income is private property

Originally Posted by jmunson

btw, i thought income, as defined by black's, is the "return" on...jon

Now, there you go again, thinking for yourself. Be a good little citizen. Stay asleep. Obey. Consume.


Geesh. People like you sure make it rough of the rest of us!


Randy

[Ice]

You get me laughin' all the time.


Maybe you should think about stand up comedy and bringing some of this stuff to the attention of a lot more people?


Just a thought.


&

[leatherlips]

How about Jack Cole Company v. MacFarland 337 S.W. 2d 453 (1960) "Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, this right cannot be taxed as a privilege." Then there is Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 U S 105 (1943) page 113 it says "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution." So a right cannot be taxed. Redfield v. Fisher in The Pacific Reporter, volume 292 P. 813 (1930) "The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privillege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." And if you are not a "taxpayer" the court can't declair you to be one. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Trustees of Lumber Inv. Ass'n. 100 F 2d 18 (1938) "Since the statutory definition of "taxpayer" is exclusive, the federal courts do not have the power to create non statutory taxpayers for the purpose of applying the provisions of the revenue acts;" Then ther is Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S. 470 F. 2d 585 (1972) "They [the revenue laws] relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law." How about Tyler v. US 281 US 497 (1930) "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished form its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax..." As with any indirect tax, you don't have to pay it if you don't want to. If you do not have a car, why would you pay the gas tax? If you don't smoke, why pay the tax on cigeretts? Ask the IRS to tell you what it is they are taxing, People, property, or activities?

[KaosTheory]

The definition of income is a red herring since everything the IRS does is predicated on the presumption that you are party to a commmercial agreement with the US.



Plus, your IMF no doubt says that you are selling alcohol or firearms or some other bogus taxable activity.

[rushpat]

Isn't income gain?



What have you gained if you gave an equal exchange of labor/time for FRNs? Doesn't sound like a gain but an even exchange.

[leatherlips]

Income cannot be the subject of any tax. Firt thing we need to do is find an official definition of the term "income". There is no need to look in the Internal Revenue Code or in any other laws enacted by Congress. The term "income" is not defined in the laws. "The general term "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code" United States v. Ballare, 535 F.2d. 400, 405 (8th Cir. 1976). Section 61 of the IRC defines "gross income" as income, but it does not define the term "income". Congress is not authorized to make the Constitution or any word in it, mean whatever Congress would like it to mean. Regarding the term "income", the United States Supreme Court explains as follows: "In order, therefore, that the clauses cited from Article 1 of the Constitution may have proper force and effect, save only as modified by the Amendment, and that the latter also may have proper effect, it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income" as the term is there used; and to apply the distinction, as cases arise, according to truth and substance, without regard to form. Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised." Eisner v. MACOMBER, 252 u.s. 189, AT 206 (1920)



The income (which is property) could not be the subject of a direct tax on money owned because if it were a direct tax on money as property, seldom would the money on hand and/or deposit equal the amount of income the person had derived throughout the year. Money owned is not necessarily the same thing as money earned. Once the money is gone, it can't be assessed. Mote 4 on page 2580 of the 1943 House Congressional Record states: "If the tax should be construed as a tax on income as a specific fund the disappearance of the fund before the date of assessment would prevent the collection of the tax. House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, page 2580. So money is property that is constantly in flow up and down throughtout the year. It would be like trying to tax the amount of water flowing in a river. So income is not the subject of the tax, but only the yard stick that is used to measure the tax. The real question is what IS the subjuect of the income tax? The IRS will not answer that. The reason they won't answer that is it would expose the fraud and show how you have been cheated all these years.

good to know that "income" is NOT defined in any of the laws, nor can congress simply "decide" what "income" is...however, that particular cite still did not define income, nor stipulate what it is and what it is not...



back to square one...



jon

[leatherlips]

In the Eisner Court quite correctley proceeds to define the term "income" for purposes of the Sixteenth Amendment and a socalled "income" tax, as well as for purposes of the Eisner Case.



"For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term "income" as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the Amendment; and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue

After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.) we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185)--"Income may be defined as the gain derived form capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185).

Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristics and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. " Derived---from---capital",---"the gain---derived---from---capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or encrement of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and comming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal;---that is income derived from property. Nothing ilse answers the discription" Eisner, supra, at 206-207.



So this big explanation of income has stated that to determine the meaning of the term "income" it only required the definition as used in common speech. The court relied on the common speech of the dictionaries. If you check out your dictionaries, you will find htat "income" is simply profit or gain.

[weasel]

"Be a good little citizen. Stay asleep. Obey. Consume"

Isn't that a quote from "They live?"

notice, also, that the court did NOT use Black's as a reference...



the court has affirmed my understanding of what "income" is...the trick now is understanding their definition of "gain"...



jon