|
Sorry to respond so late I have been out of the country and am leaving again soon so I wanted to give a little more info so everyone can understand.
Trust me this thing is even more clear when you get into activities that the IRS are involved in. They won't show the laws of legal authority for liens and levy and summons among just a few things along with Federal Witholding laws etc.... Those are a deep but clear subject in themselves.
To chan everyone of your responses still simply show me you don't understand the "legal" aspects of what has happened or the cases involved that have defined what income is. Thus the response by the House and Senate to rely on such cases. I again will restate..
My wages are exchanged for my "TIME" it cannot nor ever could be a profit. My time = $$$$ thus a exhange. I lose my time in exhange for...... It does't matter if I made a $1,000,000 dollars a second or $1 a year it is a valued exchange for my time. As I as a individual cannot make a profit on my time rendered. It is a equal exchange. What I have now is in contrast to what I lost. I lost my time which is fleeting and cannot be restored. To say well you have now something you did not have then ignores the fact of equal exchange. I also lost what I had then for whatever I gained. Back to the legal definition of "income".....
The "constitutional sense" of the word "income" is used in section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. In going from the 1939 Code which was Section 22 to the 1954 Code both the House and the Senate declared that "income" within the meaning of Section 61 is "based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income is used in it constitutional sense sense." This change in the meaning of "income" was explained in House Report No. 1337 note 10 and A18 ad Senatereport No. 1622 at note 10 and 168. The case C.I.R v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 shows this in action in footnote 11. Thus "income" in its constitutional sense means income "separated from it's source" as occurs when a corporate profit is determined. The tax is on "profit" and not on the "sources" that produced profit. This constitutional meaning of "income" is based in the decisions mentioned before and heavily on "Brushhaber vs Union Pacific RR, 240 U.S. 1 in which the Supreme Court said: "The whole purpose fo the (16th) Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from aportionment from a consideration of the sources whence the income derived." The misuse of the term "income" especially how YOU have used shows again, you have no understanding of it's meaning and application from the legal aspect. You still think in the normal term of "anything" that comes in and that is not the case.
In taxing "income" the sources i.e wages, dividends, rents, interest, captial gains that produced that "income" cannot be considered or taxed DIRECTLY or except by rule of aportionment. As this gets back to the whole rule of direct vs indirect. Now we can know that "income" in it's constitutional sense does not mean "income" in it's ordinary sense. As mentioned before in the previous cases when looking at Merchant's Loan and Trust Company vs Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 pages 518 and 519 you will see further proof that the "constitutional meaning" of "income" is "corporate profit." In that case the Supreme Court stated, "The word "income" 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 of 1909 and what that meaning is has not become definitely settled by decisions of this court." So basically we again come down to narrowed usage of the word "income" and again it is not ANYTHING or EVERYTHING.
|