Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [legality-of-income-tax] RESULT

Expand Messages
  • Frank
    Yes, Ed, taxation on income is BY NATURE an excise. Therefor Congress CANNOT tax property by use of an income tax . Income is ONLY derived from an ACTIVITY
    Message 1 of 139 , Feb 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Yes, Ed, taxation on income is
      BY NATURE  an excise.
       
      Therefor Congress CANNOT tax property by
      use of an 'income tax'.
       
      Income is ONLY derived from an ACTIVITY or privelege.
       
      Property itself, NEVER produces income.
      Only the ACTIVITY of properties, can generate income.
       
      Idle property by itself DOES NOT produce income, Ed !
       
      THAT IS WHY all 'income taxes' are NEVER on property itself. And CANNOT BE.
       
      That is WHY taxation on income is in the NATURE
      of an excise, indirectly taxing an ACTIVITY.
      By measuring the income of the ACTIVITY !!!
       
      That is also WHY the source does not matter.
      The ACTIVITY matters, and the amount of INCOME
      the ACTIVITY produces.
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: esenter
      Cc: Frank
      Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:56 AM
      Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] RESULT

      You are just randomly generating words, frank.  You make no sense.

      So now you agree income taxes are not Direct Taxes but are in their nature excises?
      That is what I have been saying all along.  But somehow, I don't think that is what you mean.

      Frank wrote:
      No,
      this is the summary of BRUSHABER that the
      conclusion of Pollock DID NOT hold that income taxes
      came within the class of direct taxes on property,
      BUT ON THE CONTRARY (Pollock) recognized
      the FACT that taxation on income was in its nature an excise.
       
       
      entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: esenter
      Cc: Frank
      Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:23 AM
      Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] RESULT

      This is the summary of the CONCLUSION upon which the POLLOCK case was decided.  The 16th Amendment was adopted to PREVENT this line of reasoning.

      As the RESULT of the 16th Amendment, if the thing being taxed is INCOME, it is in its nature an EXCISE, therefore, no apportionment is required.

      Frank wrote:
      FROM BRUSHABER
       
      taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it."

    • Frank
      Taxable income means income that IS taxed ! ... From: esenter To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:52 AM Subject: Re:
      Message 139 of 139 , Jun 10, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Taxable income means income that IS taxed !
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: esenter
        Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 8:52 AM
        Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] RESULT

        'Taxable income' does NOT mean 'income that is taxable'.
        You have fallen for the shell game to your peril, champ.



        Frank wrote:
        Section 61 proves YOU wrong.
         
        I have no STATUTORY  grouping of gross income
        according to the regs that SPECIFY what activities
        generate section 63 taxable income.
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: esenter
        Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 11:19 AM
        Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] RESULT

        Section 61 proves you wrong, champ.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.