Apostolic Friends Forum - Mr. Brown's War and the income tax rebellion

Apostolic Friends Forum (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/index.php)

- Fellowship Hall (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=7)

- - Mr. Brown's War and the income tax rebellion (https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php?t=5328)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447 (Post 169368)

Chan what do you not understand about "conferred no new taxing powers?"

“The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation . . .” — United States Supreme Court, Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916)
“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...” — United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918)

Yes, no NEW taxing powers. Congress had power to tax under the Constitution prior to the 16th amendment. Note the following from Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Notice the following from Artilce I, Section 9:

(No capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment). This is the part that the 16th amendment changed.

Chan is the last person I would get into a debate with about what the letter of the law actually says. lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 168484)

The fact that Congress has established income tax rates is sufficient evidence that there is a law on the books requiring citizens to pay taxes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 168484)

Of course, Title 26 of the United States Code (the federal laws) identifies who is required to file an income tax return (see section 6011 of 26 USC). There is nothing in the 16th amendment about the income having to be profit, it just says "incomes, from whatever source derived..." Your dad could give you $20.00 and it is technically "income" under the 16th amendment.

Our definition of income has changed over the years. The change has largely come from a continual attempt at reinterpreting Title 26. So the new interpretation comes from an attempt to reinterpret. That is circular reasoning at its finest.

Here are a few court cases where the definition of income was addressed. The first 2 are working up to it but the rest pretty much deal directly with the issue at hand.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)

"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth (Post 169435)

And the fact that a pastor says it is sufficient enough evidence that something someone is involved in is sin?

Basically the same statement but on a religious level rather than political. The Congress is made up of men....errant men...

The fact that we went to war in Iraq is sufficient enough evidence that there was reason to do so?

You know this isn't a true statement Chan.

Our definition of income has changed over the years. The change has largely come from a continual attempt at reinterpreting Title 26. So the new interpretation comes from an attempt to reinterpret. That is circular reasoning at its finest.

Here are a few court cases where the definition of income was addressed. The first 2 are working up to it but the rest pretty much deal directly with the issue at hand.

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable..."

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

"The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

"The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it... It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and 'wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)

"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.”

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

"... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of 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 and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. "

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)

"before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540."

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

"Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.”

The amendment itself doesn't define "income" or "derived." That being the case, if Congress chooses to define "income" a certain way, it has the power to do so. Legislative acts (other than the the parts of the Constitution itself not amended in the 16th amendment) prior to the 16th amendment are irrelevant to the discussion.

You said, "The Congress is made up of men....errant men..." Well, so is the Supreme Court (which, by the way, does not have any authority under Article III to "interpret" the Constitution or its amendments).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 169443)

Isn't Title 26 supposed to define income?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digging4Truth (Post 169446)

Isn't Title 26 supposed to define income?

Is it "supposed to" define income? See the links here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/us...30_B_40_I.html

(a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Also...

(a) In general Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chan (Post 169507)

The change in the definition of income over time (in our minds.. not in the law) is apparent in your post.

If income were wages or compensation for labor wouldn't that be on the list and most likely first?

The list demonstrates the intent. The incomes listed are business related and do not have to do with compensation for labor.

It did not define what INCOME was. Notice is is are reference to what "Gross" Income is not Income. You cannot define a Income by saying Gross Income is "INCOME" The term "ALL" is giving reference to what Gross is. The Supreme Court has said the IRC does not define Income. Another thing, Income to be taxed due to all the decisions previosly listed does not mean everything that comes in. It is "profits" based off of capital investment or those off of laborers of a business. Otherwise businesses would pay income on everything thus it is on the "profits." READ THE DECISIONS! Income by the courts has been narrowed down to certain activity and "GAIN." I as a WAGE EARNER do not make PROFIT I lose time of my life and off from my day and thus exchange loss of time and energy for money. Thus it is not a profit. The compensation for services or fees is a direct result of business activities thus create profits.

Notice how the definiton in 61 changed AFTER 1939

The 1939 Code said "gross income includes income, gains, and profits derived from salaries, wages, and compensation for services..."

Notice they took salaries and wages out!

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUKE2447 (Post 169570)

I agree that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't specifically define what "income" is but we can get a good idea of what it is from what the code says, e.g. "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived." For the purpose of this discussion, "gross income" is synonymous with "income" in that it's what you or I have before the government gets its grubby hands on it and before we avail ourselves of any of the government-granted "deductions."

Quote:

Notice how the definiton in 61 changed AFTER 1939

The 1939 Code said "gross income includes income, gains, and profits derived from salaries, wages, and compensation for services..."

Notice they took salaries and wages out!

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

"...the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code..."

Notice that the definition now includes the phrase "including (but not limited to)" and the phrase "and similar items." I think the vagueness of it was intentional but that's another matter.

As for Supreme Court decisions, they're not amendments to the Constitution and they're not legislation.

"I agree that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't specifically define what "income" is but we can get a good idea of what it is from what the code says, e.g. "Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived." For the purpose of this discussion, "gross income" is synonymous with "income" in that it's what you or I have before the government gets its grubby hands on it and before we avail ourselves of any of the government-granted "deductions."

Major issue with what you are trying to interpret "into" the section vs define from the section. I may derive "income" from a business transaction but am I taxed on the total transactions or the profits in total from my business dealing? THe courts have decided on what "income" is and it is "profits" or "gain" Again read the decisions and yes it does matter as congress has never given a "legislative" definition that I know of. The courts have decided through variable means why it did defined a certain way. The end result I don't make profits. Seems to be you want ot ignore the Supreme Court because it conflicts with you basis.

Also whether it says including (but not limited to)" and the phrase "and similar items." means nothing really and is weak and PURE speculation. Why in the world would they take out the most CLEAR point of what "income" is by definition in relationship to the masses? Especially when it was CLEARLY defined before. To say well it might not but it can "allude" to is simple government trying to keep the issue vague when they know it's not. Why is wages and salaries not listed! The reason BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROFITS or GAINS! Notice the previous wording on that as well. It is an exchange, thus equal! I agree the wording does cause confusion and yes it was done on purpose. The most two basic ways of gaining "alleged" income not defined and taken out hmmmm geee wonder why!!!! Then obscure wording used. the clear meaning of the courts on the decisions is clear "income" is not just ANYTHING brought in! That is the WHOLE point of the previous court decisions. It is profits FROM CAPITAL or LABOR. I as a person who earns wages or salary do not as I have a even exhange. A business most of the time has laborers involved in which cost(having workers to fullfill obligation on behalf of the business vs benefit(the cost of workers being less than services or product rendered) is realized by the company. Thus as you know the company or business makes a "profit" in the end. As I a worker cannot have a profit as I am of equal exchange.

"As for Supreme Court decisions, they're not amendments to the Constitution and they're not legislation."

You ought to know better than that. They both work hand in hand!

Also is the rents, interest, royalties etc... in Section 61 sources or income?