Re: An examination of the authority to tax.
- From: "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdonald@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:58:19 GMT
"YouDontOwnMe" <YouDontOwnMe@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:QLSdnREGsM9wPQTXnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To examine the concept of "authority to tax", I will be keeping my focus
on the authority to tax compensation for labor.
It is my thesis that authority to tax compensation for labor does not
exist.
I will not be looking at the federal tax laws to prove this thesis either.
The federal tax laws, USC or CFR, are of no import to this thesis.
Who wants to play?
Why bother, you aree wasting time that could actually be spent profitably:
U.S. Supreme Court
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 158 U.S. 601 (1895)
158 U.S. 601
POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO. et al. Nos. 893 and 894. May 20, 1895
.. . .
If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested personal
property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it is obvious that by far
the largest part of the anticipated revenue would be eliminated, and this
would leave the burden of the tax to be borne by professions, trades,
employments, or vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on
capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EISNER v. MACOMBER , 252 U.S. 189 (1920), 252 U.S. 189, EISNER, Internal
Revenue Collector, v. MACOMBER. , No. 318.
.. . .
'Income may be defined as the gain derived from 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, 247 U.S. 183, 185, 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 (62 L. Ed. 1054).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
791 F.2d 68
Norman E. COLEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.
Gary HOLDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECRETARY OF the TREASURY and United
States of America, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 85-1202, 85-1601.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 17, 1985. Decided May 7, 1986.
.. . .
The code imposes a tax on all income. See 26 U.S.C. § 61. WAGES ARE
INCOME, [emphasis added] and the tax on wages is constitutional. See, among
hundreds of other cases, United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th
Cir.1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1984); Granzow v.
CIR, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir.1984); United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d
1328, 1329 & n. 1 (7th Cir.1984). See also Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R.,
240 U.S. 1, 12, 24-25, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239, 244-45, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
GERALD ALAN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
Docket: 95-367T Filed April 3, 1996
.. . .Moreover, and contrary to plaintiff's assertions, citizens and
residents of the United States must pay federal income tax on their wages,
regardless of whether they receive benefits from the United States
government. Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517, 519 (7th Cir. 1984).
Courts have also consistently rejected plaintiff's claim that his wages do
not constitute taxable income under the I.R.C. See, e.g., Stubbs v.
Commissioner of IRS, 797 F.2d 936, 938 (11th Cir. 1986) (rejecting argument
that wages are not taxable income as "patently frivolous"); Ficalora v.
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 751 F.2d 85, 87-88 (2d Cir. 1984) (holding
that income includes compensation for services), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1005
(1985); Lonsdale, 661 F.2d at 72 (rejecting "even exchange" argument).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
771 F.2d 471
Paul E. CHARCZUK and Victoria Charczuk, Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 83-2370.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Aug. 29, 1985.
.. . .
In making his argument that Congress lacks constitutional authority to
impose a tax on wages without apportionment among the States, the appellant
has chosen to ignore the precise holding of the Court in Pollock, as well as
the development of constitutional law in this area over the last ninety
years. While ruling that a tax upon income from real and personal property
is invalid in the absence of apportionment, the Supreme Court explicitly
stated that taxes on income from one's employment are not direct taxes and
are not subject to the necessity of apportionment. Pollock v. Farmer's Loan
and Trust Co., 158 U.S. at 635, 15 S.Ct. at 919. Furthermore, the Sixteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, enacted in 1913, provides that:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration." Finally, in the case of New
York, ex rel. Cohn v. Graves, 300 U.S. 308, 57 S.Ct. 466, 81 L.Ed. 666
(1937), the Supreme Court in effect overruled Pollock, and in so doing
rendered the Sixteenth Amendment unnecessary, when it sustained New York's
income tax on income derived from real property in New Jersey. Id. at
314-15, 57 S.Ct. at 468-69. Hence, there is no question but that Congress
has the constitutional authority to impose an income tax upon
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of
property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes,
his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again.
WAGES ARE INCOME." [emphasis added] Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20
(2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also
imposed sanctions of $2,000 against the taxpayer).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v.
Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746
F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at
trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not
income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was
wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still
insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to
rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters
now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or
salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329
& n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal
failures to file affirmed).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income
under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject
to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505
(1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under
the Tax Code, WAGES ARE INCOME." [emphasis added] Grimes v. Commissioner,
806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary,
has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income,
subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States v.
Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993)
"Likewise, we have held that wages are within the definition of income under
the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to
taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per
curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505
(1985)."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ficalora v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1984)
"Lastly, the appellant asserts that the term "income", as used in the taxing
statutes, has no defined meaning and is unconstitutionally vague and
indefinite. As discussed above, Section 61 of the Code defines gross income
as "all income from whatever source derived". Even if we were to assume,
arguendo, that this phrase is somehow vague or indefinite, Section 61 of the
Code specifically cites "[c]ompensation for services ..." as a concrete
example of what is meant by the term income. The wages which the appellant
received for his services rendered to New York Telephone in taxable year
1980, fall squarely within the definition of income contained in Section
61(a)(1) of the Code. The appellant's argument that the term "income", as
used in the Code, is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite, is totally
without merit."
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An examination of the authority to tax.
- From: YouDontOwnMe
- Re: An examination of the authority to tax.
- References:
- An examination of the authority to tax.
- From: YouDontOwnMe
- An examination of the authority to tax.
- Prev by Date: An examination of the authority to tax.
- Next by Date: Re: Dale Eastman - an examination
- Previous by thread: An examination of the authority to tax.
- Next by thread: Re: An examination of the authority to tax.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
