Quote:However there is nothing in there of an income tax liability..
Oh? really?
Quote:Liability
That looks like the word "liability" to me. Not only is it in there. It is the subchapter title.
As for your argument that the income tax langauge for corporations is somehow different than that for individuals. Please point out where it is different.
Quote:A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation.
Quote:There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
parados wrote:Quote:Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The constitution says the above. Please explain how you can say it requires apportionment when the constitution is very specific in saying it does not.
Amendments to the constitution do just that. They amend it. The 16th amendment took away your argument which is why tax protestors then came up with their silly argument that the 16th was never ratified.
Very simply... The ammendment allows taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.
This means that the money received has to be derived or separated from the actual tangible thing that generates that money.. This does not happen in the case of somebody wages or labor.. When a person gets taxed on their salary, they are actually being taxed on the source of their salary - their labor.
What the ammendment does is prevents somebody from taking money made from corporate profit and trying to force it into the category of direct taxation. For example if Exxon tried to claim its corporate income tax was unconstitutional because they were getting taxed on their oil well property.. However Exxons income is only derived from the property hence apportionment is not needed.
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled on this topic. An direct tax on ones labor is not allowed WITHOUT apportionment.
Lower courts have ruled in contradiction to the Supreme Court which I would say at best is an anomaly. A lower court cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling... Yet people DO get arrested, and go to jail for not paying taxes... it is being enforced illegally.
But before we get into this big convoluted discussion on a 54,000 page law, I want to remind you that whats written is irrelevant if something has been deemed unconstitional by the Supreme Court. Thats my whole point. Supreme Court has made it clear that you cannot tax a persons labor directly without it being apportioned. The Supreme Court has defined 'income' as corporate profit, and the IRS is not above the Supreme Court.
Don't you mean, "very simple minded?" The courts have never ruled that at all. In fact the courts have ruled quite the opposite. The courts have said repeatedly that wages are income and wages are income for the purposes of the income tax. Please cite one ruling after the 16th amendment that supports your claim that wages are not income. You will find none. It seems I can find over 50 that say wages are income. There are absolutely ZERO rulings saying income can not be seperated from its derived source using the 16th amendment.
Oh? I see but you are taking personal income and trying to force it into direct taxation. Isn't that precisely what you said the amendment is to prevent?
Cite your cases. I will bet you any amount you want that you can't find any that have occurred since the 16th was ratified that say this. (You will only find one prior to the 16th amendment.)
Constitutional amendments overturn court rulings. You will find no ruling since the 16th amendment that supports your argument.
Quote:But before we get into this big convoluted discussion on a 54,000 page law, I want to remind you that whats written is irrelevant if something has been deemed unconstitional by the Supreme Court. Thats my whole point. Supreme Court has made it clear that you cannot tax a persons labor directly without it being apportioned. The Supreme Court has defined 'income' as corporate profit, and the IRS is not above the Supreme Court.
Oh, so the words in the statute are irrelevant? They seemed relevant when you argued the statute didn't include the word "liability." Amazing how pointing out your false argument suddenly change the relevancy.
Sure and the Supreme Court ruled that title 26 is unconstitutional where? Please provide the case so we can all get out from under our income tax. I guarantee you will not provide any case that says this.
The Supreme Court defined "income" under the corporate income tax statute under the case you attempting to apply. That doesn't mean that "income" is confined to that part of the statute nor does it mean that "income" is confined to corporations. It only means that corporate income is defined that way.
Please cite the section of Eisner that says wages are not income. Wages are not mentioned in Eisner.
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 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), '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).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic 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 increment 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 coming 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 else answers the description.
The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment-'incomes, from whatever source derived'-the essential thought being expressed [252 U.S. 189, 208] with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution.
Brushaber v Union Pacific
Again, please point out where the USSC ruled that wages were not income. They didn't here either.
Stanton v Baltic Mining
Again, no ruling that wages aren't income.
Oh, so the words in the statute are irrelevant? They seemed relevant when you argued the statute didn't include the word "liability." Amazing how pointing out your false argument suddenly change the relevancy.
parados wrote:
Please cite the section of Eisner that says wages are not income. Wages are not mentioned in Eisner.
EISNER V MACOMBER wrote:
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 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), '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).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic 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 increment 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 coming 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 else answers the description.
The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment-'incomes, from whatever source derived'-the essential thought being expressed [252 U.S. 189, 208] with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution. [/size]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration
parados wrote:Oh, so the words in the statute are irrelevant? They seemed relevant when you argued the statute didn't include the word "liability." Amazing how pointing out your false argument suddenly change the relevancy.
Again, to repeat a prior message of mine:
The word liability being in the title is not the actual statute. You will find nowhere where it says people who earn x amount shall be liable for this income tax imposed.
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:
Please cite the section of Eisner that says wages are not income. Wages are not mentioned in Eisner.
EISNER V MACOMBER wrote:
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 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140 [58 L. Ed. 285]; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 , 38 S. Sup. Ct. 467, 469 [62 L. Ed. 1054]), '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).
Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic 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 increment 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 coming 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 else answers the description.
The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment-'incomes, from whatever source derived'-the essential thought being expressed [252 U.S. 189, 208] with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution. [/size]
That quote blows your entire argument out of the water..
The 16th amendment means it doesn't matter what the source of the money is or where it is derived from it is income. Wages are income as defined earlier in your quote. Since wages are the result of labor and ''Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," So the gain from labor is income. Since you said wages come from labor then wages are income as defined by the 16th amendment.
That leads us back to the 16th amendment. An amendment can not be unconstitutional by its very nature. No court has ruled it was unconstitutional and income as defined in the 16th amendment includes wages which are income from labor. So, it appears that the court rulings you cited don't support your claim at all. They flat out dispute it. Since the 16th allows for taxation on all income from whatever source derived that means the income tax is constitutional.
Let me requote the 16th for you again.
Quote:Since Eisner says that income is from labor and you have admitted that wages come from labor and the 16th says ALL income can be collected without apportionment then there is no constitutional requirement that income taxes be apportioned whether they are direct or not.The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Oh, so the words in the statute are irrelevant? They seemed relevant when you argued the statute didn't include the word "liability." Amazing how pointing out your false argument suddenly change the relevancy.
Again, to repeat a prior message of mine:
The word liability being in the title is not the actual statute. You will find nowhere where it says people who earn x amount shall be liable for this income tax imposed.
Please cite the court ruling that shows that words in the statute are not in the statute if they are in a title instead of the body. Because the word is in a title does not remove it from the law as passed by Congress. The word existed when they passed it. The word existed when it was signed into law.
The place where it says people that earn x amount owe y amount is pretty clear too. Part of it is here...
Quote:The title is "Determination of Liability." I think anyone with half a brain can understand that the determination is of liability since it states that is what is being determined in this section based on the title. The tax is imposed on the taxable income. Please provide your source where it says "imposed" means voluntary. As previously pointed out, all taxes are imposed. A tax that is imposed is not voluntary.(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
If taxable income is: The tax is:
Not over $22,100 15% of taxable income.
Over $22,100 but not over $53,500 $3,315, plus 28% of the excess over $22,100.
Over $53,500 but not over $115,000 $12,107, plus 31% of the excess over $53,500.
Over $115,000 but not over $250,000 $31,172, plus 36% of the excess over $115,000.
Over $250,000 $79,772, plus 39.6% of the excess over $250,000.
The title is "Determination of Liability." I think anyone with half a brain can understand that the determination is of liability since it states that is what is being determined in this section based on the title.
The tax is imposed on the taxable income. Please provide your source where it says "imposed" means voluntary. As previously pointed out, all taxes are imposed. A tax that is imposed is not voluntary.
The Court's Definition of Income:
'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.
You very conveniently forgot the bold-faced part of the definition. The definition in its entirety makes your following analysis incorrect.
The only thing that fits this description is profit received from corporate activity. Thats also why the case states: Nothing else answers the description.
'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,'
parados wrote:
The title is "Determination of Liability." I think anyone with half a brain can understand that the determination is of liability since it states that is what is being determined in this section based on the title.
Its an easy thing to assume. The income tax 'laws' are worded deceptively on purpose.
parados wrote:
The tax is imposed on the taxable income. Please provide your source where it says "imposed" means voluntary. As previously pointed out, all taxes are imposed. A tax that is imposed is not voluntary.
I fail to see why you continue to put words in my mouth. I didnt say a tax imposed means its voluntary. What I said was for a tax to be VALID it not only has to be imposed but has to have a liability created for it.
There are taxes imposed on cigarette mfg for example but that doesnt mean YOU have to pay them because you are not liable for them.The creation of a liability must clearly exist.
A little Devil's Advocate on my part:
Lets say A tax is imposed on 'taxable income' [taxable corporate profit] Okay, lets say that Im liable simply because of the imposition. Then its a direct tax on my personal income and it has to be apportioned as per the Supreme Court. But the income tax is not apportioned. It is still unconstitutional. What does that tell you?
We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
Quote:The Court's Definition of Income:
'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.
You very conveniently forgot the bold-faced part of the definition. The definition in its entirety makes your following analysis incorrect.
The only thing that fits this description is profit received from corporate activity. Thats also why the case states: Nothing else answers the description.
I didn't forget it at all. It is a logical fallacy to require that because something is included then it must be the entire definition. Profit gained through a sale is NOT and can never be from labor yet the definition includes gain derived from labor.
The definition must include profit from sale but is not restricted to it by the court.Quote:is cited as the definition in no less than 3 USSC cases. The addendum that should be included in Eisner doesn't change the definition.'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,'
Richard Saunders wrote:Really? So any tax law that doesn't use the word, "liability" is not valid then? Let's test this theory of yours. Is the estate tax valid? It never uses the word liable or liability. Tobacco tax? Alcohol tax? FICA for employers? FICA for employees? In fact I can't find a single tax in the US tax code that uses the word "liable" or "liability" when it talks about who pays or what the rate is. Are you saying all US taxes are invalid because they don't use the word "liable?" Do you really think your position is historically accurate or even feasable based on over 200 years of taxation in the US?parados wrote:
The title is "Determination of Liability." I think anyone with half a brain can understand that the determination is of liability since it states that is what is being determined in this section based on the title.
Its an easy thing to assume. The income tax 'laws' are worded deceptively on purpose.
parados wrote:
The tax is imposed on the taxable income. Please provide your source where it says "imposed" means voluntary. As previously pointed out, all taxes are imposed. A tax that is imposed is not voluntary.
I fail to see why you continue to put words in my mouth. I didnt say a tax imposed means its voluntary. What I said was for a tax to be VALID it not only has to be imposed but has to have a liability created for it.
Quote:That makes no sense. The tax is imposed on the product in that case. The word "liability" or "liable" is never used in the tax code concerning tobacco taxes. If I buy cigarettes can I avoid paying the tax because the word "liable" is not in the code? Can the manufacturer or importer avoid paying those taxes because the word "liable" is not in the code?
There are taxes imposed on cigarette mfg for example but that doesnt mean YOU have to pay them because you are not liable for them.The creation of a liability must clearly exist.
Quote:It tells me that you still have not addressed the issue of the 16th amendment which removes the need for apportionment for income taxes. Please explain how the 16th amendment is unconstitutional.
A little Devil's Advocate on my part:
Lets say A tax is imposed on 'taxable income' [taxable corporate profit] Okay, lets say that Im liable simply because of the imposition. Then its a direct tax on my personal income and it has to be apportioned as per the Supreme Court. But the income tax is not apportioned. It is still unconstitutional. What does that tell you?
Then while you are at it, you might want to explain which court ruling overturned Spinger v US
where a personal income tax was declared constitutional. Pollack overturned part of it in reference to income from personal property but never oveturned it in reference to income from wages. The 16th amendment then made Pollock moot since it made an income tax exempt from apportionment.
Further Pollock, which is the only USSC ruling ever declaring an income tax unconstitutional states.
Quote:So, a tax on employments is constitutional and is not a direct tax. What is a tax on an employment if not a tax on the income from that employment?We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income derived from real estate, and from invested personal property, and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and been sustained as such.
Is the estate tax valid? It never uses the word liable or liability. Tobacco tax? Alcohol tax? FICA for employers? FICA for employees? In fact I can't find a single tax in the US tax code that uses the word "liable" or "liability" when it talks about who pays or what the rate is. Are you saying all US taxes are invalid because they don't use the word "liable?"
The 16th amendment then made Pollock moot since it made an income tax exempt from apportionment.
The 16th amendment then made Pollack moot since it made a corporate excise tax exempt from apportionment.
