Supreme Court to hear income tax case?

.
... ...
.

Supremes WILL 'hear' the case, WITH earplugs in PLACE !

They ARE part of the problem, NOT the solution, as they are/were 'in bed' with the parasitic politicians/banksters since the USA BECAME a CORPORATION !

The original Constitution, NO LONGED in force ( thanks to the Congress of 1871 who sold us out to the 'money lenders/USUERY Jewish banks ) was written as " The united states of America " which the crooks simply changed to The United States of America, A CORPORATION situated in the 10 square miles of Washington, D.C. !

They also took away common law, and have instituted OVER 17,000,000 laws, rules, regulations and statutes WITH FINES/FEES every time you break one, AND they catch you. A constant drain on your income, a CONSTANT source of revenue for those that created those laws, etc.

Eagle

5 stars and a pin request.

Gotta pay Ceaser and that whore the queen

Awesome. 5*

like anything is gonna come out of it pfffft

Welll if this actually gets heard and the court rules in favor of the plaintiff then lots will change very fast. Perhaps the Fed 100 year charter expiring soon has somthing to do with the court's entertainment of this case?

IF they court hears the case, he will lose. This argument has been ruled on by lower courts already.

The Higher court will simply agree it has no merit and refuse to hear it.

At best, they will hear it and drag some more of their money and his time and out of him, only to rule they do not agree with him.

That is because the contract nexus between him and the FEDERAL RESERVE is the "Federal Reserve Note" that he uses in his contracts and exchanges of energy.

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES are private property and if you use them, you owe the owner a FEE, just like any other private property.

Its not rocket science just property law and private rights of ownership and use.

If the NOTES were the only form of MONEY in the US, they would have this on them "THIS NOTE IS THE ONLY LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND CANNOT BE REDEEMED OR REFUSED FOR PAYMENT OF DEBTS"

12 USC 411 spells out Federal Reserve Notes shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand.

Case closed.

There's wording in the constitution that allows the government to collect taxes to support and maintain defense and infrastructure basically as they see fit...it doesn't specifically name an income tax, but it's broad enough to allow it...

He has no chance,his argument has been ruled against time and time again...



And so the federal courts have uniformly and repeatedly rejected the claim that compensation for labor is an exchange that does not result in income.

“The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions.”

Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2nd Cir. 1985), (the court not only ruled against the taxpayer, but also imposed sanctions of $2,000 for making a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchanges of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit. This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).... Merely raising the argument that value received for labor does not constitute taxable income, but rather constitutes a nontaxable exchange of property, justifies the imposition of sanctions.”

Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986).

“According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. ... Appellant’s argument is refuted by one of the cases he cites. In Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that ‘the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital’ are commonly treated as income.”

United States v. Buras, 633 F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).

“Furthermore, Olson’s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ‘cost of labor’ ... illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous....”

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

“DeMoss contends that the compensation he received from his employers is not taxable because his basis in his labor is equal to the amount of compensation he received. The tax court properly rejected this frivolous contention. See Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).”

DeMoss v. Commissioner, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 2672, 75 A.F.T.R.2d 841 (9th Cir. 1995), (unpublished; sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).

“Appellant’s second argument is that his compensation in exchange for labor is property, not income. ... Again, he is wrong. The Third Circuit unequivocally has stated that ‘wages are income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.’ United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 944 (3rd Cir. 1990). The Third Circuit then warned that ‘nless subsequent Supreme Court decisions throw any doubt on this conclusion, we will view arguments to the contrary as frivolous, which may subuect the party asserting them to appropriate sanctions.’ Id. Such authority is neither cited nor found, and appellant’s arguments will be dismissed as frivolous. Wages are income.”

Angstadt v. Internal Revenue Service, 84 AFTR2d ¸99-5455, 1999 WL 820866, at 2 (U.S.D.C. E.D.Pa. 1999).

“[Peth] states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income.”

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985), 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21509, 85-1 U.S.T.C. ¶9321, 55 AFTR2d 1280 (complaints dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing frivolous actions “brought in bad faith”).

“Even if wages are, in effect, an exchange of equal value for value, they are nevertheless taxable income. Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1121-1122 (1983); Rice v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1982-129. And even if we apply section 1001 to determine petitioner’s gain, his basis is defined under sections 1011 and 1012 as his cost, not fair market value. Since he paid nothing for his labor, his cost and thus his basis are zero. Rice v. Commissioner, supra. Consequently, even under section 1001, his taxable income from his labor is his total gain reduced by nothing, i.e., his wages. ... Petitioner’s argument fails for the same reason that other protesters’ arguments fail; the worker’s cost for his services--and thus his basis--is zero, not their fair market value.”

Talmage v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-114, aff’d 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996).

“Petitioner submitted to the Internal Revenue Service documents purporting to be 1995 and 1996 Federal income tax returns. The documents reported petitioner’s compensation earned in each year and then deducted the equivalent amount as ‘Property (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax).” ... The only dispute that petitioner raised with respect to the amounts of compensation is his frivolous arguments that his wages are not taxable. These arguments, as petitioner was advised in the District Court order, citing United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937 (9th Cir. 1986), have been consistently and thoroughly rejected and may be the basis for sanctions.”

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2002-102, 2002 TNT 74-14, (sanctions of $10,000 imposed for frivolous arguments raised primarily for delay); aff’d 2003 TNT 108-7, No. 02-73119 (9th Cir. 5/16/2003).

“In effect, Ms. Sumter attempts to claim that the deduction (her total salary) was a necessary expense for the production of that same salary. She provides no support or credible justification for her untenable position. Ms. Sumter tries to cite case law in support of her “even exchange” argument; however, none of the cases she cites justify her position. In fact, the cases are contrary to her .position. [Discussion of cases omitted] Thus, courts have clearly rejected the “even exchange” argument, which erroneously asserts that no taxes are owed on employment wages, since the income from the services rendered was a fair market value and, therefore, no profit or gain occurred as a result of the work performed.”

Sumter v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 517, 518 (2004).

“[A] review of the pleadings indicates that Mr. Ledford bases his entitlement to this relief on his view that the federal tax code does not tax compensation received for personal labor. Mr. Ledford’s view of the tax law is mistaken, as the tax code quite plainly defines income to include amounts received in compensation for services rendered. 26 U.S.C. § 61(a) (2000) (“[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items . . . .”). Indeed, every court that has considered the matter has found this argument to be wholly without merit -- so much so that merely raising it is considered sanctionable.”

Ledford v. United States, 297 F.3d 1378, 1381, 2002 TNT 153-6, No. 02-5027 (Fed. Cir. 8/6/2002).

See also, Brown v. U.S., 35 Fed. Cl. 258, 269 (1996) (explaining that Lonsdale v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 661 F.2d 71 (5th Cir. 1981) rejected the “even exchange” argument), aff’d, 105 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir.), reh’g denied (1997); Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984).

[link to evans-legal.com]




This fellow is going to end up a whole lot poorer for his efforts.

That is true, Brief, but those are not the laws in question. The Government today does not run on or pay for its debts by the collection of taxes.

It runs by the extension of CREDIT from the Federal Reserve.

The collection of taxes and fees is only one way the Government services this debt. The other is the direct pledging of "all goods and services" (the GDP) to the payment of the debt to the Federal Reserve (the Biggest supplier of US Credit).

There are other taxes collect under the Constitution, but Income tax is not one of them.

The guy is going to lose this case for this and the reasons posted from other cases with the same argument.

all you have to do is made a demand for redemption in lawful money and the "all mighty" IRS is completely castrated. If you are stupid enough to endorse fed reserve credit without restriction don't expect them to educate you about being DUMB ENOUGH to pledge yourself as surety for their debt.

WINNER!!!! Restrict your endorsements "demand is made for lawful money per 12-usc 411" and it is done.

In fact, if the guy who filed this case reads this, he would be wise to stamp his court filings, his payments to the courts and above all his signatures:
"DEMAND IS MADE FOR LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" in a bold color and see what it does for him.

He might also include "had I known about lawful money redemption per 12-USC 411, I would have been demanding and using it my entire life."

That might just set the court and the FEDERAL RESERVE up for a "fraud by omission" claim and damages for not only his back taxes paid, but ALL court fees and penalties he has paid as well!!!

I hope he reads this!!

well I can tell you this, 200 million people repeating your statement is no different then hanging your haed and welcoming your chains of slavery


while 200 million people demanding justice is an entirely different scenario


so thanks for the oppertunity to point out that you and those with similar attitudes are also part of the problem not the solution


so I guess you qualify as a psycological attack shill eh?

Serious question.

Other than coins, what else constitutes lawful money?

Thread: Pay No Taxes legally -End the FED -synopsis page 8-Why are waiting for someone to do it for us like Ron paul (Page 8)

money not backed by debt, thats the difference.

Not like their going to kick out the Income Tax even if the IRS is acting illegally, so I don't hold out much hope in any of this...

Last Edited by Saddletramp on 10/21/2012 05:01 PM

Here is the Federal Reserve law that is being brought up

[link to www.law.cornell.edu]

However it doesn't matter. You can can call your money or your labor whatever you want. But at the end of the day they are still tangable things.

The same laws cleary spell out whats income is
[link to www.law.cornell.edu]


Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

You can't pick and choose which laws best suit your desires.

So whether you are "paid" in Federal Reserve Notes, United States Notes, or premium coffee beans, you are obligated to find a fair market value of that "income" and pay taxes on it. Period.

[link to www.irs.gov]


Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide.

If all you were paid for an entire year was bags of rice, at the end of the year you would have to convert some of that rice into cash and pay the IRS the cash. That is what the law says.

The system is setup very tightly. If they didn't have income tax, they would simply find something else to tax you through. Government hasn't changed in thousands of years.

Great question, and you are right, US minted coins are lawful money and are not taxable by the Federal Reserve/IRS. Since they do not own them, they cannot tax them or their use.

US Notes, issued by the Treasury and backed with Gold, just like it has been since the 1700's.

The thread linked above points out how this works. You already have them, you just do not know how to access them.

You can't pick and choose which laws best suit your desires.

So whether you are "paid" in Federal Reserve Notes, United States Notes, or premium coffee beans, you are obligated to find a fair market value of that "income" and pay taxes on it. Period.

[link to www.irs.gov]


Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber doing repair work for a dentist in exchange for dental services. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods and services received in exchange for goods or services you provide.

If all you were paid for an entire year was bags of rice, at the end of the year you would have to convert some of that rice into cash and pay the IRS the cash. That is what the law says.

The system is setup very tightly. If they didn't have income tax, they would simply find something else to tax you through. Government hasn't changed in thousands of years.


US Notes cannot be used, by statute, to pay interest on the public debt. The Income tax as we know is the direct result of the peoples use and endorsement of Federal Reserve CREDIT, which is a PRIVATE BANK AND PRODUCT.

US V Ware. US Treasury Notes are, as issued, lawful money and cannot be a legal tender for the payment of the interest on the public debt.

The IRS/Government can Tax the use of FRNS or Federal Reserve CREDIT because it is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

End of discussion, the IRS has been stopped dead in its tracks by lawful money redemption per 12-USC 411.

The LAW is, you cannot TAX what is NOT YOURS, US Notes are NOT the property of the FED and as such, cannot be taxed by them.

Title 12 USC is the Federal Reserve ACT, all "income tax" definitions in the subsequent "tax code" assume and presume a "Taxpayer" which is, in fact anyone who does not demand their redemption of FED Credit in "LAWFUL MONEY" via DEMAND.

All tax cases, tax codes and tax definitions in posts are irrelevant as they are POST offer of redemption in the Master USC for the entire FED system, Title 12.

Check mate, brother.

You do not demand your redemption per 12-USC 411, you ARE a taxpayer, you demand your redemption, you are NOT a taxpayer. (income tax only) you still pay hundreds of other taxes, you will just do it with lawful money.

This: "So whether you are "paid" in Federal Reserve Notes, United States Notes, or premium coffee beans, you are obligated to find a fair market value of that "income" and pay taxes on it. Period.

Is an outright LIE, I have read every single word in every IRS bulletin and most of their Tax cases, NEVER is US Notes included in their Tax base.

The US Treasury also accounts for US Notes in circulation differently.

[link to www.treasurydirect.gov]

"As of June 2011, the U.S. Treasury calculates that $230 million in United States notes are in circulation, and excludes this amount from the statutory debt limit of the United States. This amount excludes $25 million in United States Notes issued prior to July 1, 1929, determined pursuant to Act of June 30, 1961, 31 U.S.C. 5119, to have been destroyed or irretrievably lost.
[link to www.treasurydirect.gov]

Please, do not lie, it is not a good way to do business.

• The shape the world is in right now cannot be changed with the people who created the problems left alive.

Trying to fix a sinking boat that was sabotaged while the saboteurs are still on deck will never happen.
History says that all economies which come to an end, do so with a revolution. Trying to offer solutions now is like hiring a new captain on a sinking ship.

The Constitution says we need to replace the gov't by calling a Constitutional Convention. Anything less spells doom.

7 Billion people enslaved to these evil fuckers, and not one person kills any of them. AMAZING. I would have thought by now the queen and all the royals would have been assassinated along with the elite bankers and political puppets.

I second the motion for a Constitutional Convention. And I'm on board for a revolution.

No. If they hear it, it will because of what Roberts did in his Obamacare ruling.

This is fascinating.



Question: What does hell look like when it first starts to freeze over?

INCOME TAX-TARDS!

The criminals built the system to keep you enslaved within it. If you keep playing by the rules of and governed by said criminal system you will continue to be enslaved. For those who wish to manipulate or look for loop holes in the criminal system, it doesn't matter for you are still consenting to the criminal system.

The system must be shut down and cast from the shores back to England, The City, where all criminal banking originates. This will not go over to well with the demonic forces that empower this criminal system. Although, there shall be nothing hidden that shall remain hidden, and those deals made in darkness will be brought out into the light. Good people, keep up the good fight.