|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
5830 version 3.
Wages are not “Income”
This page is www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5830.html
Related Pages:
Medley of cases regarding the Amish, Jehovah’s witnesses and other honest folks fighting for freedom.
Amish don't have to pay social security tax. See this link. http://www.amishnews.com/amisharticles/amishss.htm
Amish don't have to send their kids to high school. God Bless the Amish! See Wisconsin v Yoder at this following link: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/amish.html
Here is my link to special rights won by Amish, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other good honest folks:
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5731.html
My other Jehovah’s Witness page: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5716.html
Medley of tax pages proving inter alia that wages aint income:
Wages aint income: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5847.html
Cited correctly by Irwin Schiff: Merchants v Smietanka (1921) : This case has 3 lines that succinctly explain why wages aint income - from 100 years ago. I explain it better in my other links, but Smeitanka proves the truth of what I say at my link. Here is Merchants v Smietanka :
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Merchants.html
Here is my page saying that wages aint income: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5830.html
Here is Jeff's page saying that wages aint income: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5760.html
Here is my main tax page and list of the top 100 tax cases: If you want to understand tax law, then read all of these 100 cases. This is what you would study in law school: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5273.html
Wages are not Income!
The Merchants v Smietanka case is used to demonstrate the meaning of the word "income". Once you understand the meaning of the word "income" you know what income is - and you know that it is NOT wages! The case demonstrates the practice of principal/ income accounting.
As I say repeatedly: "Income" has a special meaning in the law. The Supreme Court recognizes the special meaning. Lawyers, like me, who have studied Income Tax Law for 2 semesters in Law School, and Corporate and Trust Accounting would recognize the difference between principal and income. Also, way back in my childhood days of record books for 4-H and FFA we learned the difference between profit and wages.
The writers of the statutes used the word "income" - and they cannot lawfully change the meaning 10, 20, or 100 years later,
although they try by stealthy encroachment. By stealthy encroachment the forces of oppression chisel at the law everyday. Uneducated
loudmouths do us all a disservice by speaking without the voice of history. They thereby
facilitate the stealthy encroachment of the government. Example: There is NO Supreme Court case that ever said that wages is/ are
income!
Here is a history of the income tax: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5781.html . The past is prologue.
All the cases I will talk about are linked on my main tax page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5273.html
I will be talking about Stratton's Independent.
I began my own epiphany with this case from Schiff: Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v Smietanka (1921)
http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/Merchants.html 255 U.S. 509
Schiff cited this case recently in his argument before Federal Judge Lloyd George without success.
Labor Ready makes a gain on wages; the wage earner does not.
No one makes a gain on his own wages.
Analysis by Palaschak. Key points: Irwin Schiff cited : Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v Smietanka (1921) 255 U.S. 509 in his argument before the federal court on or about 16 April 2003. This case answers the question that Palaschak presented. The answer seems to be as follows: Yes, clearly the word "income" for the 1913 and 1916 income tax law is defined in the 1909 corporate tax law. The 16th amendment must be interpreted with the same meaning - especially since the working is the same as the 1909 proposal. The word "income" is synonymous with "profit" and "gain" on labor and capital. A wage is the cost of laborer. A wage earner sees no "gain" on labor; here merely gets paid for it. Not all money is gain.
Approach the issue from several sides
The original intent was to tax corporations and individuals who had streams of income. Only the rich have streams of income. This is consistent with Palaschak's other theory that there is only so much money that one may make in a year based on work. The money earned by capitalists is theft from the persons who contributed capital and labor - and thus the taxation of the thieves is preferred to taxing the workers. Hey, we aren’t the first folks to talk about this class struggle between the robber barons and the working class.
From Stratton’s Independence v Howbert (1913):
Section 2(a) of the act of September 8, 1916 (39 Stat. 757), (40 Stat. 300, 307, 212), applicable to the case, defines the income of 'a taxable person' as including 'gains, profits, and income derived from ... sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal, growing out of the ownership or use of or interest in real or personal property ... or gains or profits and income derived from any source whatever.' The question is one of definition, and the answer to it may be found in recent decisions of this Court. The Corporation Excise Tax Act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat. 11, 112), was not an income tax law, but a definition of the word 'income' was so necessary in its administration that in an early case it was formulated as 'A gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.' - Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 , 34 S. Sup. Ct. 136, 140, 58 L. Ed. 285.
Lawyerdude comments The definition has not changed in nearly a hundred years. The “any source whatever is merely a qualifier. The key word is income - and income is gain - and gain is a multiplication. Only the employer can gain on your labor. You can’t multiply your labor - generally speaking. If you buy a tractor to help you work, then you profit from capital.
From Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L Ed 521, 9 ALR 1570. :
This definition, frequently approved by this court, received an addition, in its latest income tax decision, which [255 U.S. 509, 518] is especially significant in its application to such a case as we have here, so that it now reads: 'Income may be defined as a gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.' Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 , 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193, 64 L Ed 521, 9 ALR 1570.
From the 1921 Merchants v Smietanka case:
The trustee was given the fullest possible dominion over the trust estate. It was made the final judge as to what 'net income' of the estate should be, and its determination in this respect was made binding upon all parties interested therein, 'except that it is my will that stock [255 U.S. 509, 515] dividends and accretions of selling values shall be considered principal and not income.'
Lawyerdude says: Observe that in the above quotation they talk about principal and income. "Income" is the language of investors and profiteers - not laborers!
Gain means profit. Remember what the Bible says
“For what does a man profit if he should . . .” In this quotation from the Bible I think that Profit and Gain are used synonymously in different version of the Bible in this same passage.
Accounting principles.
When you do farm accounting or any accounting where labor is involved, you subtract the value of your labor before calculating your return (or gain) on investment. Gain is made by profiteers, the very people intended to be taxed in 1909 - as you will see if you read the history of the income tax that I linked in a previous post today
See the dictionary
“Income” means gain!
“Gain” means “profit”
Definition #1 This following is from the best general dictionary, the Merriam Webster: Gain 1. . . . . ."profit"
Lawyerdude says: It is abundantly clear that gain means something multiplied. Gain on wages is achieved by the guy who PAYS the wages and then sells the product of the wages
Show me the case!
Show me where I would get fined for using the argument that "gain" means "Profit" and NOT "wages". Show me the case where the Supreme Court holds that wages are taxable on the person who earned the wages. Even if you find a case I will say that the logic is wrong. You need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You don't need a Supreme Court to define the meaning of common words such as gain. From the historical context which I showed you on my previously linked web page, and from the very plain words, it is obvious that the income tax was never intended to tax wage earners.
Principles of Principal and “Income” Accounting
Employment of the word "gain" to define "income" - as the court did in the cases cited, is consistent with the meaning of the word "income" as in "Principal and income accounting". Income is always a "gain" or profit. It is studied by those who manage resources, including labor resources, to turn a profit. "Income stream" is something that a non-laborer has.
Watch closely.
26 USC 61 (in pertinent part):
26 USC 61: (a) General definition: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
Lawyerdude days, how could it be any more clear? Oh yeah? Watch this: The key rule in interpretation of statutes is this: Congress don't use no damn extra words. If Congress had wanted to tax wages, it would have used fewer words, to wit: "Gross income includes wages" It did not say that. It said "Gross income means . . income. . from whatever sources derived, including . . . . compensation for services, . . fees, commissions, fringe benefits."
Observe 2 things:
#1 They said "income from. . . ." those things - not the things themselves"
#2 They did not say "wages" ! Jeez, did I miss something? Also, had they said "wages" it would be unconstitutional due to the wording of the 16th amendment, to wit: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The amendment says "taxes on income" not "taxes on wages" The meaning of "income" which has a dictionary meaning and a historical meaning and they both mean "gain" or "Profit".
16th Amendment was written in 1909 and means what the 1909 people meant. Plain meaning.
Observe that the 16th amendment, although ratified in 1913, was written in 1909. It was designed to tax the wealthy - not the wage earner! Source: History of the Income tax: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5781.html Our representatives in Congress gave us the words in the tax code and in the 16th amendment! They knew what they were doing. They were taxing the wealthy and not the wage slave. Law is not written in a vacuum. If a latter day decision says otherwise then it is the product of corruption, stealthy encroachment, and/ or bad argument.
General navigational links:
Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334
Please join my newest Yahoo group for discussion or legal self help litigation. Here is the link to the link: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/6346.html
Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com
Instant message me: I am lawyerdude1989 on Yahoo instant messenger. I am dlawyedude on msn messenger.
My most useful web pages and my most popular web pages are these following pages:
Links for your Empowerment! Self help Litigation forms, instructions, cases, and samples.
1. Lawyerdude’s Empowerment page: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
2. Links to all 70 sample motions for all my pro se litigators ! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/traffic.html
3. List of my 200 most popular web pages according to Google. http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5733.html
4. Samples of 8 actual Section 1983 federal complaints: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6008.html
5. List of the 30 most important criminal court motions. They are listed in Lawyerdude’s Bill of Rights for Criminal Defendants in jail. This is my New Standard by which to measure effectiveness of counsel. Make your appointed lawyer toe the line: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5635.html
6. Motions 101. How to write and file and serve a motion: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html
7. Briefs 101. How to write a Memorandum of Law: http://www.lawyerdude.s5.com/6435memo.html
8. Courtroom assertiveness 101: How to be assertive in court. Scripts for the Pro Se litigant:
http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5537.html
9. Your litigation rights page. Learn your litigation rights! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5687.html
10. Were you strip searched? Sue em! http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5728.html Do they do a strip search anus check every time you go to the law library? Did your jail not have a law library?
11. List of the most quotable cases and the most useful web pages for the pro se Litigator: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/medley.html
12. Your case summary and trial notebook form: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/summary.html
13. New! Links to the 143 cases that define criminal procedure: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/weinreb.html
14. My Demurrer page: perfect record so far: http://lawyerdude.8k.com/5736.html
All about Lawyerdude
15. My ongoing battle with the mistaken, oppressive, and political state bar: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com
16. Lawyerdudes’s biographical page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/mystory.html
17. My LSD story and brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5431.html
18. How to work well with Lawyerdude: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/contract.html
19. My most important page. My top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html
20. My ideas. My 10 proposed amendments to the bill of rights: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5123.html
21. My home page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com
My biggest fattest briefs:
22. My “state bar acts are unconstitutional!” brief: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/3789.html
23. My 100 page LSD brief: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/1170.html Use this for your drug case!
24. My collection of “right to drive” briefs: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/right2drive.html
25. Lawyerdude's briefs: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com
26.
More Lawyerdude links and Recommended Reading list
27. Lawyerdude’s traffic page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5259.html
28. Lawyerdude's library. A prioritized reading list. A list of books that farm folk and an enlightened populace should read. Some of these books justify weekly or monthly review - like your Bible - for your own defense. http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/library.html
29. List of links to the Latest uploads from Lawyerdude: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html
30. Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html
31. Lawyerdude's links page: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html
32. Lawyer’s Manifesto: http://www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5753.html
People who link to me:
33. I thank Bill Munro http://www.landrights.com I remember Dan Meador http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/ , http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/4027/ ; http://www.wakeupaustralia.net ; http://home.houston.rr.com/jtyner/links ;
Keywords: wages income merchant’s smietanka 5830 Lawyerdude “gain” gain “profit” labor capital principal definition merchants tax case meaning profit gain labor tax commissioner wage lawyerdude’s Palaschak Douglas income law court word means 1909 1913 1040 accounting derived page amendment 16th amish cases including source whatever words argument cited congress encroachment history stealthy schiff stealthy trust bible dictionary earner gross money school special taxes “income” combined commissions compensation corporate decision earned eisner estate federal fees fringe gains historical www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5830.html independence intended irwin judge macomber load medley personal plain profits statutes statute stratton’s streams taxable taxing wealthy IRS 4-H ffa analysis code earners employer employment dividends due
Revised June 16, 2003 (12:43am) Revised. Friday, August 27, 2004. 23rd page with a counter.