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

To: MACVSOG68
"I just gave you the cite...CFR 26 1.61-2..."

Ahhh, not so fast. Here it is from the Code of Federal Regulations:

"PART 1--INCOME TAXES--Table of Contents

Sec. 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.

(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law. Several special rules apply to members of the Armed Forces, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Public Health Service of the United States; see paragraph (b) of this section."

All references to wages, salaries, tips and compensation for personal services were purged from the Code starting in 1954. What entity fits all the above categories? A corporation, of course. Since income has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a corporate profit, this section deftly encompasses corporations but not individuals.

Also, most people don't know to look to the "Definitions" paragraphs under each title or subtitle. That is where Congress defines the terms it uses in the statute.

As we all know, lawyers employ what are called "words of art". They can say "All individuals must pay the tax" without revealing what their definition of an "individual" is in that context. An "individual" or "person" could be a corporation, trust, partnership, many things besides a flesh-and-blood human being exercising his right to work for the provision of himself and his family and to keep a roof over their heads.

67 posted on 09/02/2003 5:07:27 PM PDT by Middle Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]


To: Middle Man
All references to wages, salaries, tips and compensation for personal services were purged from the Code starting in 1954. What entity fits all the above categories? A corporation, of course. Since income has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a corporate profit, this section deftly encompasses corporations but not individuals.

From: http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#wagesincome

"Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income." United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990).

"In our view, petitioner's wages are taxable as gross income..." Beard v. Commissioner, 793 F.2d 139, 140 (6th Cir. 1986), aff'g 82 T.C. 766 (1984);

"Wages are taxable income." Perkins v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 746 F. 2d 1187, 1188 (6th Cir. 1984); Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986).

"Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional." Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986), citing United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986); Lovell v. United States, 755 F.2d 517 (7th Cir. 1984); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984);

"Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable." United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984), (emphasis in original; convictions for criminal failures to file affirmed).

"[W]e have [repeatedly] held that wages are within the definition of income under the Internal Revenue Code and the Sixteenth Amendment, and are subject to taxation. Denison v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 241, 242 (8th Cir.1984) (per curiam), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1069, 105 S.Ct. 2149, 85 L.Ed.2d 505 (1985)." United States v. Gerads, 999 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1993).

"Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on income, and under the Tax Code, wages are income." Grimes v. Commissioner, 806 F.2d 1451, 1453 (9th Cir. 1986).

"Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable." United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

"Irrefutably, wages earned in compensation for services are "income" pursuant to the federal tax laws." Boubel v. United States, 86 AFTR2d ¸2000-5123, No. 1:99-cv-380 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Tenn. 6/22/2000).

"[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'WAGES ARE INCOME.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous...."" Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984), (emphasis in original), (quoting United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984)).

"As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (5) wages are not income...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

See also, Wilson v. United States, 412 F.2d 694, 695 (1st Cir. 1969); Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984); Commissioner v. Mendel, 351 F.2d 580, 582 (4th Cir. 1965); Simmons v. United States, 308 F.2d (4th Cir. 1962); Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Burton, 737 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1984); Capps v. Eggers, 782 F.2d 1341 (5th Cir. 1986); Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982); United States v. Ware, 608 F.2d 400 (10th Cir. 1979); United States v. Woodall, 255 F.2d 370, 372 (10th Cir. 1958), cert. den. 358 U.S. 824 (1958); Simanonok v. Commissioner, 731 F.2d 743, 744 (11th Cir. 1984); Ledford v. United States, 2002 TNT 153-6, NO. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002).

There are a few courts that would respectfully disagree with you.

72 posted on 09/02/2003 5:37:16 PM PDT by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies ]

To: Middle Man
All references to wages, salaries, tips and compensation for personal services were purged from the Code starting in 1954. What entity fits all the above categories? A corporation, of course. Since income has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be a corporate profit, this section deftly encompasses corporations but not individuals.

Someone around 1954 realized that the income tax before that was not collected pursuant to the Supreme Court decisions on the matter, so the code was re written then removing the mandatory language.

And as for Mac's cases, why is there not a Supreme Court case among them?

The complexity of the income tax is protection for the scam. Or, actually, was protection for the scam since freedom fighters such as Mrs. Kuglin, Donald Fecay, and Whitey Harrel are scoring victories.

73 posted on 09/02/2003 5:46:21 PM PDT by UbIwerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | 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