You're still forgetting the 3 little words in your definition that Eisner focuesed on "derived-from-capital" or "derived-from-labor" which is the gain separated from its source.. That does not happen in the case of somebodys salary or wages but only with corporate activity.
Richard, may I welcome you to the forum, and your timely contribution to this debate.
"I guess most people would find this stuff boring"
I doubt the administration is losing much sleep over this topic, however, the more people who enquire, raise points and debate the legalities of the issue, the better informed we will all be. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Im not sure why you do this, but you have a habit of reading different things into my post. I have never said that the 16th ammendment is unconstitutional yet you want me to explain how I think its unconstitutional??? WHat is not constitutional is an unapportioned tax on ones salary or wages. The govt is totally allowed to tax us directly but it must be apportioned.
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.
Now as far as those taxes are concerned. Every single one of them that you listed uses the word liable or liability to describe who is responsible for paying them. Hell, the codebook even indexes them all under liability to make it easy to find.
When you have some extra time you should try an experiment. Write a simple letter to your senator or congressman and ask him to cite which law requires you to pay an income tax on your labor. I think you'll be surprised by the response you get.
Quote:The 16th amendment then made Pollock moot since it made an income tax exempt from apportionment.
You are absolutely correct in your above quote. Except to make that quote better understood it should be rephrased as
Quote:The 16th amendment then made Pollack moot since it made a corporate excise tax exempt from apportionment.
Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past.
From the foregoing it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on [157 U.S. 429, 574] real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes;
'Our conclusions are that direct taxes, within the meaning of the constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate; and that the tax of which the plaintiff in error complains is within the category of an excise or duty.'
We are of opinion that the law in question, so far as it levies a tax on the rents or income of real estate, is in violation of the constitution, and is invalid.
Richard Saunders wrote:You're still forgetting the 3 little words in your definition that Eisner focuesed on "derived-from-capital" or "derived-from-labor" which is the gain separated from its source.. That does not happen in the case of somebodys salary or wages but only with corporate activity.
I am not forgetting them at all. You are arguing that those 3 words are the sole meaning in the definition. That is a logical fallacy. They are part of a part of the definition. They are no means the entire definition or required for anything other than the limited scope of Eisner.
Your argument is meaningless in light of the 16th amendment. You can keep repeating it all you want the 16th amendment says Congress can tax income whatever the source derived without needing to apportion it.
Income for labor is not a direct source under constitutional law so doesn't have to be apportioned if taxed. Court rulings have said as much. First you have to define what is a direct tax. The courts have done that. Income from labor is not included under the direct tax definition.
Quote:Im not sure why you do this, but you have a habit of reading different things into my post. I have never said that the 16th ammendment is unconstitutional yet you want me to explain how I think its unconstitutional??? WHat is not constitutional is an unapportioned tax on ones salary or wages. The govt is totally allowed to tax us directly but it must be apportioned.
The 16th amendment.
Quote: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 16th amendment says income can be taxed without apportionment. The courts have ruled as much. The language is quite clear. Congress can tax income no matter where you get that income. The amendment says nothing about restricting income to corporations.
How can the 16th amendment NOT apply to income from wages? No one can reasonably argue that you get no gain from your wage.
The courts have said that income is gain from labor. There can be no argument that a wage earned is not a gain. Your argument makes no sense if you are trying to say that income from working is not derived so is not income. It has no legal basis. It has no logical basis. Your attempt to quote Eisner is silly. It ignores what the court said and attempt to twist it to fit something that it in no way makes sense. Wages are derived from the labor you provide in exchange for the wage. There can really be no question about that.
Now as far as those taxes are concerned. Every single one of them that you listed uses the word liable or liability to describe who is responsible for paying them. Hell, the codebook even indexes them all under liability to make it easy to find.
Really? Please provide the quote from the US code that shows this. Cite the subchapter so it can be checked.
The US code for Title 26 can be found here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
When you have some extra time you should try an experiment. Write a simple letter to your senator or congressman and ask him to cite which law requires you to pay an income tax on your labor. I think you'll be surprised by the response you get.
I don't have to write him. I cited it for you. Because you don't want to believe it doesn't change the facts. Title 26 is where you can find the income tax code. The tax is imposed. Your silly word games don't change the code nor do they change the court rulings on the code nor do they change the fact that people that have made the arguments you are attempting to make have gone to jail. Why did they go to jail? Because they attempted to avoid the law. This isn't some conspiracy by the government. This is reality that some people refuse to believe no matter how hard it hits them in the face.
1. The 16th amendment allows Congress to pass an income tax.
2. The courts have ruled that income includes gain from labor.
3. Wages are gain from labor
4. All your outlandish arguments that you have not supported with any court rulings have shown nothing but willing disbelief on your part.
Quote:The 16th amendment then made Pollock moot since it made an income tax exempt from apportionment.
You are absolutely correct in your above quote. Except to make that quote better understood it should be rephrased as
Quote:The 16th amendment then made Pollack moot since it made a corporate excise tax exempt from apportionment.
Your reading could be considered accurate but it leaves out several other items. Prior to Pollock the USSC had ruled that income taxes on personal income not related to income from property was constitutional. (See Sullivan.) Pollock didn't overturn that ruling. Prior to Pollock it had been determined that taxes on ALL income, personal and corporate, were constitutional. Pollock only said that corporate income derived from property violated the constitution. It said nothing about taxes on wages violating it. Brushaber references the fact that taxes on wages have always been considered an excise tax therefor they are not subject to apportionment.
From Brushaber. Brushaber v Union Pacific
Quote:Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past.
So lets go look at Pollock
The courts says..
Quote:From the foregoing it is apparent (1) that the distinction between direct and indirect taxation was well understood by the framers of the constitution and those who adopted it; (2) that, under the state system of taxation, all taxes on [157 U.S. 429, 574] real estate or personal property or the rents or income thereof were regarded as direct taxes;
If you read Pollock you will see that those are the ONLY taxes that are considered direct. All others are considered indirect. What Pollock did was rule that a tax on the income from property and real estates was the same thing as a tax directly on property and real estate. All other income taxes are not direct taxes but would be indirect.
I am curious as to where you think a wage comes from if it is not derived from anything.
I guess I always assumed the wage was derived from the work performed. You give someone your labor and they give you money.
As for your argument that the 16th only refers to "corporate" income. Please show me where the word "corporate" is included in the 16th amendment. First you say I have to include all the words, even a subjective phrase, then you include words that aren't even there.
Quote:The 16th amendment says income can be taxed without apportionment. The courts have ruled as much. The language is quite clear. Congress can tax income no matter where you get that income. The amendment says nothing about restricting income to corporations.
How can the 16th amendment NOT apply to income from wages? No one can reasonably argue that you get no gain from your wage.
The Supreme Court has so stated.
Richard Saunders wrote:Where? You have provided no source that states that. Your misquotating of Eisner doesn't prove anything. If you want to get into the specifics of Eisner we can. Feel free to point to where Eisner says wages are NOT income. It never states it.Quote:The 16th amendment says income can be taxed without apportionment. The courts have ruled as much. The language is quite clear. Congress can tax income no matter where you get that income. The amendment says nothing about restricting income to corporations.
How can the 16th amendment NOT apply to income from wages? No one can reasonably argue that you get no gain from your wage.
The Supreme Court has so stated.
You are relying on a logical fallacy.
If I state there are 5 prime numbers between zero and 10 provided the number 7 as being the only prime larger than 5 and less than 10. Does that mean that 2 is not a prime number less than 10? To say 7 is the only prime number would a logical fallacy. The same logical fallacy you used to claim that anything not included in the "provided" statement can't be true.
Richard, may I welcome you to the forum, and your timely contribution to this debate.
"I guess most people would find this stuff boring"
I doubt the administration is losing much sleep over this topic, however, the more people who enquire, raise points and debate the legalities of the issue, the better informed we will all be. I look forward to reading more of your thoughts.
Your Labor IS your personal property. Your wages ARE your personal property. A tax on your wages IS a tax directly on your Labor.
IT is a direct tax on property that must be apportioned.
Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class [240 U.S. 1, 17] of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it. Nothing could serve to make this clearer than to recall that in the Pollock Case, in so far as the law taxed incomes from other classes of property than real estate and invested personal property, that is, income from 'professions, trades, employments, or vocations' ( 158 U.S. 637 ), its validity was recognized; indeed, it was expressly declared that no dispute was made upon that subject, and attention was called to the fact that taxes on such income had been sustained as excise taxes in the past.
Again, you are incorrect. Brushaber says that a tax on INCOME is in its nature an excise tax. It is an excise taxed on privilege. The tax isnt on the profit, but the profit is used to determine the amount of tax to be placed on the corporate privilege
Quote:
Now as far as those taxes are concerned. Every single one of them that you listed uses the word liable or liability to describe who is responsible for paying them. Hell, the codebook even indexes them all under liability to make it easy to find.
Quote:
Really? Please provide the quote from the US code that shows this. Cite the subchapter so it can be checked.
The US code for Title 26 can be found here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
They are there under each tax.. I told you before about wanting to debate a 54,000 page document. How can you honestly tell me they are not there when they clearly are?? It seems youve never read the IRC.
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004]
[CITE: 26USC5081]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 51--DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Subchapter A--Gallonage and Occupational Taxes
PART II--OCCUPATIONAL TAX
Subpart A--Proprietors of Distilled Spirits Plants, Bonded Wine Cellars,
Etc.
Sec. 5081. Imposition and rate of tax
(a) General rule
Every proprietor of--
(1) a distilled spirits plant,
(2) a bonded wine cellar,
(3) a bonded wine warehouse, or
(4) a taxpaid wine bottling house,
shall pay a tax of $1,000 per year in respect of each such premises.
(b) Reduced rates for small proprietors
(1) In general
Subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ``$500'' for
``$1,000'' with respect to any taxpayer not described in subsection
(c) the gross receipts of which (for the most recent taxable year
ending before the 1st day of the taxable period to which the tax
imposed by subsection (a) relates) are less than $500,000.
(2) Controlled group rules
All persons treated as 1 taxpayer under section 5061(e)(3) shall
be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of paragraph (1).
(3) Certain rules to apply
For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 448(c)(3) shall apply.
(c) Exemption for small producers
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any taxpayer who is a
proprietor of an eligible distilled spirits plant (as defined in section
5181(c)(4)).
(Added Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10512(a)(1)(A), Dec. 22, 1987, 101
Stat. 1330-447; amended Pub. L. 100-647, title VI, Sec. 6106(a), (b),
Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3712.)
Prior Provisions
Prior sections 5081 to 5084 of this title constituted a former
subpart A of this part, see Prior Provisions note set out preceding this
section.
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004]
[CITE: 26USC5121]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 51--DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Subchapter A--Gallonage and Occupational Taxes
PART II--OCCUPATIONAL TAX
Subpart E--Retail Dealers
Sec. 5121. Imposition and rate of tax
(a) Retail dealers in liquors
Every retail dealer in liquors shall pay a special tax of $250 a
year.
(b) Retail dealers in beer
Every retail dealer in beer shall pay a special tax of $250 a year.
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 53--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
Subchapter A--Taxes
PART III--TAX ON MAKING FIREARMS
Sec. 5821. Making tax
(a) Rate
There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a
firearm a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm made.
(b) By whom paid
The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be paid by
the person making the firearm.
(c) Payment
The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be payable
by the stamp prescribed for payment by the Secretary.
Quote:Quote:
Now as far as those taxes are concerned. Every single one of them that you listed uses the word liable or liability to describe who is responsible for paying them. Hell, the codebook even indexes them all under liability to make it easy to find.
Quote:
Really? Please provide the quote from the US code that shows this. Cite the subchapter so it can be checked.
The US code for Title 26 can be found here.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html
They are there under each tax.. I told you before about wanting to debate a 54,000 page document. How can you honestly tell me they are not there when they clearly are?? It seems youve never read the IRC.
Who wants to debate the entire 54,000 page document? This is about your lie that you can't back up. You haven't provide one instance of the use of the word "liability" in any of the tax code. You stated it is in "every single one of them."
Here is the code for buildings that produce alcohol. Who is liable for the tax? Or does no one have to pay the tax because it doesn't state who is liable?
Quote:From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004]
[CITE: 26USC5081]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 51--DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Subchapter A--Gallonage and Occupational Taxes
PART II--OCCUPATIONAL TAX
Subpart A--Proprietors of Distilled Spirits Plants, Bonded Wine Cellars,
Etc.
Sec. 5081. Imposition and rate of tax
(a) General rule
Every proprietor of--
(1) a distilled spirits plant,
(2) a bonded wine cellar,
(3) a bonded wine warehouse, or
(4) a taxpaid wine bottling house,
shall pay a tax of $1,000 per year in respect of each such premises.
(b) Reduced rates for small proprietors
(1) In general
Subsection (a) shall be applied by substituting ``$500'' for
``$1,000'' with respect to any taxpayer not described in subsection
(c) the gross receipts of which (for the most recent taxable year
ending before the 1st day of the taxable period to which the tax
imposed by subsection (a) relates) are less than $500,000.
(2) Controlled group rules
All persons treated as 1 taxpayer under section 5061(e)(3) shall
be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of paragraph (1).
(3) Certain rules to apply
For purposes of paragraph (1), rules similar to the rules of
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of section 448(c)(3) shall apply.
(c) Exemption for small producers
Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any taxpayer who is a
proprietor of an eligible distilled spirits plant (as defined in section
5181(c)(4)).
(Added Pub. L. 100-203, title X, Sec. 10512(a)(1)(A), Dec. 22, 1987, 101
Stat. 1330-447; amended Pub. L. 100-647, title VI, Sec. 6106(a), (b),
Nov. 10, 1988, 102 Stat. 3712.)
Prior Provisions
Prior sections 5081 to 5084 of this title constituted a former
subpart A of this part, see Prior Provisions note set out preceding this
section.
Here is code on the retailers of alcohol. Please point out the world liable or liability
Quote:From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004]
[CITE: 26USC5121]
TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 51--DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER
Subchapter A--Gallonage and Occupational Taxes
PART II--OCCUPATIONAL TAX
Subpart E--Retail Dealers
Sec. 5121. Imposition and rate of tax
(a) Retail dealers in liquors
Every retail dealer in liquors shall pay a special tax of $250 a
year.
(b) Retail dealers in beer
Every retail dealer in beer shall pay a special tax of $250 a year.
The section on manufacturing machine guns...
Quote:Again, no use of the word liable or liability.TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle E--Alcohol, Tobacco, and Certain Other Excise Taxes
CHAPTER 53--MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER
FIREARMS
Subchapter A--Taxes
PART III--TAX ON MAKING FIREARMS
Sec. 5821. Making tax
(a) Rate
There shall be levied, collected, and paid upon the making of a
firearm a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm made.
(b) By whom paid
The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be paid by
the person making the firearm.
(c) Payment
The tax imposed by subsection (a) of this section shall be payable
by the stamp prescribed for payment by the Secretary.
Yes there are a few instances of the use of the word "liable" in the tax code but they are not every instance, nor are they even the majority of the instances.
Why is it that when someone tells you that there are over billion stars in the universe, you believe them, but if they tell you there is wet paint somewhere, you have to touch it to make sure?
"IF we get rid of the Fed, the income tax which pays for the fed will go out the window as well."
Now that is new thinking!
Each Amendment to the Constitution came about for a reason - to overrule a Supreme Court decision, to force a societal change, or to revise the details of the Constitution.
16th Amendment - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
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.
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
Quid pro quo: Or in this case; if Congress doesn't agree with the courtsÂ…change the constitution. But on no account, consult the public!!!
If I really wanted to answer your question and show you where it is I could. However you would simply go on and argue another point like youve been doing. I really am growing tired of this whole discussion.
No matter what I tell you or show you, you are still going to cling onto your belief that the income tax is a real mandatory law being enforced as such. You are no different than the people Ive talked to who cant believe that our government pays a private company face amount for the paper money they only pay 3 cents to produce.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitation upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted, in words lucidly expressing the object to be accomplished:
'The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among [252 U.S. 189, 206] the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 , 17-19, 36 Sup. Ct. 236, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713, L. R. A. 1917D, 414; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 , 112 et seq., 36 Sup. Ct. 278; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172 , 173 S., 38 Sup. Ct. 432.
A proper regard for its genesis, as well as its very clear language, requires also that this amendment shall not be extended by loose construction, so as to repeal or modify, except as applied to income, those provisions of the Constitution that require an apportionment according to population for direct taxes upon property, real and personal. This limitation still has an appropriate and important function, and is not to be overridden by Congress or disregarded by the courts.
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.
The fundamental relation of 'capital' to 'income' has been much discussed by economists, the former being likened to the tree or the land, the latter to the fruit or the crop; the former depicted as a reservoir supplied from springs, the latter as the outlet stream, to be measured by its flow during a period of time. For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term 'income,' [252 U.S. 189, 207] 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 , 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).
The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:
"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.
"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4
This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 ; Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216, 223 ; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9 ; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166 .
Sec. 22[a] of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, 686, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 669, includes among 'gross income' all 'gains, profits, and income derived ... from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.' The broad sweep of this language indicates the purpose of Congress to use the full measure of its taxing power within those definable categories
The intent to use the full extent of power being clearly evident, we must not confine the legislation within narrower forms than the statutory language would indicate.
The question is one of statutory construction. We think that the definitions of gross income (Revenue Act 1926, 213, 26 USCA 22 note; Revenue Act 1928, 22, 26 USCA 22 and note) are broad enough to cover income of that description. They are to be considered in the light of the evident intent of the Congress 'to use its power to the full extent.'
Nowhere does Eisner rule that "wages are not income."
You might want to pay attention to later rulings..
Glenshaw Glass
Quote:The sweeping scope of the controverted statute is readily apparent:
"SEC. 22. GROSS INCOME.
"(a) GENERAL DEFINITION. - `Gross income' includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service . . . of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever. . . ." (Emphasis added.) 4
This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." Helvering v. Clifford, 309 U.S. 331, 334 ; Helvering v. Midland Mutual Life Ins. Co., 300 U.S. 216, 223 ; Douglas v. Willcuts, 296 U.S. 1, 9 ; Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 166 .
Quote:Sec. 22[a] of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 680, 686, 26 U.S.C.A. Int.Rev.Acts, page 669, includes among 'gross income' all 'gains, profits, and income derived ... from professions, vocations, trades, businesses, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in such property; also from interest, rent, dividends, securities, or the transaction of any business carried on for gain or profit, or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.' The broad sweep of this language indicates the purpose of Congress to use the full measure of its taxing power within those definable categories
Helvering v Clifford
Quote:The intent to use the full extent of power being clearly evident, we must not confine the legislation within narrower forms than the statutory language would indicate.
Helvering v Midland
Quote:Douglas v WilcutsThe question is one of statutory construction. We think that the definitions of gross income (Revenue Act 1926, 213, 26 USCA 22 note; Revenue Act 1928, 22, 26 USCA 22 and note) are broad enough to cover income of that description. They are to be considered in the light of the evident intent of the Congress 'to use its power to the full extent.'
