NGC6205
|
No, it is not a fraud.
I will not post a link to a video because many Internet videos on this matter are conspiracy theory nonsense.
Here is a court case that debunks your claim.
"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."
Tornichio v. United States, 81 AFTR2d ¶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) ¶50,394, 83 AFTR2d ¶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.
Now, to correct some misconceptions you have. The income tax is NOT a direct tax. It is an indirect tax in a Constitutional sense and is therefore valid under Article 1 Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The 16th amendment simply CLARIFIED the power that Congress already had. The Supreme Court NEVER said that an income tax on wages was unconstitutional. The Pollock decision in 1895 declared the income tax law at the time unconstitutional only because they determined a tax on the income from personal property (i.e. rental income) was the same as taxing the property itself and was a direct tax. They explicitly said that a tax on income from wages was indirect and ok. However, they had to strike the entire law due to severability issues.
BTW, the wage you receive for work is a GAIN to you. A gain is calculated as the difference between what a person pays for something and the price for which he or she sells it. It is not the difference between what something is worth and the price it is sold for. For example, if you found a diamond ring in your backyard worth $4,000 and you sold it to your neighbor for $3,000, do you have a $1,000 loss? No, you do not. You have a $3,000 gain or the difference between the price you sold the ring ($3,000) and what you paid for it ($0). If your neighbor then sells it to a pawn shop for $3,500, then your neighbor has a $500 gain ($3,500 - $3,000). It is the same with your labor. You paid $0 for your labor. If you sell it to your employer for $10 an hour, after 40 hours, you have a $400 gain. |
Homepage 
Financial
Forum 
Taxes 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
