Extensive and Irrefutable Proof Federal Judges and DOJ Lawyers Knowingly Violate The Law In Order To Convict Defendants (Illegally) Charged With Incom

Note the info on the 16th amendment, pls.

No rebuttle?

Not even childish insults?

Watch for new thread I´ll post soon with conclusive proof that tax crank Schiff is an out and out liar -- based on stuff drom his own website.

:zkk_exanis: Judas 132

For True Patriots, Irwin Schiff and Cindy Neun

i posted some stuff on another thread about this, but i´ll give a shortened version of it here. first, you need to define income. Income was defined by the courts in the corporate tax act of 1909. go look it up if it intrigues you. I´ll give you a hint...CORPORATE tax act. Second, income taxes are voluntary. So you need to determine 1) are you a tax payer...and 2) if you are not a tax payer are you volunteering for the tax. If you are a taxpayer as defined by CFR Title 26, otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code, then obviously you owe the tax. If you are not a taxpayer as defined by above CFR title, then have you in some way volunteered to pay the tax. If you have filled out a form W4 or in anyway given an employer a tax id number, then guess what...you just volunteered for the tax. And guess what else...you got to pay it. Stop using your SSN and the tax goes away. Not quite that simple, but that´s the gist of it.

Psychotic fantasy.

The reference to "corporations" has no meaning in the context of income tax.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As for "income," the courts have spoken quite clearly. It is true that "income" is not defined by the Constitution, but the Constitution defines very few words. "Freedom of speech," "due process," and "equal protection" are all undefined in the Constitution, and yet those provisions are enforced by the courts. Similarly, the courts determine what is meant by "income" within the 16th Amendment, and have held that "income" has the same meaning as used in everyday speech.

"For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term ´income,´ as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the amendment...." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206-7 (1935), (holding that "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." 252 U.S. at 207).

"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: ... (8) the term "income" as used in the tax statutes is unconstitutionally vague and indefinite...." Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).

More specifically, Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," from which taxable income is calculated, as "all income from whatever source derived" and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in "gross income" in section 61, including compensation for services (i.e., wages, salaries, and other forms of earned income).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Similar to the idea that the income tax is "voluntary" is the claim that a federal income tax return is a form of contract and is therefore voluntary, or invalid if entered into under duress. This claim is also uniformly rejected:

"The notion that the federal income tax is contractual or otherwise consensual in nature is not only utterly without foundation by, despite McLaughlin´s protestations to the contrary, has been repeatedly rejected by the courts." McLaughlin v. United States, 832 F2d 986 (7th Cir. 1987).

"Drefke argues that taxes are debts which can only be imposed voluntarily when individuals contract with the government for services and that those who choose to enter such contracts do so by signing 1040 and W-4 forms. By refusing to sign those forms, Drefke argues that he is ´immune´ from the Internal Revenue Service´s jurisdiction as a ´nontaxpayer.´
"This is an imaginative argument, but totally without arguable merit. 26 U.S.C. § 1 imposes upon ´every´ individual a certain rate of income tax depending on their amount of taxable income. 26 U.S.C. § 6012 states that unmarried individuals having a gross income in excess of $4,300, and married individuals entitled to make joint returns having a gross income in excess of $5,400 ´shall´ file tax returns for the taxable year. Considering Drefke´s gross income for 1979 and 1980, he was clearly required to file tax returns for those years.
"26 U.S.C. § 6151 states that when a tax return is required to be filed, the person so required ´shall´ pay such taxes to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed at the fixed time and place. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code imposed a duty on Drefke to file tax returns and pay the appropriate rate of income tax, a duty which he chose to ignore." United States v. Drefke, 707 F.2d 978, 981 (8th Cir. 1983), cert. den., sub nom., Jameson v. United States, 464 U.S. 942 (1983).

"Furthermore, Olson´s attempt to escape tax by deducting his wages as ´cost of labor´ and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, [citations omitted] and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege." Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985).

"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), cert. den. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

What weird shit will you sock puppets come up with next? So far, you´ve claimed that there is no requirement to file/pay, the "861" arguement, no 16th amendment, revocation of the requirement to file in 1954, it´s voluntary, "state citizenship," and a few more I´ve forgotten after knocking them out of the park. And the "false flag" crap posting threats and saying you were me -- which is a bit dumb since the user ID clearly showed that it wasn´t my post.

Come on, you can do better than that. NOT!

He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Proverbs 17:15 (KJV)


:zkk_exanis:IRS/cpa´s/lawyers

AC 31...if you read below, you will see that there are nontaxpayers and taxpayers. Everything you stated is true and correct as it applies to taxpayers. Nontaxpayers are not dealt with. In keeping with the theme of the thread regarding Irwin Schiff, I would have to assume that he acted like a taxpayer, identified himself as a taxpayer and then tried to get out of paying the tax. That doesn´t work. And incidently, I never said the term "income" was defined in the constitution. What I was alluding to is the fact that the courts ruled that the term "income" can only be used by Congress in the same manner as it was defined in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909. All these other tax court cases you are refering to are dealing with people who have volunteered for the tax by identifying themselves as taxpayers.

"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue laws". [emphasis added]
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

The citation is being mis-intepreted, a favorite ploy of tax cranks, and a semantic game.

"The term "taxpayer" is defined in the Code as ***any person subject to the applicable revenue law, and that the courts have ruled the revenue laws relate to "taxpayers" as defined,*** and not to nontaxpayers. See Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 and Note 3 at 590 (Ct.Cl. 1972)"

Nice try, but this ruling/case had NOTHING to do with incomes tax ***liability.***
Below info from [link to www.uscfc.uscourts.gov]

"It has been well established that in order to maintain an action for the refund of
federal taxes under the Internal Revenue Code, the plaintiff must be a taxpayer who has
overpaid its own taxes. Economy Plumbing and Heating Co., Inc. v. United States, 470
F.2d 585, 200 Ct. Cl. 31 (1972).13 The term “taxpayer” is applied in the strictest sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code, and means an entity who pays, overpays, or
is subject to pay its own taxes. Id. at 590 n.3.

In Economy Plumbing, supra, the plaintiff prevailed against the government under
a ***contract settlement claim.*** But instead of remitting the funds owed to the plaintiff, the government diverted plaintiff’s funds to offset an unrelated tax liability of the plaintiff’s partner. The plaintiff argued that because the funds due to it under the contract settlement were improperly diverted by the government to pay the tax liability of another, plaintiff became a taxpayer who overpaid taxes.

The Court of Claims flatly declined to recognize
the plaintiff as a taxpayer stating ****“a nontaxpayer cannot overpay taxes and onsequently
there is no overpayment for him to claim by way of refund.”*** Id. at 590.

Therefore, persons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can ***obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims for refund.*** Id. at 589.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So instead of some sort of tax crank VICTORY, this ruling was a DEFEAT for an individual. He was not a tax crank, but looks like an innocent victim of his partner´s law-breaking.

"The term "taxpayer" is defined in the Code as ***any person subject to the applicable revenue law, and that the courts have ruled the revenue laws relate to "taxpayers" as defined,*** and not to nontaxpayers. See Economy Plumbing and Heating v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, at 589 and Note 3 at 590 (Ct.Cl. 1972)"

So who determines if a person is subject to the revenue law??

The IRS code states that anyone in the untited states with income over a certain amount (depending on exsemptions/family status) must file and pay any tax due.

Specificially. Section 6012(a) of the Internal Revenue Code plainly states that "Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...."

"Returns with respect to income taxes under Subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount...."

OK, that says every individual...doesn´t say anything about the united states. So where does their taxing jurisdiction end? They can´t tax every individual on the planet. And we still haven´t defined "income". When you define a term with the same term you are defining, that´s not a definition. So now we are adding to the tangles in the knot. But keep trying, this is very educational for me.

More word games.

It refers to individuals within the Uniterd States and its territories. Obviously, you are getting desperate.

Note this yet again:

Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of ****every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States***** ...." Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).

Bump for the new day

Come on, Eyes Crossed and sock puppets. I´ve blown the "Economy Plumbing" ploy out of the water.

I should note that it was classic tax crank strategy--pick a sentence or two out of a Court finding which has NOTHING to do with paying income tax and claim it "proves" that you don´t have to pay.

Can´t you come up with something new? Jokes? Bible quotations? Maybe even something that makes sense?

Happy Veteran´s Day to all, and to my Viet Nam vet comrades in particular. Only one thing is spoiling it for me. I have CNN on as I sit at my computer and Cheney is speaking at Arlington Cemetary. UGH!

FYI, this is/was ID 132.

Don´t know why my user # changed to 3948--posting from same account on the same ISP.

Still looking for some rational discussion...

Ok, let´s see who is misinterpreting what. Honestly, I don´t why you people take such a hostile tone
if you are so sure you are correct. Now, we have to define our terminology and the 2 terms at hand are
"income" and "taxpayer". Let´s start with "income".

"The general term ‘income’ is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code."
(United States v. Ballard, 535 F.2d 400, at 405)

So where is income defined. Let´s have a look at these court rulings:

Merchants´ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these
decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning
in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909,
and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific
Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that
there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax
Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and
content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to
this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax
Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted
from Strattons´ Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909,
with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets,
" there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all
the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that
what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

Stratton´s Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S. 399 (1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked,
the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an
income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted
in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to
population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing
not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity,
measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation, . . ."
"As to what should be deemed "income" within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not
be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment
not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment
according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income
as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form
because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the
amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government."

Eisner vs. Macomber 252 U.S. 189 pg 205 (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed
in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them
before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers´ Loan and Trust it was held that taxes
upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were
in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership;
and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according
to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus
determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend
the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist
for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish
between what is and what is not "income´, as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in
two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton´s Independence v. Howbert
231 US 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 US 179, 185)
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided
it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was
applied in the Doyle case pp. 183, 185.
"Derived -- from -- capital"; -- "the gain -- derived -- from -- capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter:
not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit,
something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested
or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for
his separate use, benefit and disposal; -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is
beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including
its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of
ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond
peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

So, we have "income" defined. It all boils down to income being the profit of doing business in a corporate
capacity. This will make the "income tax" an excise tax upon the priviledge of doing business under a
government charted artificial entity, which in turn makes it pass the constitutional scrutiny of the Courts.
The 16th amendment gave congress the power to lay and collect taxes
on "incomes", from whatever source derived...blah, blah, blah. It didn´t give them the authority to lay a direct
tax on the property of the population at large. So it really doesn´t matter if it was properly ratified or not.

As far as all the "tax court" citations that were posted earlier, those definitions and rulings apply only to those
particular cases and do not in any way set a precedence.

I´ll define "taxpayer" for you all later on.

Judas 180, Are your grandchildren proud that Grandpa is a Tax Collector? What a legacy you leave Bootlicker!

Crossed Eyes, I suspect that you were too screwed up to reproduce and ever have grandchildren. If you did, are THEY proud that their grandad is a crank and a scammer. A crank and a scammer who has exhausted his feeble collection of discredited crank arguements and can only rant, rave, and insult like a brat in a schoolyard. (Which is why I sound a bit hostile....)

The "argeuments" just above are typical of tax cranks--quotes out of context and irrelevant to the issue of the legality of taxation.

It´s dinner time for, so I´ll just refute the fantasy that the IRS code does not define "income."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," from which taxable income is calculated, as "all income from whatever source derived" and gives a number of examples of the types of income included in "gross income" in section 61, including compensation for services (i.e., wages, salaries, and other forms of earned income).

It is actually fairly common for statutes to omit fundamental definitions of legal concepts, and for taxing statutes to omit fundamental definitions of what is being taxed. For example, property taxes rarely define what is meant by "property." The Internal Revenue Code includes a gift tax and an estate tax as well as an income tax, and both taxes are imposed on the value of property, and yet there is no statutory definition of "gift," "value," or "property."

The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to interpret the word "income," and has stated that Congress intended to impose the income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion," with no restriction as to "source." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

Courts have therefore not been impressed with arguments about the need for a statutory definition of "income."

"Upon review of May´s amended petition, we find no allegations of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May´s petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim." May v. C.I.R., 752 F.2d 1301, 1302 (8th Cir. 1985), (among other things, May´s amended complaint alleged that "The Respondent has totally erred in its determination of ´income´ when no definition of ´income´ appears in the Internal Revenue Code. No basis exists for this improper determination of ´income´ by the Respondent." 752 F.2d at 1304, note 3).
"Plaintiff argues he is entitled to relief because the Code does not define income. The United States, however, is correct that "income" is afforded its every day usage as any gain derived from capital, labor, or both combined. See United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (6th Cir. 1983). In addition, the Code explicitly defines "gross income", from which taxable income is computed, as including compensation for services, i.e., wages." Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2D PAR. 98-582, KTC 1998-71 (N.D.Ohio 1998), (suit for refund of frivolous return penalties dismissed and sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous refund suit), aff´d 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 5248, 99-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) Par. 50,394, 83 AFTR2d Par. 99-579, KTC 1999-147 (6th Cir. 1999), (with sanctions imposed for filing a frivolous appeal).
"In April of 1995, Dr. Ahee filed two form 1040 federal individual income tax returns for the years 1990 and 1991. Each of these returns were filed with all entries completed ´0,´ except the 1990 return demanded the $6,440 refund (presumably for taxes paid in 1989). Attached to these returns was a two paged typed addendum in which Dr. Ahee stated that he was not required to pay taxes. Dr. Ahee claimed that he decided to file these ´zero´ returns after attending a tax seminar in early April 1995. [...] "Appellant avers that since the Code does not define income, he did not know that monies he received were income, so he violated the Code, if at all, in good faith. While it is true that the ´general term income is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code,´ all of the monies received by Dr. Ahee clearly meet the definitions found in IRC section 61. [United State v.] Ballard, [535 F.2d 400 (8th Cir. 1976)] 535 F.2d, at 404. The money he received as compensation for patient services falls squarely within IRC section 61(a)(1): ´Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.´" United States v. Ahee, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 2706, 87 AFTR2d Par. 2001-523, No. 99-1991 (6th Cir. 2/15/2001), (criminal conviction for willfully filing false returns affirmed).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Enuff for you?

First of all, I´m not a tax crank if you were refering to me. I´m merely engaging in this debate in order to learn some things myself. Second, the problem with the statement you made above:
The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to interpret the word "income," and has stated that Congress intended to impose the income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion," with no restriction as to "source." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955).

is that you are not citing a Supreme Court case. If what you stated above were the case, then the tax code would not withstand constitutionaly scrutiny as it would clearly impinge the right of an individual to freedom and owernship of property. And there is still the term "taxpayer" that must be addressed. An individual may be a taxpayer but that does not make all individual taxpayers, as evidenced by the ruling that there exist taxpayers and non-taxpayers in the case that I cited a few posts ago. The cases I cited regarding what income means have never been overturned to my knowledge. However, if a person declares themselves to be a taxpayer, then they are declaring that all there gains are considered income. As far as the IRC defining the term income, Section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code defines "gross income," from which taxable income is calculated, as "all income from whatever source derived". You cannot legally or in proper language define a term with the term itself. I cited a case in which the courts stated that the IRC doesn´t define the term income. So if the IRC doesn´t provide a legal definition, then one can only go by the legal definition given to it by the Supreme Court and all law regarding income must be read in that light, as well as in light of the Constitution.

I´m sorry, but you are using the LANGUAGE of tax cranks. If you´re not a crank, fine, but you sound like one to me.

You are cherry-picking words out of context and vastly over-complicating the issue. "Income" is used in the common manner.

RE my post

"The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to interpret the word "income," and has stated that Congress intended to impose the income tax on "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion," with no restriction as to "source." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431 (1955)"

That is from a Supreme Court decision on an appeal, and is signed by Earl warren as chief Justice. See the info at
[link to caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]

Your failure to accept the common definition of "income" is a person problem for you; it is not an issue in the Courts. It is actually fairly common for statutes to omit fundamental definitions of legal concepts, and for taxing statutes to omit fundamental definitions of what is being taxed. For example, property taxes rarely define what is meant by "property." The Internal Revenue Code includes a gift tax and an estate tax as well as an income tax, and both taxes are imposed on the value of property, and yet there is no statutory definition of "gift," "value," or "property."

OK? I´ll be glad to respond to any factual issues/arguements you wish to raise. Again, I apologize for for the tax crank comment. I´ve been dealing with so much slime and fantasy on these tax threads that my fuse got a bit short. I disagree with your interpretation, but it was stated in a cogent and factual manner, albeit one which sounded, at first glance, to be from one of the cranks/sock puppets posting here.

Since I have a real life outside this debunking hobby, I try to do a fast read and respond quickly to minimize the time I spend here. Since most of the cranks post the same crap over and over, I tend to respond reflexively to certain of the "trigger" words.