Subject:  Who is 'one' required? |
Author:
d daxx
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 01:33:14 03/04/03 Tue
THERE IS A WAY TO STOP FEDERAL EMPIRE BUILDING: Stop funding it
As the day of fraud and infamy approaches I wonder just how many citizens of the States realize just WHO is 'one' required to file both federal and State taxing forms; the latter is questionable only if the State in question 'shirt-tails' the federal form!
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and it prohibits the direct taxation of ANYONE unless the tax is apportioned to the States.
A discerner can readily see upon reading the taxing statutes, the revenue acts and the internal revenue Code, that unless you ARE a TAXPAYER you are not 'one' required'.
Sound confusing? Not really since a taxpayer is one that is "doing business" for a 'gain or profit' as the Supreme Court has determined in the Eisner v Macomber case, 252 US 189, 1920.
The Congress is the lawmaker, not any agency, and the Congress has ALWAYS stated in the Congressional Record that the income tax was to be the extension of the Corporation TAx Act of 1909 to individuals and copartnerships that were "doing business".
Sure, generically, "doing business" is defined as every enterprise that is undertaken by anyone in the day to day transactions, HOWEVER, the Statutory intent is that "doing business" is whatever business venture that any entity, a person, a private business, a partnership, a corporation or an association, does in an attempt to realize, accrue, acquire or attain a PROFIT.
Therefore, unless you are "doing business" for a 'gain or profit' and involved in a business venture, you ARE NOT a taxpayer and have been submitting federal and State taxing forms and withholding forms voluntarily and have not been compelled to do so.
Why do you think that the taxing forms state that you are to sign under penalty of perjury? SELF INCRIMINATION!
There is absolutely nothing in the IRCode or any of the taxing regulations to refute the aforemention statements of fact.
Certainly wages are income! Certainly salaries are income! Certainly any compensation for services or earnings that are realized for labor compensation are income, BUT THEY ARE NOT statutory income: Only income that is realized from "doing business" for a 'gain or profit' is statutory income!
If you do not mind having approximately 40% of your labor earnings confiscated then pay the tax.
If you foolishly believe that the income tax is needed to provide for the function of government, then you had better attend Income Tax 101 at your local school and learn that the collection of income tax is immediately transferred to the federal reserve, a non-governmental corporation, where is is 'applied' to the national debt: A debt that is created by the borrowing of fiat paper by the government - they loan nothing - and then the non-debt is repaid with the asset value of the united States of America!
Why do you think that it is called a voluntary tax? (Voluntary-compliance is an oxymoron; a non-sequitor)
WHAT ISN’T TAXABLE!
Let’s begin with the original Law of the land: the Constitution of the united States of America.
The Constitution prohibits unapportioned direct taxation and commands that all indirect taxation must be uniform.
Regardless and notwithstanding the enactment of the 16th amendment, the IRCode, the revenue acts, the income tax acts and whatever tariff acts that may apply, THERE IS NO LAW OR AMENDMENT that changed, altered, revised or created an act that has permitted anything different that the original intent of the Constitution!
The Brushaber Supreme Court, 1915, 240 US 1, opinioned that nothing had changed with regard to the 16th amendment; what the Congress intended to tax it could always tax; THEN WHY THE 16th AMENDMENT?
The Congress had always wanted to tax the ‘gain or profit’ that the private market place had been lavishly enjoying but could not determine how the profits could be separated from the earnings of the work force. When the corporation tax Act was enacted the Congress knew what management was earning since the stockholders would demand an accounting for their investment(s)!
After 1909, whenever the Congress debated the income tax, the Record ALWAYS was worded, to extend the Corporation Tax Act to individuals and copartnerships that were “doing business”, in the act of “doing business” or the carrying on of “doing business”!
Prior to 1913, the House Report, HR 416, and the House Bill, HR 21214, that was superceded by the 16th amendment, both specifically stated that “doing business” was the intent of the income tax!
The vagueness and ambiguity of the 16th amendment is an indication that the Congress did not know how a non-corporate entity would be able to determine how to separate, if possible, it’s labor earnings from the gross profits, i.e., if one electrical contractor has a gross profit of $100,000 while another, similar contractor, has a gross profit of $80,000, is there a profit? Is there a net profit? Who determines what a person, any person, is worth, labor-wise?
Recognize that in 1913, when the income tax act was enacted, the average wage earned was less than $900 annually. Since the initial deduction was $5,000 there were probably few small businesses that were even affected by the income tax!
In 1920, the Supreme Court, in Eisner v Macomber, 252 US 189, defined the income that was intended to be taxed as that income that was derived from the ‘gain or profit’ FROM labor, FROM capital or FROM both combined, PROVIDED that the income was realized FROM PROFIT!
For all intents and purposes the question of the source of income was resolved; IT MUST BE REALIZED FROM PROFIT!
Since a taxable income must be realized FROM PROFIT there should never have been a question regarding the taxability of wages, salaries or the compensation for services, however, there was still no documentation to determine how a small, privately, owned business was able to, or was even supposed to, separate his/her labor earning from the gross ‘gain or profit’! However, that is not the concern of the wage, salary or compensation for services earning person!
Have you demanded proof from your employer regarding withholding; not just words, but factual, legal, documented proof!
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 