NGC6205
 |
Did you know that you are wrong? I don't have the time to read and refute the 34 pages of drivel at the link you provide. What I gather from the first two pages of stupidity is that the author believes that the income tax only applies to corporations. Here are a few court cases squarely on that point.
In Betz v. United States, 40 Fed.Cl. 286, 296 (1998), the court stated, "Plaintiff appears to argue that according to the Sixteenth Amendment, federal income tax is not a direct tax on wages or salaries of individuals, but that it is an excise tax on the privilege of engaging in some privileged or regulated activity. Therefore, according to plaintiff, this ‘indirect excise tax’ can only be imposed on the income of corporations and the dividend income of stockholders. Despite plaintiff’s many case citations allegedly supporting his argument, the Sixteenth Amendment, valid as described above, clearly authorizes Congress to levy a direct income tax upon individuals who are United States citizens."
In 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). In affirming, the 6th Circuit stated that, “Tornichio’s legal assertions are patently spurious, as it cannot be seriously argued that an individual’s taxable income is based solely on income derived from corporate activities,” and imposed additional sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal.
The court's opinion stated, "Plaintiff argues ‘income’ should be interpreted as limited to corporate activities, and not include wages. He relies on a series of Supreme Court cases rendered shortly after ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment, and which define the scope of corporate income. NONE of those cases, however, stands for the proposition that only corporate income is taxable. To the contrary, like Richards, supra, many of these cases state: “income may be defined as gain derived from capital, FROM LABOR, OR FROM BOTH COMBINED”. See, e.g., Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174 (1926); Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 518 (1921); Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207 (1919); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185 (1918); Stratton’s Independence. Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913) (emphasis added). In particular, in Southern Pacific Co. v,. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 333-34 (1918), the Supreme Court quoted the income statute at the time as imposing a tax on “every person residing in the United States . . . upon the entire net income arising and accruing from all sources”. Thus, the plain language of the authorities upon which Plaintiff relies belies his position."
In Myrick v. United States of America, 217 F Supp 2d 979, 2002-2 US TaxCas 650,487, KTC 2002-457, aff’d Docket: 02-16428, KTC 2003-327 (9th Cir. 2003), the court stated, "One of the bases for Plaintiff’s position is that he had no taxable income since “income” can only be a derivative of corporate activity. This position, however, is simply untenable and is directly contrary to the law."
If the author of the 34 pages of tripe, was instead attempting to prove that only foreign income is taxable. Here are a few cases on that point.
In Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000), (penalty of 25% imposed for failing to file a valid return; penalty of $5,000 imposed for filing a frivolous Tax Court petition) the court stated, "Petitioner claims that ... his income is not from any of the sources listed in section 1.861-8(a), Income Tax Regs., and thus is not taxable; ....
“Petitioner’s arguments are reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts. We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions ‘with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.’ Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417, 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner is liable for the deficiency determined by respondent."
If the author of the gibberish is claiming that only taxpayers are liable for the income tax and that most Americans aren't taxpayers, here are a few more court cases.
In Beerbower v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 787 F.2d 588 (6th Cir. 1986). See also, Martin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 756 F.2d 38 (6th Cir. 1985) the court stated, "Plaintiff claims on appeal that he is not a taxpayer subject to IRS jurisdiction.... Plaintiff’s claim that he is not a taxpayer is unsupported and frivolous."
In 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), the court said, "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."
So, are there any other frivolous arguments in the 34 pages of gibberish that I can squash for you? |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
