It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The income tax law is taxing income.
Income is an increase in assets.
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.
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.
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....
You are being flippantly derisive of those words, but they are the Constitutional provision that is applicable. Income is income, from whatever source derived.
To the best of my knowledge, wages and professional activities are a source of income.
Washing dishes in a restaurant, for example, is a source of income for some people.
The act of landscaping, is a source of income for some people.
What has not be named as taxed events is defined by the words in the Constitution: from whatever source derived.
Because that was the part of the paragraph that lied about my argument. The other sentence was not a lie.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(excerpt from Wikipedia: Tax Protester Sixteenth Amendment Arguments)
In Parker v. Commissioner, tax protester Alton M. Parker, Sr., challenged the levying of tax upon individual income, based on language in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 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 [. . . .]" 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. 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." The court ruled that Parker had raised a "frivolous" appeal.
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).
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., 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, 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).
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.
: a coming in : entrance, influx
: 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
Show me where income has been made the subject of a tax.
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.
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?
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.
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.
To the IRS,
I ask for answers to the following to be made under penalty of Perjury:
1) the law requiring Americans to pay income tax
2) their regulatory authority and delegated authority to address me
3) the law which made the IRS part of the Constitution
4) the agent’s oath of office, and
5) produce the contract with both signatures on it
Until I receive answers to these question above, I demand that you immediately cease and desist the proceedings under the color-of-law against the Sovereign in the party,
Originally posted by daddio
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I will never go to court as they are not courts of law but courts of equity. I send leters like the one below. Done deal.
5) produce the contract with both signatures on it
It is so much fun.
Originally posted by Demoncreeper
This title is misleading.
They weren't "violently" threatened.
Warrants were issued for 7,000 taxpayers, and many of them showed up at the same time, eager to set up payments on overdue state taxes to avoid arrest.
Hey, here's an idea.
Pay your damn taxes.
Originally posted by Onboard2
Originally posted by rakkasansct
So are you advocating for a monarchy? Or what form of govt do you think we should have?
Yeah, monarchy over dumb, mob rule.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Jurisdiction CANNOT be granted by consent where none exists.
This is a harmful lie.
It is a fact. You thrive on distortion and manipulation, but that does not alter the facts or the law.
There is a reason that police officers ask people for permission to enter into a home, or a car, or a back pack or purse to inspect it, and that is because they have no jurisdiction to do so without that permission, and you asserting this lie is harmful to anyone who would be foolish enough to believe you.
Yes, there is (just not the one you cited)! It is so the unwary will give permission!
Do you intentionally conflate "permission" with "jurisdiction," or do you just not know the difference?
More falsehoods from a serial deceiver. Police officers with lawful authority may search a person, conveyance or place without any grant by you of permission.
When you say "yes," you have granted them permission, not jurisdiction!