7000 Citizens Violently Threatened By The State Of Indiana, page 24

reply to post by rnaa

---

The income tax law is taxing income.

Is it your assertion that income is the subject of the tax? Show me where a tax has been imposed upon income.

Income is an increase in assets.

Income defined:

The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments.

Money defined:

1. A medium that can be exchanged for goods and services and is used as a measure of their values on the market, including among its forms a commodity such as gold, an officially issued coin or note, or a deposit in a checking account or other readily liquefiable account.

2. The official currency, coins, and negotiable paper notes issued by a government.

3. Assets and property considered in terms of monetary value; wealth.

Income has not been statutorily defined, so we must turn to the ordinary meaning of income, which is money, and money is assets, or property.

The income tax law does not need to list every possible source of income, because the 16th Amendment says that The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived....

The 16th Amendment does not say that income has been made the subject of any tax...

You are being flippantly derisive of those words, but they are the Constitutional provision that is applicable. Income is income, from whatever source derived.

Show me where income has been made the subject of a tax.

To the best of my knowledge, wages and professional activities are a source of income.

And when the source is being considered this is your first clue that the tax is not a tax upon income but upon some specified activity.

Washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is a source of income for some people.

And as a source of income, it is not the income that is being taxed, or the source wouldn't be considered at all.

The act of landscaping, is a source of income for some people.

Same answer as above.

What has not be named as taxed events is defined by the words in the Constitution: from whatever source derived.

Income is not an event, it is property, or as you put it, an increase in assets. "From whatever source derived" is certainly not an event. Who do you think you're kidding?



[edit on 8-9-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

reply to post by rnaa

---

Because that was the part of the paragraph that lied about my argument. The other sentence was not a lie.

Which is the same as saying that; well I had to leave out that other part because if I posted that part with what I quoted, then I would look pretty stupid calling you a liar.

Do you feel guilty about lying even when you are telling the truth? The simple solution to that is to avoid telling lies, then you don't have to worry about remembering what lies you are telling and getting caught out.

Right. Tell me, are you still beating your wife? Do you still molest children? Loaded questions, are loaded questions, rnaa, and if you hope to trip someone up with a loaded question, you have to be a tad bit brighter than you've been.

It has been you who has been exposed as the liar, and you who can't seem to remember what was said, even in the same post. When it suits your purposes, income is an increase in assets, and assets in this context are valuable items that are owned, which is property, but then when it suits your purposes, the income tax is not a direct tax on income, but is an indirect tax on the activity, which you claim is "from whatever source derived", which is heretofore a new and undiscovered activity that you have mysteriously declared an activity, but when that doesn't work for you, then indirect and direct have no meaning any longer. Seriously, who besides maybe yourself, do you really think you're fooling?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Where exactly in the Constitution does it grant the courts the power of judicial review? That would be the same judicial review that was being used in the matter of Brushaber and Stanton.

You can't be seriously asking that question.

Article III Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Brushaber does not support your argument, and I've already explained why, ad infinitum. We'll try once more though:

As construed by the Supreme Court in the Brushaber case, the power of Congress to tax income derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, of the original Constitution rather than from the Sixteenth Amendment; the latter simply eliminated the requirement that an income tax, to the extent that it is a direct tax, must be apportioned among the states.

That Extract is from Boris I. Bittker, Martin J. McMahon, Jr. & Lawrence A. Zelenak, Federal Income Taxation of Individuals, ch. 1, paragr. 1.01[1][a], Research Institute of America (2d ed. 2005), as retrieved from 2002 WL 1454829 (W. G. & L.). as quoted at Wikipedia: Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad

This is the same point I've been trying to get you to understand from the beginning.

Furthermore, your appeal to Stanton has also been shot down by the courts, specifically in Parker v Commissioner of the IRS.

(excerpt from Wikipedia: Tax Protester Sixteenth Amendment Arguments)

In Parker v. Commissioner, tax protester Alton M. Parker, Sr.,[41] challenged the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.,[42] to the effect that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged [. . . .]"[43] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected Parker's argument, and stated that Parker's proposition is "only partially correct, and in its critical aspect, is incorrect.[44] The Court of Appeals re-affirmed that the Congress has the power to impose the income tax, and stated that the Sixteenth Amendment "merely eliminates the requirement that the direct income tax be apportioned among the states."[45] The court ruled that Parker had raised a "frivolous" appeal.[46]

Tax protesters argue that in light of this language, the income tax is unconstitutional in that it is a direct tax and that the tax should be apportioned (divided equally amongst the population of the various states).[6][47]

The above quoted language in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. is not a holding of law in the case. (Compare Ratio decidendi, Precedent, Stare decisis and Obiter dictum for a fuller explanation.)

The quoted language regarding the "complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning" is a reference to the power granted to Congress by the original text of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. The reference to "being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it [the income tax] belonged" is a reference to the effect of the 1895 Court decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[48] where taxes on income from property (such as interest income and dividend income) — which, like taxes on income from labor, had always been considered indirect taxes (and therefore not subject to the apportionment rule) — were, beginning in 1895, treated as direct taxes. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the effect of Pollock,[49] making the source of the income irrelevant with respect to the apportionment rule, and thereby placing taxes on income from property back into the category of indirect taxes such as income from labor (the Sixteenth Amendment expressly stating that Congress has power to impose income taxes regardless of the source of the income, without apportionment among the states, and without regard to any census or enumeration).

Emphasis mine.

The 16th Amendment allows Congress to tax income derived from any source in the same manner. Wage income is treated in the same way as rental income. Income is income no matter what its source.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Income has not been statutorily defined, so we must turn to the ordinary meaning of income, which is money, and money is assets, or property.

I agree with having to use the ordinary meaning of income, but your derivation is incorrect and a central fallacy in your argument I suspect.

Even your definition defines income as "money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments."

'received over time' - an increase in assets, not an asset.

Ordinary meaning from Merriam Webster:

1
: a coming in : entrance, influx luctuations in the nutrient income of a body of water>
2
: a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time as an income of $30,000 a year>

A 'coming in' sounds mightily like an event doesn't it?

A 'gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money, sounds a lot like an increase in assets, not the asset itself.

So, income is an increase in assets or property, not assets or property. Money is the measure of the income not the income.

An analogy if you don't mind. Acceleration is not the velocity of a vehicle, acceleration is the change in velocity of the vehicle. Likewise, income is not the value of personal property, income is the change in value of personal property.

Show me where income has been made the subject of a tax.

Are you denying that Congress has the power to impose a tax on income? Are you denying that Congress has indeed passed a law to do just that?

And when the source is being considered this is your first clue that the tax is not a tax upon income but upon some specified activity.

And when it is income this is your first clue that the source is irrelevant.

Income is not an event, it is property, or as you put it, an increase in assets. "From whatever source derived" is certainly not an event. Who do you think you're kidding?

I am not kidding anyone, who do you think you are fooling with your obfuscation. Does Congress have "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived" or not? Have they passed a law to do so or not?

Yes, income is an increase in assets. It is the increase that is what is being taxed. That is why it is considered an indirect tax, if it were the asset itself being taxed it would be a direct tax. Your insistence that an indirect tax can only be defined by an event, and that an exchange of labor or service does not classify as an acceptable event is spurious and wrong in fact and in law. It is indirect because it what is being taxed is something indirectly related to the underlying asset.

Income from wage labor is indirect because it is not the labor being taxed, but the income from the labor, which is indirectly related to the labor itself.

Until Pollack, income from property was considered an indirect tax for exactly the same reason, it wasn't the property being taxed, but the income from the property therefore it was an indirect tax on the property.

Pollack found that tax on income from property was essentially the same thing as a tax on the underlying asset and so must be considered a direct tax. Again, this is the anomaly that the 16th fixed, and it is the only thing that 16 did.



[edit on 8/9/2010 by rnaa]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Which is the same as saying that; well I had to leave out that other part because if I posted that part with what I quoted, then I would look pretty stupid calling you a liar.

Let me get this straight.

You made two assertions one of which is a lie and one of which is not a lie.

I am stupid for pointing out the statement that is a lie, and silently agreeing with your statement that is true.

I assume, that in your world telling a lie and a truth in the same paragraph somehow makes both statements true? Or is it just that somehow one truth is enough to cancel out the lie, so everything balances out to neutral?

What planet are you from again?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

---

Maybe you are a visual kind of guy. Here are some Venn diagrams to illustrate the situation.