tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post3632602349491363913..comments2019-11-10T13:38:03.368-08:00Comments on <center>Grapes and Figs</center>: Um, yes, there is a law that says you have to pay income taxVichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09826999361168241385noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-60662630849900379482007-09-18T14:16:00.000-07:002007-09-18T14:16:00.000-07:00Lisa, I've heard those arguments before, but no ca...Lisa, I've heard those arguments before, but no case cited from that period holds that income is not wages. What happens is that people pick up an out of context quote from a case dealing with a narrow issue (other than income) and repeat it as a rule of law.<BR/><BR/>Here are some on-point quotes from older cases:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”<BR/><BR/>Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).<BR/><BR/>“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”<BR/><BR/>Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).<BR/><BR/>“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”<BR/><BR/>C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826999361168241385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-83679723139114544022007-09-17T12:43:00.000-07:002007-09-17T12:43:00.000-07:00"Taxable Income" - Supreme Court decisions in the ..."Taxable Income" - Supreme Court decisions in the 1920's (after 16th Amendment) ruled that WAGES were NOT "income." The definition of income we think of today is not what they referred to as "income." I think it had more to do with return on an investment or federally-employed people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-41915562268141778832007-08-14T14:33:00.000-07:002007-08-14T14:33:00.000-07:00I'm with you, bro. Just because there's a law doe...I'm with you, bro. Just because there's a law doesn't mean it's right!Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826999361168241385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-62791614145524656062007-08-14T13:04:00.000-07:002007-08-14T13:04:00.000-07:00We need the Ron Paul RevolutionWe need the <A HREF="http://www.puritanhead.com/2007/08/ron-paul-for-president-in-2008.html" REL="nofollow">Ron Paul Revolution</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-3219373515118937362007-08-07T09:09:00.000-07:002007-08-07T09:09:00.000-07:00Ruben, repealing the 16th amendment may or may not...Ruben, repealing the 16th amendment may or may not make any difference, it's a pretty complicated question.<BR/><BR/>The short answer is: Article I section 8 grants Congress the "Power To lay and collect Taxes. . . ." So it seems to give general authority for an income tax. <BR/><BR/>But Article I, section 9 prohibits a "Capitation, or other direct, Tax" unless it is done in proportion to the census. In other words, a "direct tax" can only be applied in such a way that states with more people contribute proportionately more to the federal government.<BR/><BR/>The question is: "is an income tax a direct tax?" Under an old common law reading, it is not, but instead is an excise tax, so it would be allowed. But, in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1894 that an income tax was a direct tax, and therefore unconstitutional. Many commentators think it was an erroneous decision. Nevertheless, it became law. So the 16th amendment was enacted essentially to say that income tax was not a direct tax and was allowed.<BR/><BR/>So if we repeal the 16th amendment, the Pollock decision could be used to challenge the income tax, but it is likely that the USSCt would simply reverse Pollock.<BR/><BR/>As for the second question, the basic idea is to argue that the government did not meet its burden of proof. It has to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the taxpayer was aware of a legal duty and willfully chose to violate the duty. Because the burden is on the government, it is the one that has to do the work. Usually it does this by showing that the taxpayer, sometime in the past, did file a return and pay a tax. End of story.<BR/><BR/>In the Cryer case, as I understand it, the defendant was able to present to the jury his own analysis about how the tax system was unconstitutional and did not apply to him. The question was not whether his analysis was right, but rather, whether he had a good faith belief that he did not have a legal duty. In other words, he rebutted the government's case by demonstrating that his mental state was not criminal but, at worst, an honest mistake. It's a dicey ploy, but it sometimes prevails. I wouldn't recommend it as a way of conducting your life.Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826999361168241385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-37513886388152674942007-08-06T22:02:00.000-07:002007-08-06T22:02:00.000-07:00Would repealing the 16th amendment have any impact...Would repealing the 16th amendment have any impact on this tax law? <BR/><BR/>And as a more practical question, on what lines is it possible to convince a jury that I <B>didn't</B> mean to not pay a lawful tax?Rubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12871194232591064277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-82125650720777392412007-07-30T14:50:00.000-07:002007-07-30T14:50:00.000-07:00Yes, I saw the bit about the "30-40 rounds fired" ...Yes, I saw the bit about the "30-40 rounds fired" on a certain blog I regard as irresponsible and I wouldn't even report it as credible second-hand information. Other residents report they heard nothing. I'm not even clear how the Browns would get the word out--their internet line is cut off. This appears to be a bunch of paranoids looking for a rescue mission. Randy Weaver should be above this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-12576301431551379612007-07-30T14:24:00.000-07:002007-07-30T14:24:00.000-07:00Well, regarding the Browns, it seems things are ge...Well, regarding the Browns, it seems things are getting a little tightly strung. This last weekend they were especially paranoid, but apparently nothing has come of it.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=bf37d016-da9d-430b-8ed5-de9e2c139fb1&headline=Brown+callers+clog+911+lines" REL="nofollow"> story </A>Vichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826999361168241385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25823278.post-86217638673635326672007-07-30T14:12:00.000-07:002007-07-30T14:12:00.000-07:00The Browns have been living comfortably at home si...The Browns have been living comfortably at home since January. But then, they can't leave, either. I can't find any updates or any indication that Delta Force is going to be deployed to take them to prison. But this atypical restraint on the part of the government should not encourage similar challenges to the law. The Browns have already lost their case. It's just a matter of time before they see the consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com