded idiots who think it is?

How, precisely, is it FACT that those "who think a tax on wages is a capitation or poll tax" are, indeed, as a matter of fact, "deluded idiots?"

Weak analogy?

Or:

Apologist propaganda?