The only thing we can conclude with any certainty is that the various circuits are in hopeless disagreement about what the "income" tax is. The Supreme Court is compounding the problem by refusing to rule one way or the other and settle this confusion and chaos. If the court system refuses to clarify the "income" tax, it's up to juries to nullify the law like they did in the Kuglin case.
Also, MACVSOG68, you do exactly what the IRS does when the statutues don't back them up in their lawless actions, you rush to the case law for backup. I attended an appeals hearing recently where an attorney presented all this case law to buttress the government's position. The plaintiff had done his homework and had volumes of case law where his position had been vindicated by one or another of the federal courts. What U.S. attorneys do in these instances is simply ignore any case law that refutes their position. They just pretend that you never raised the objection.
If you do enough digging, you can find some case somewhere where the courts have ruled against the government. Another reason why quoting case law keeps these discussion threads so lively...and pointless.
A couple of points:
First, I saw no confusion over whether wages is considered income in the cases I noted. I saw a lot of discussion that would appear to most reasonable people to shut the door on that part of the income issue. True, the Supreme Court did not rule on it, but then, did any of those who lost file an appeal? Not sure. But would you put good money on the Supreme Court overrulling almost every circuit court? And do you think the SC would somehow find logic in the thesis that the largest single pool of income (salaries and wages) was not intended by Congress to be a part of "Income from whatever source"?
You tell me that I run to case law when need backup. Read the thread. I only went to case law as a backup to support what I had been saying throughout the thread relying on my read of the law not court decisions. Funny though, the first thing you point to is the Kuglin decision....case law!
As for the Kuglin decision. You are wrong. I believe the jury ruled she was not guilty of tax evasion. It did not (nor could it) "nullify" the law which places her wages in the category of income. Personally, I put the Kuglin jury in the same pool as the O.J. jury, both ignoring the evidence and the law to make a political point. And, as I have pointed out earlier, Kuglin will pay those back taxes, plus interest and penalties.
You are correct in saying that case law is not consistent. But that applies in every facet of American life, not just the tax code. I pay no attention to district court rulings, because until they are ratified by Circuit or Supreme Court rulings, they are simply ignored by most. But don't ignore the place of court decisions as an overall part of the law, and certainly the income tax. The IRS considers most of them to be a part of the tax law.
I do not like the income tax for many reasons, and for these reasons fully support the sales tax as the basic revenue generator for the federal government. That being said, I will not resort to non-payment protests, economic terrorism or frivolous attempts to bog down the courts.
But from some of the posts I have seen on just this thread, there are many who would fight a sales tax, a tarriff or a user fee just a much as they fight the income tax.
I didn't recognize you at first but it's good to see you again middleman.
About that much quoted regulation referring to IRC Sec. 61.... I finally had a chance to look at that regulation (I own the Internal Revenue Code where statute Sec. 61 is) and it is just as I said, it is a benign regulation so even if the regulation CFR mentions wages (IRC code sec 61 does not), it has no effect of law. It does not even refer to the Sec. 61 statute, but, instead, to a series of treasury decisions.