Headline News

About Us About Us
Advertising Advertising
Archive Archive
Art & Literature Art & Literature
Classifieds Classifieds
Commentary Commentary
Commentary Consumer News
Contact Us Contact Us
Guestbook Guestbook
Guest Forum Guest Forum
Headline News Headline News
Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor
Opinion Poll Opinion Poll
Our Links Our Links
Quotations Quotations
Trading Post Trading Post
Home Home

Note: Links to other sites will open in a new window.


Beaver Cole
Jan 15, 2002

What Is Income? If you believe the money you earn from an employer or your clients is income, then you have been misinformed. Read how the Supreme Court and others define income. An eye-opening education for anyone who likes making (and keeping) their money. A privilege is taxable, a RIGHT is not, that’s why they had to take off the POLL TAX.

  • Stapler v. U.S.., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739. "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means gain...and in such connection Gain means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal...Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."
  • Helvering v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 "There is a clear distinction between profit and wages, or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word profit, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment " a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
  • Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
  • Flora v. U.S., 362 US 145, never overruled "...the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising it's power of distraint...but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon VOLUNTARY ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT, NOT UPON DISTRAINT" [Footnote 43] If the government is forced to use these remedies (distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system.
  • Evens v. Gore, 253 U.S. 245, US Supreme Court, never overruled "After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question" (A tax on salary)
  • Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110, 113 "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure...But it matters little what it does mean; the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them...IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."
  • McCutchin v. Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d, "The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another." [wages]
  • Blatt Co. v. U.S., 59 S.Ct. 186. "Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress."
  • Olk v. United States, February 18, 1975, Las Vegas Nevada. "Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."
  • Commissioner of IRS v. Duberstein, 80 5. Ct. 1190 "Property acquired by gift is excluded from gross income."
  • Brushaber v. Union Pacific R/R 240 U.S. 1, 17; 36 S. Ct. 236, 241. "Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services".
  • Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31 "Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two."
  • Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902 "Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is "income." And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON "GROSS RECEIPTS"..."
  • Conner v. US 303 F supp 1187 Federal District court, Houston, never overruled "...whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner v. Mcomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue code fo 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61 (a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income, CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION"!!!
  • Bowers vs. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174 "Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed..."
  • Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720 "An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax..The legislature may declare as privileged and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right."

Beaver can be reaced by email

(Enhanced for Netscape)

top Top

Previous Page

ptbas.jpg - 5185 Bytes
Web Alaska Copyright © 2002. All Rights Reserved