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

To: VRWC_minion
The Stratton vs Howbart case does not call wages as income in your example with good reason since they define income "as the gain derived from capital, from labor; or from both combined," pp 414,415.

A gain derived from labor or capital is not a gain accruing to labor and/or capital. It's a distinction that you and your website don't understand or pretend not to understand.

As for the conflicting so-called tax court cases and appeal cases, they're not Supreme Court cases.

Incidentally, in the Donald Fecay case the prosecution introduced Irwin Schiff's "The Great Income Tax Hoax" to be used against the defendant, Donald Fecay. The use of that book was decisive in Mr. Fecay's acquittal however (one can read about this amazing story in the hyperlink). That book includes a discussion of the Stratton v Howbert and other cases. Obviously, Mr. Schiff explains and understands the Stratton case and it appears you and your website do not.

94 posted on 09/03/2003 12:51:52 PM PDT by UbIwerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]


To: UbIwerks
It's a distinction that you and your website don't understand or pretend not to understand.

Neither will any court. The only folks who understand are the pond scum making money off of dupes.

99 posted on 09/03/2003 1:03:25 PM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | 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