NGC6205
 |
Title 26 of the U.S. Code is the law. Specifically, TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter A, PART I, § 1. In that section it says, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...". That is pretty self-explanatory to most reasonable thinking people. http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000001----000-.html
If you read somewhere that wages are not income section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says that “gross income” (which is the starting point for determining “taxable 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....”
If you don't believe that or don't believe it applies to wages. Here are some relevant court cases for you.
Hill v. United States, 599 F. Supp. 118, 120-22 (M.D. Tenn. 1984) “[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: ‘WAGES ARE INCOME.’ ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous....”
United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984) “Although not raised in his brief on appeal, the defendant’s entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us are already aware. Nontheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages--or salaries--are not taxable.”
United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-944 (3rd Cir. 1990). “Every court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income.”
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).
“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.”
Schiff v. United States, 919 F.2d 830, 834 (2nd Cir. 1990).
“The payment of income taxes is not optional ... and the average citizen knows that payment of income taxes is legally required.”
Any other tax protestor arguments you wish to have proven wrong? |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
