- The Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered theMessage 1 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009View SourceThe Pollock court consolidated three cases. Two cases involved earnings from rental property and one involving interest from bonds. The court considered the cases as a tax levied upon capital investments ( a `source') which the court distinguished from a tax levied on remuneration from labor (another source).
This is the application of `source' as found in the 16th. Amendment.
Indictments in pursuit of income tax violations do not identify a `source' as being relevant. In fact, indictments do not even allege a crime. The SC has unequivocally declared indictments without a crime as having no standing before the court.
As analyzed in the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tips_and_tricks/message/17162 post that initiated this thread, there is NO crime identified in any indictment/information filed in pursuit of an income tax prosecution. The indictments are bogus and have been for 40 years. An adequate Motion should get them thrown out of court. Yet there has not been one comment that has objected to the conclusion.
- I think you are missing a very critical link related to TERMS vs WORDS . The term WAGES as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one mustMessage 2 of 28 , Oct 4, 2009View SourceI think you are missing a very critical link related to "TERMS" vs "WORDS". The term "WAGES" as defined by Congress relates to taxable activity. Thus one must understand just what "TERMS" and "WORDS" Congress, or for that matter, any legislative body uses when drafting laws. If fact, if you don't understand what the definitions that the law writer provides for the "TERMS" they use you will always keep spinning around and around with discussion points like the one I am responding to.
Try to learn the rules of statutory construction and the difference between "TERMS" and "words' and you will have half the battle won. Perhaps a quick read of this link will help you understand why most people never understand why they it appears that the laws say one thing when they in fact say just the opposite: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/tx024.htm
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Don S." <vigilespaladin@...> wrote:
> Profit from the interest of a invested principal is true
> gain or profit.
> Rental is an exchange of equal value for the use of the property with no gain.