Memorial Day Giveaway!!!!

[Iƒrit]

nobodyshere is an old friend from ak. Can't stand his opinions in this area, and i think everyone loves seeing conspiracy's.


My humble opinion is that they need more education Which will most likely be met with some hate and discontent.



Funny that I found you George lol.


He used to be Avenger from AK, also used to be a good alliance CO. Took care of his own. RL screwed him though.n But time and time again he has bounced back.


Bill

remember if your an america soldier you swore an oath to the american consititurtion and to uphold all that is scared in that consititution. NOT to uphold a oath to a new world order.

You can believe this is a conspiracy all you want, but like I said in 10 years it will certainly become what I am talknig about and what is stated in the film.

EU Constitution Dead No One Wants to Bury It; By Paul Taylor and Yves Clarisse
"Goverments are frantically looking to keep EU integration going despite a public slap in the face to Europe's ruling establishment.

Lets take Europe as an example since I have said alot about america. Europe has voted on becoming one and not seperate. And despite what the people of Europe have voted the BANKERS are pushing for this one goverment. They dont care, they want all power under one banner. I'll close my post with a few quotes that are stated in the movie and are FACTUAL and VALID all link to this NEW WORLD ORDER.

"The new world order will be built..an end run on national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assualt."
~Council on Foreign Relations
Journal 1974, pg. 558

"We shall have world goverment, wether or not we like it. The only question is wether World Goverment will be achieved by conquest or consent."
~Paul Warburg
Council on Foreign Relations and architect of the Federal Reserve System
In an address to the U.S. Senate 2/17/1950

"To defensd the new world order, soldiers of america will have to kill and die."
~Arthur Schlesinger
Council on Foreign Relations Journal

"Military men are just dumb. Stupid animals, to be just used as pawns in foreign policy."
~Henery Kissinger
Council on Foreign Relations

"The dirty little secret is that both houses of congress are ireilvant. American's domestic policy is now being run by Alan Greenspan and The Federal Reserve. Americas foreign policy is now being run by the International Montary Fund. When the president desides to go to war, he no longer needs a declartion of war from congress."
~Robert Reich
Jan. 7, 1999
USA Today

"The powers of finacial capatism at a far reaching aim: nothing less then to to create a world system of finacial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole."
~ Dr. Carol Quigley
Professor from George Town Univerisity
Author of Tragedy & Hope

"In the next century nations as we know it will be absolete. All states will reconize a single global authority."
~Strobe Talbott
President Clinton's Deputy Secetary of State

~Time Magazine
July 20, 1992

"The bankers own the earth. Take it awy from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again.
However, take away from them the power to create money, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in.
But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."
~Sir Josiah Stamp
Former Director of The Bank of England

"We are greatful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great punlications whose directors have attended our meeting and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But now the world is more sophesticated and prepared to march towards a world goverment.
The supra national sovereignty of an antellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centeries."
~David Rockeefller
Private Banker
Concil on Foreign Relations

June 1991

I would strongly suggest anyone and everyone to watch this film, become educated, know the truth. The war on terrorism is the war on your freedom.
and my final closing quote...

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
~Henery Ford

[SSG EnterTheLion]

How did America get started? We kicked Britian's a$$ and made our own country... Disband all armies? Are you serious? Sounds just like gun control laws... Take away guns, make it where you cant have them in public do this do that... You know what! Criminals are set out to be bad they dont give a hoot for the laws and just cause a sign says no guns allowed past this perimeter doesnt mean they wont disobey the law... Also when they break the law and go on a killing rampage if a bunch citzens would have been able to to take guns in there, I doubt the criminal would shown his face.. They take advantage of these laws rather we want them to or not... Back in the western times criminals were rare, cause EVERYONE had a gun... Now if every country has an army and a country sets out of line, they will get back in line pretty fast! You can argue all you want about the war in Iraq/Afghanistan..

Sorry for getting sidetracked!

Thanks,
Bill, Wolfe, and others for serving the United States Of America!!!!!!

every war that has been fought since the Napoleonic war has been financed by the international bankers, including BOTH wars of independance...

ok, we'll start yours and everyone else's education and see if you REALLY want to learn the TRUTH or you will stick with the crap and fiction they teach in the classroom and the lies they tell on the corporate controlled news channels...especially (bill O Reilly).

first off all you only think you kicked the british because thats whats taught in the classroom but the fact off the matter is, the first war of independence was fought to a draw because the british were still fighting in europe and in fact had been fighting for 58+ years and had been forced to place unfair taxes on the American people, that is fact! Benjamin franklin is recorded in his biography as saying..."the inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George 3rd and the international bankers was the PRIME reason of the revolutionary war"

he should know, he spent 18 years in London.

but before all that, england was fighting in Europe and was running up the national debt to the bank of england (the first private national central bank and the model for the federal reserve and all other central banks of the world) to such an extent that it was forced to place unfair taxes on its American colony's which caused mass unemployment and a sever shortage of money so the colonists experimented with issuing there own paper money which worked (even tho it was backed by nothing) because just enough "Colonial Scrip" was issued to facilitate trade and the exchange of goods.

back in london, this new found prosperity in the colony's hadn't gone unnoticed by the Rothschild's controlled bank of england so the banks board summoned and asked ben franklin what was driving this new found prosperity and he told them about colonial scrip. the board of the bank of england were outraged and ORDERED (and i chose that word because thats what it was, an order) parliament to outlaw the new colonial currency and ordered that all future debt and taxes had to be payed with Gold and silver forcing once again mass unemployment and poverty (look up the currency act of 1764 on google).

now, as for the gun laws you so proudly protect, let me 1st say that for many years i couldnt understand why America/ns were so proud of their guns and the laws that protect their right to bare arms...

UNTIL i took a closer look at the constitution and the 2nd amendment which guarantees and protects the individuals right to bare arms.
i had no idea that the founding fathers knew to well the corruption of a central bank and the wars that it will bring about including the 4th world war which will be waged against the civilian populations of the world and before you call me crazy i ask....who has the right to take your firearms and deprive you of your constitutional 2nd amendment rights...no one has that right i here you say, yet during hurricane katrina the police confiscated peoples firearms thereby robbing them of their constitutional right to protect themselves, they're families and possessions...

i'm pretty sure that the American founding fathers are rolling in they're graves as bush (with the military s cooperation) trashes the constitution and knocks down his own buildings (anyone remember how Hitler became a dictator???) and sends generations of young men and women to kill and be killed for a lie!

this is fact, and this is something i have been researching long and hard for the past 7 years so please don't call me ignorant when i know more than any of you!


btw, please keep this in mind...


the illusion of knowledge is more dangerous than ignorance itself.

If the British Empire didn't have colonies like India to worry about, the American War of Independence would just be known as another rebellion against the Empire. The concentration of all power in London is the true reason the war took place. You can't treat your citizens differently just because they live on another continent and expect everything to be merry.

[nobodyhere]

methinks i opened a can of worms here.

@ everyone,
i have said what i wanted to say and i wont go into it anymore, but i will gladly debate this further either by PM or on msn with ANYONE...

unless the MODS want to split the topic and move it to another board??


@bill,

took you long enough pal, was shocked you didn't figure it out from your return topic

[urogard]

nobody, I'm really glad you posted that, gives me at least some hope that more people know about what's going on than i initially thought.

however there's still much work to be done in enlightening the masses

[Legendary Apophis]

what it all comes down to is goverment works for privte banks and private corperations. So who has control? easily anwser. Now you also have a entity that also has control of not only govermement, but now the issuing of currancy

Ok now as of May 2008 America has released a RFID chip in every state ID and Driver's License in America, only a few stats have acually refused to do this. This herre is the protype to the IMPLANTABLE RFID chip which will be required by your goverment once it is complete. Whats this RFID you say?? Lets just say its a tool for the goverment to monitor everything a person does. And for what purpose? To have complete and dominate control of what you can do..all they need to do at that point is turn off your RFID chip and poof you dont exsist. You lack the ability to purchase anything and therefore have nothing.

Now another topic, did you all know it doesnt matter who you vote on, because the goverment has final say. How you ask? easy, there is a program created by man that can secretly fix elections. basically this program will and dopopules, rig any election it will flip the vote 51% to 49% to anyone selected to win. oh but now you curious how can they get away with this? The only detecable way to know if this program exsist is viewing the source code. And guess what, voting machine manufactures refuse to allow anyone to view their sorce code.

Stuff here and more I have written are all part of the movie I linked, please watch it and become in awe like myself.

Scary, worse than what I thought!



War on Afghanistan, I can accept "official" stance, even if I know 9/11 isn't as easy as described.
War on Irak, war of oil, you meant sir? ROFLMAO @ CIA's so called proves of Irak's WMDs! ROFLMAO @ claims Saddam supported Al Qaeda!! HAHAHAHAHA !!! Any person with LIL BIT of knowledge would know Saddam was ANTI al qaeda, didn't you know Saddam sorta "protected" iraqi christians and was meant to be a "socialist"?

Spying phone communications, arrestations of pro-peace demonstrators accused of stupidest things possible, prohibition of abortion in some states (XXIst century aren't we??)...that's not really freedom!
WHY do you think Luther King, JFK and Bob Kenedy were assassinated? Fools with guns? Then, WHY did investigations been blocked when it started to get "interesting"? Heh food for thought!

Free the US, vote Obama!

[Iƒrit]

Its totally scary and presonally I am only voting for anyone that signs an affidaviate to end the Federal Reserve System. This as far as I am concerned is the ONLY issue that take presidence in todays world, private bankers are in complete control, and anyone that debates that issue, I challange you to study 'The Ceneteral Bank', look at its enterity view everything their is about it and then come here and tell me Im wrong.

[Legendary Apophis]

Sad all this happens in country of freedom...hope Obama will make it, that's best thing US can have as of now according to me for new presidentship.

[Iƒrit]

If only honest abe was here

[~Massin4Christ~]

I already knew there wasnt a law saying you had to pay income tax... Other stuff surprised me though...

[pianomutt20000]

sigh, there is a law for income tax. passed in the early 1900's for WWI.


Ask ol wesley snipes......he's going to jail over it.


Damn conspiracy videos, they can be convincing but only if you take them for truth.


Bill

[Iƒrit]

sigh, there is a law for income tax. passed in the early 1900's for WWI.


Ask ol wesley snipes......he's going to jail over it.


Damn conspiracy videos, they can be convincing but only if you take them for truth.


Bill

The word "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert (1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation."
"As to what should be deemed "income" within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government."

The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.

The above case applies to corporations, so if you are not a corporation, then the Corporation Excise tax does not apply to you. The important thing here is the clarification that the income tax is an excise tax, imposed upon the doing of business in corporate form. And the tax is determined by how much income is received. But WHAT is income? The Supreme Court again tells us:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income', as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.)
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case.
"Derived -- from -- capital"; -- "the gain -- derived -- from -- capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

Clearly, the definition of corporate income means a gain or profit received from an excise taxed activity. But does this same definition apply to individual income tax? To the Supreme Court again:

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in 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, 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, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through 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 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."

The word "income" has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning has been declared to be corporate profits and gains and has been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. So, did you have income that is taxable? Did you have a gain or profit from a corporate activity? Remember that the income tax is an excise tax on the doing of business in a corporate capacity. That is the ONLY way that you can receive taxable income, as legally defined by the Supreme Court.

If you relied on these never overturned Supreme Court rulings in your beliefs, does your reliance on these plain rulings constitute a frivolous position? The IRS says it does!

So, if you had NO corporate income tax liability for this year, you had zero "income" as legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. A corporation is NOT taxed on ALL its income, from whatever source. It is only taxed on it's profit. If that is the case then why are YOU taxed on ALL your income from whatever source? You are also allowed to deduct SOME expenses. Does that mean that if you work for a corporation and you exchange 40 hours of your labor for $600, that you had $600 of profit, minus deductions? If a corporation exchanges $600 for 40 hours of your labor, did they also have a profit? NO! They can claim ALL your labor as a deductible operating expense. So why is it that why you exchange one property (your labor) for another property ($600) that in that exchange, you had a profit and the corporation had a deduction? Why is it a profit for you but not for the corporation? The answer is that it is not a profit for EITHER of you! And therefore it is not taxable income, as defined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ruled:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920): " The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states"

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that an individual's income cannot be taxed directly: But an individual's income CAN be taxed with an excise tax, IF it was received in a corporate activity. More on this later.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert(1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.

Corporate "income" (profits and gains) CAN be taxed with an excise tax, but the income itself is not taxed because it is property. Therefore income tax is not on income, it is on profits. It is not an income tax law, it is a profits tax law. Are you engaged in, or did you receive income in connection with, any corporate activities? Receipts received from labor or private investments are not corporate "income" and therefore do not fall within the legal definition of "income" as defined by the Supreme Court.



SUMMARY

"Income" is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.

The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.

"Gross income" would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.

"Taxable income" would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.

Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word "income" it is talking about corporate income.

[WeaponX]

notreadingallthatcrapbyyou.txt

you type more than i do!

[semper]

sigh, there is a law for income tax. passed in the early 1900's for WWI.


Ask ol wesley snipes......he's going to jail over it.


Damn conspiracy videos, they can be convincing but only if you take them for truth.


Bill

The word "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert (1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation."
"As to what should be deemed "income" within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government."

The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.

The above case applies to corporations, so if you are not a corporation, then the Corporation Excise tax does not apply to you. The important thing here is the clarification that the income tax is an excise tax, imposed upon the doing of business in corporate form. And the tax is determined by how much income is received. But WHAT is income? The Supreme Court again tells us:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income', as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.)
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case.
"Derived -- from -- capital"; -- "the gain -- derived -- from -- capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

Clearly, the definition of corporate income means a gain or profit received from an excise taxed activity. But does this same definition apply to individual income tax? To the Supreme Court again:

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in 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, 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, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through 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 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."

The word "income" has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning has been declared to be corporate profits and gains and has been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. So, did you have income that is taxable? Did you have a gain or profit from a corporate activity? Remember that the income tax is an excise tax on the doing of business in a corporate capacity. That is the ONLY way that you can receive taxable income, as legally defined by the Supreme Court.

If you relied on these never overturned Supreme Court rulings in your beliefs, does your reliance on these plain rulings constitute a frivolous position? The IRS says it does!

So, if you had NO corporate income tax liability for this year, you had zero "income" as legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. A corporation is NOT taxed on ALL its income, from whatever source. It is only taxed on it's profit. If that is the case then why are YOU taxed on ALL your income from whatever source? You are also allowed to deduct SOME expenses. Does that mean that if you work for a corporation and you exchange 40 hours of your labor for $600, that you had $600 of profit, minus deductions? If a corporation exchanges $600 for 40 hours of your labor, did they also have a profit? NO! They can claim ALL your labor as a deductible operating expense. So why is it that why you exchange one property (your labor) for another property ($600) that in that exchange, you had a profit and the corporation had a deduction? Why is it a profit for you but not for the corporation? The answer is that it is not a profit for EITHER of you! And therefore it is not taxable income, as defined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ruled:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920): " The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states"

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that an individual's income cannot be taxed directly: But an individual's income CAN be taxed with an excise tax, IF it was received in a corporate activity. More on this later.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert(1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.

Corporate "income" (profits and gains) CAN be taxed with an excise tax, but the income itself is not taxed because it is property. Therefore income tax is not on income, it is on profits. It is not an income tax law, it is a profits tax law. Are you engaged in, or did you receive income in connection with, any corporate activities? Receipts received from labor or private investments are not corporate "income" and therefore do not fall within the legal definition of "income" as defined by the Supreme Court.



SUMMARY

"Income" is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.

The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.

"Gross income" would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.

"Taxable income" would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.

Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word "income" it is talking about corporate income.

HINT: in future just post the god dam link and the summary.

[Iƒrit]

sigh, there is a law for income tax. passed in the early 1900's for WWI.


Ask ol wesley snipes......he's going to jail over it.


Damn conspiracy videos, they can be convincing but only if you take them for truth.


Bill

The word "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, as the court stated in U.S. v. Ballard, but the Supreme Court has defined it for us in numerous cases.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert (1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law. This court has decided in the Pollock Case that the income tax of 1894 amounted in effect to a direct tax upon property, and was invalid because not apportioned according to population, as prescribed by the Constitution. The act of 1909 avoided this difficulty by imposing not an income tax, but an excise tax upon the conduct of business in a corporate capacity, measuring, however, the amount of tax by the income of the corporation."
"As to what should be deemed "income" within the meaning of Sec. 38, it of course need not be such an income as would have been taxable as such, for at that time (the 16th amendment not having been as yet ratified) income was not taxable as such by Congress without apportionment according to population, and this tax was not apportioned. Evidently Congress adopted the income as the measure of the tax to be imposed with the respect to the doing of business in corporate form because it desired that the excise should be imposed, approximately at least, with regard to the amount of benefit presumably derived by such corporations from the current operations of the government."

The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". If you are not engaged in any corporate activities then you are not liable for an "excise income tax." This Supreme Court decision also states that Congress cannot tax an individual's income directly. All direct taxes must be imposed on the states with apportionment. U.S. Constitution Art. 1 Sect 2. Cl. 3 and Sect 9 Cl. 4.

The above case applies to corporations, so if you are not a corporation, then the Corporation Excise tax does not apply to you. The important thing here is the clarification that the income tax is an excise tax, imposed upon the doing of business in corporate form. And the tax is determined by how much income is received. But WHAT is income? The Supreme Court again tells us:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920) The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust it was held that taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, imposed by reason of ownership; and that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states according to population, as required by Art 1 Sect. 2 Cl. 3 and Sect. 9 Cl. 4 of the original Constitution.
Afterwards, and evidently in recognition of the limitations upon the taxing power of Congress thus determined, the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted: . . . As repeatedly held, this did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income. . . . it becomes essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income', as the term is there used;
After examining dictionaries in common use we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation (Excise) Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co.)
"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined", provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle case.
"Derived -- from -- capital"; -- "the gain -- derived -- from -- capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the Taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; -- that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.
That Congress has power to tax stockholders upon their property interests in the stock of corporations is beyond question; and that such interests might be valued in view of the condition of the company, including its accumulated and undivided profits, is equally clear. But this would be taxation of property because of ownership, and hence would require apportionment under the provisions of the Constitution, is settled beyond peradventure by previous decisions of this court.

Clearly, the definition of corporate income means a gain or profit received from an excise taxed activity. But does this same definition apply to individual income tax? To the Supreme Court again:

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in 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, 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, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through 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 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."

The word "income" has the same meaning in ALL the income tax acts of Congress. That meaning has been declared to be corporate profits and gains and has been definitely settled by the Supreme Court. So, did you have income that is taxable? Did you have a gain or profit from a corporate activity? Remember that the income tax is an excise tax on the doing of business in a corporate capacity. That is the ONLY way that you can receive taxable income, as legally defined by the Supreme Court.

If you relied on these never overturned Supreme Court rulings in your beliefs, does your reliance on these plain rulings constitute a frivolous position? The IRS says it does!

So, if you had NO corporate income tax liability for this year, you had zero "income" as legally defined by the U.S. Supreme Court. A corporation is NOT taxed on ALL its income, from whatever source. It is only taxed on it's profit. If that is the case then why are YOU taxed on ALL your income from whatever source? You are also allowed to deduct SOME expenses. Does that mean that if you work for a corporation and you exchange 40 hours of your labor for $600, that you had $600 of profit, minus deductions? If a corporation exchanges $600 for 40 hours of your labor, did they also have a profit? NO! They can claim ALL your labor as a deductible operating expense. So why is it that why you exchange one property (your labor) for another property ($600) that in that exchange, you had a profit and the corporation had a deduction? Why is it a profit for you but not for the corporation? The answer is that it is not a profit for EITHER of you! And therefore it is not taxable income, as defined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ruled:

Eisner vs. Macomber (1920): " The Sixteenth Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted. . . .taxes upon rents and profits of real estate and upon returns from investments of personal property (labor) were in effect direct taxes upon the property from which the income arose, . . . that Congress could not impose such taxes without apportioning them among the states"

The Supreme Court has plainly stated that an individual's income cannot be taxed directly: But an individual's income CAN be taxed with an excise tax, IF it was received in a corporate activity. More on this later.

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert(1913) "As has been repeatedly remarked, the corporation tax act of 1909 was not intended to be and is not, in any proper sense, an income tax law.

Corporate "income" (profits and gains) CAN be taxed with an excise tax, but the income itself is not taxed because it is property. Therefore income tax is not on income, it is on profits. It is not an income tax law, it is a profits tax law. Are you engaged in, or did you receive income in connection with, any corporate activities? Receipts received from labor or private investments are not corporate "income" and therefore do not fall within the legal definition of "income" as defined by the Supreme Court.



SUMMARY

"Income" is legally defined as a corporate gain of profit in the Internal Revenue Code. Nowhere is there any different definition.

The definition of income used in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 is the same definition used in ALL the income tax statutes.

"Gross income" would then be the total income of a corporation, from all sources.

"Taxable income" would therefore be corporate gross income, minus allowable deductions. Also known as profit. If a corporation had no profit, then it had no taxable income. If you are an officer of a corporation, then you had individual income that is taxable.

Anytime the Internal Revenue Code mentions the word "income" it is talking about corporate income.

HINT: in future just post the god dam link and the summary.

someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed

[Chamaileon]

I served in the military for my 6. Bosnia/Desert/Panama-etc

Of course alot of it is BS-politics. Some is true and some isnt.

And I also studied the stuff posted above. We are fighting the wrong fights, but the people are tooooo lazy to do anything, they just laugh when pple point it out. The soldiers pay the price.

So the problem will get worse until its at their doorstep and the cost for the fix will be terrible.


My hats off to my fellow soldiers both past and present.......

WE WILL NEVER FORGET