Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Poohbah
Then we do not live under the rule of law, but under a tyranny of the judiciary.

And claiming that trying to understand the meaning and legal import of the term "operative sections which require the determination of taxable income" is comparable to Clintonian weaselling about the word "is" constitutes a reach in my book.
103 posted on 01/14/2003 9:37:56 AM PST by mvpel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies ]


To: mvpel
Then we do not live under the rule of law, but under a tyranny of the judiciary.

Sorry. Reread the statute C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y. "The following ITEMS of income SHALL BE TREATED AS SOURCES" makes it pretty clear that for the purposes of that section of the code, "items" and "sources" are semantically identical--and that such is the legislative intent.

And claiming that trying to understand the meaning and legal import of the term "operative sections which require the determination of taxable income" is comparable to Clintonian weaselling about the word "is" constitutes a reach in my book.

You are explicitly NOT trying to understand--you are deliberately acting as stupid as possible. Problem is, it only works ONCE.

105 posted on 01/14/2003 9:41:26 AM PST by Poohbah (When you're not looking, this tag line says something else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

To: mvpel

compensation for services or labor is an ITEM of income, not a SOURCE of income. I'm not arguing that compensation for services or labor is not expressly included.

"It is an item of gross income treated as income from sources". The exchange( of comepensation for labor) is the source of income( compensation). Got it?

Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as
income from sources
within the United States:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;

Wake up friend, you are so attached to your conclusion, that you cannot perceive the reality staring you in the face.

106 posted on 01/14/2003 9:45:07 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

To: mvpel

Then we do not live under the rule of law, but under a tyranny of the judiciary.

Seems to me you are leaving out the Constitutional authority granted to Congress, which the Judiciary is bound by.

Constitution for the United States of America:

FindLaw: U S v. GOLDENBERG, 168 U.S. 95,103 (1897)

"The primary and general rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the lawmaker is to be found in the language that he has used. He is presumed to know the meaning of words and the rules of grammar.

FindLaw: RODGERS v. U S, 185 U.S. 83 (1902)
"The primary rule of statutory construction is, of course, to give effect to the intention of the legislature."

FindLaw: S.E.C v. C. M. JOINER LEASING CORP., 320 U.S. 344,351 (1943)

"... courts will construe the details of an act in conformity with its dominating general purpose, will read text in the light of context and will interpret the text so far as the meaning of the words fairly permits so as to carry out in particular cases the generally expressed legislative policy.


108 posted on 01/14/2003 9:49:11 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson