Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)

Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation.

Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 650 F.2d 1093, 9th Cir., (1981)

All persons in the United States are chargeable with knowledge of the Statutes-at-Large... It is well established that anyone who deals with the government assumes the risk that the agent acting in the government's behalf has exceeded the bounds of his authority

What is “income”?

Internal Revenue Code:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1

§ 1. Tax imposed

(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(b) Heads of households

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)

There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 2

§ 2. Definitions and special rules

(e) For definition of taxable income see section 63.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 63

§63. Taxable income defined

(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term taxable income means gross income minus ...

(b) Individuals who do not itemize their deductions

In the case of an individual who does not elect to itemize their deductions for the taxable year, for purposes of this subtitle, the term taxable income means adjusted gross income, minus...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 62

§62. Adjusted gross income defined

(a) General rule

For purposes of this subtitle, the term adjusted gross income means, in the case of an individual, gross income minus ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 64

§64. Ordinary income defined

For purposes of this subtitle, the term ordinary income includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property ...

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61

§61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived...

In review:

§63a - “taxable income” means “gross income” minus...

§62a - “adjusted gross income” means, in the case of an individual, “gross income” minus...

§64 - “ordinary income” includes any gain ... (watch for the word gain in the following Supreme Court decisions).

§61a - “gross income” means all “income” from whatever source derived... (Note the Edwards vs. Keith Decision below)

§??? - “income” means ????? ............... Nowhere to be found in The Internal Revenue Code!!!

These are the only definitions in Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, that include the word “income” yet none of them actually define the word “income”. The definition of the word “income” does not exist in Title 26. How do we really know this for sure? The Supreme Court tells us so:

U.S. v. Ballard, 535 F2d 400, cert denied, 429 U.S. 918, 50 L.Ed.2d 283, 97 S.Ct. 310 (1976)

… the general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code...

Note that in section 61a the term “income” is claimed by IRS “agents acting in the governments behalf” (see the 2 decisions at the top of this page) to be defined by saying “from whatever source derived”. Let's look at §61a a little closer:

§61a - “... gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:

(1) Compensation for services...”

Example: One receives $100 as compensation for services. How does one derive income from that $100 source? One simply invests the $100 and any any resulting profit is income.

Exactly what is this thing, this “income” that is taxed? Where can we find the legal definition as used in Title 26? Let's ask the Supreme Court:

Let's ask the Supreme Court... continued:

Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746.(1883)

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right of any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has is his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property so it is the most sacred and inviolable...

Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P. 813, 135 Or. 180, 294 P.461, 73 A.L.R. 721 (1931)

The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals' rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed.

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and 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." (NOTE: This is taken out of context but is an eye-opening statement nonetheless. It ties in perfectly with the other cases cited here.)

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income.

Emanuel J. Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Company 247 US 179 (1918)

Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the Act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of 'income' it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence vs. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'

Merchant's Loan & Trust Company v. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1921)

It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word 'income' has the same meaning as the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the Act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the Act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, Supra, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include 'profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets,' there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this court.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining, 240 U.S. 103 (1916)

... by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, that is by testing the tax not by what it was -- a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed.

Burnet v. Harmel 287 US 103 (1932)

before the 1921 Act this Court had indicated (see Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 64L.ed 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570, 40 S. Ct. 189), what it later held, that 'income,' as used in the revenue acts taxing income, adopted since the 16th Amendment, has the same meaning that it had in the Act of 1909. Merchants; Loan & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, 65 L.ed. 751, 755, 15 A.L.R. 1305, 41 S. Ct. 386; see Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe. 247 U.S. 330, 335, 62 L.ed. 114, 1147, 38 S. Ct. 540.

Staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, (1937)

Income within the meaning of the 16th 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.

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

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.

Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.

Note: This information is provided for educational use only. I am not an attorney and do not give legal advice.

Note: Most judges nowadays dismiss the above citations as "frivolous" arguments.

Edit: Corrections.

Some other interesting decisions:

Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)

...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation.

There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges.

U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977)

Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior by the IRS. Our revenue system is based on the good faith of the taxpayer and the taxpayers should be able to expect the same from the government in its enforcement and collection activities.

Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303 (1938)

In view of other settled rules of statutory construction, which teach that... if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer...

Spreckles Sugar Refining Co. vs. McLain: 192 US 397

Keeping in mind the well settled rule, that the citizen is exempt from taxation, unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid.

When you finally get to sources that sound like they are making the case that compensation is not income, is when you run into problems with your sources:

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)

This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.

Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)

The text you quote as part of this decision:

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 wordprofit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment- - - a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor.

is not actually in that decision.

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)

This decision doesn't even contain the words income.

I suggest that you go here for a more coherent argument of your position.

I'll double check those sources. Thanks.

And thanks for the interesting PDF too.

After double checking, I've removed the Lucas v. Earl quote and edited the Conner v. US quote. The Oliver v. Halstead quote is still relevant.

Thanks again.

You cannot quote U.S. Law to people who don't care about and violate U.S. Law. Courts do not care about the law. They literally make it up as they go along. It's called 'tort.'

All of your quotations of tax code are irrelevant in a court of law.

(See: Sherry Jackson and Larken Rose for details)

That said I have halted participation in the tribute system [Federal Income Tax]. Should they turn their attention toward me (it's possible) I will not be quoting their law - the law they break daily. I will deflect their attacks through a very specific line: I'll challenge their standing. This is a complex concept, but it boils down to these points:

1.) Violation of a right.

2.) Injury.

A code violation could only count as a violation of a right if and only if the codes applied to you. But there is no evidence [that I know of] to prove that their codes and laws apply to you. Yeah, sure their paperwork says they own you if you're born on land they've claimed to be theirs, but that has nothing to do with you. It would be like if I held up a piece of paper that said I had a right to everyone's house in North America. It's meaningless if it's not connected to the people from their end.

Without some kind of evidence that their codes apply the default position is that they don't apply to you or anyone you know. The U.S. Federal government is completely illegitimate.

Another way of looking at this would be to use their own paperwork to see if their own paperwork match. The U.S. Supreme court found that a citizen was a member of a body politic owing a duty of allegiance in exchange for a duty of protection; these are reciprocal duties. The U.S. Supreme court has also found that they have no duty to protect anyone. So the only reason for government is to protect people and yet they don't protect anyone. Great - they just invalidated themselves.

Not that any of this matters.

I stopped participating for purely ethical reasons.

If they want to kill people it won't be on my dime.

What do you mean "stopped participating?"

I do not give them money and I do not file their paperwork.

They get zero communication and zero financial support from me.

Thank you. Not for replying, but for having the courage to stand against tyranny. A lot of people sit and complain about this or that but it's rare to find someone who wants and does more than just bitch about it. We are financing their terror campaigns on other countries strictly for the benefit of corporate interests. Every dime we give them. Godspeed, friend. Your walking the righteous path. I wish you luck and success in everything you do.

We are few.

But our numbers grow.

Might be a good place to start. http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16th.htm

It would seem to me that rather than an individual taking it upon themselves to declare that the 16th was ratified incorrectly, the proper venue would be the Supreme Court itself, as they seem to have the ability to judge the Constitution itself (Article III, Section 2), "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution[...]"

I suspect that fighting it with nonconforming and disobeying the IRS will just end up with the outspoken individual being mired in the bottomless well of the Tax Code and never able to prove standing to challenge the constitutionality of the 16th itself. It would be a fascinating court case to watch, though.

The supreme court already ruled the 16th amendment granted congress no new powers. In a court of law I would simply put it in the IRS to show the law that mandates US citizens file a 1040.

Hint: there is no such law.

I read that summary. What I didn't read is where the Supreme Court actually ruled on if the 16th was constitutionally ratified, which was the original assertion.

If the attorneys for either side don't argue the point on if the ratification was legitimate in the first place, then it's not a question the court will address.

It's not listed here but I already know it for a fact. It's also noted in a few documentary's as well.

I can look up the case if you can provide the name. I am specifically looking for one where SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the ratification of the 16th, not whether it's interpreted to grant new powers (which is a different issue).

Wish I could help but I've only heard it cited in documentary's and I don't remember. Try this. It's the long cut but if you look on YouTube you can find a shorter version.

You cannot get them to acknowledge their own laws.

Remember that they ignore and break their own laws daily.

Also, you would have no standing in a court of law to sue or prosecute them.

Why? They have no fiduciary duties to you. They do not represent you in any legally speaking.

IIRC the supreme count it's self ruled that the 16th amendment gave congress no new powers.

Stop paying your taxes and let me know how that works out for you.

"Your" taxes.

I always find it funny that the ownership is, for whatever reason, assigned to the person being compelled to pay taxes. As though it isn't the government imposing the taxation.

some states altered the text which means the same documents was not ratified by all states

The U.S. Federal government is of no legitimacy.

If they were really here to help us they would not charge us to file their paperwork.

If they really meant to help us they would be clear in their language.

If they really meant to help us they would not put us in prison for non-violent "crimes."

Who cares if it was ratified? They get nothing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Adoption

"Your" taxes.

I always find it funny that the ownership is, for whatever reason, assigned to the person being compelled to pay taxes. As though it isn't the government imposing the taxation.