No Law for U.S. Income Tax (2/2)

As defined by I.R.C. section 7701(c), the use of "includes" does not exclude anything otherwise within the meaning of "employee," so "employee" includes what you would normally think of as employees, as well as some things you might not ordinarily think of as employees, such as elected officials of state and local governments.
Daniel B. Evans
Tax protestor FAQ

"Doesn't make it the correct decision, despite the black robes and hammer."

RIGHT! But it does make it LAW!

"So, again, would you please answer, at what percentage of taxation is the magic number from slavery and free?"

I have no idea! But, since slaves don't get paid they don't have to pay ANY income tax!

There is no "Article 9" in the Bill of Rights either!

If you are refering to the 9th Amendment:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Are you reading this to be a 'right' to NOT be taxed???

Is that supposed to supersede "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."

I'm not quite sure what your thinking is on this, but:

Tax courts are not "included" in Article III courts (Title 28) because they have been specifically defined in in Title 26.

[Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.]

Doesn't make it the correct decision, despite the black robes and hammer.

So, again, would you please answer, at what percentage of taxation is the magic number from slavery and free?

[Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.]

Try reading the Bill of Rights. It and the Constitution are meant to go hand in hand.

"That should be something seriously considered rather then just a flippant remark quoted by a judge."

Well, however he said it, it is the Court's interpretation of the Law.

Sorry, Bud, there is no 'Article 9' in the Constitution.

[The fact that 96% of people didnt pay before 1945 proves nothing.]

It proves that Income Tax did not apply to the great, nearly unilateral, majority of the American population, only a tiny fraction, despite your continual ranting that it must have because 'other' people said so.

You, on the other hand, carry opinions as your 'hard' evidence. They are the opinions of powerful men, but only opinions none the less. They do not face the reality of the statistics they would like to bury.

I have hard mathematical statistics to back up my 'claim'. You merely have the opinions of men in power.

You have yet to give a good explanation of how, after 33 years after the 16th amendment was in place, 96.4% of the American people did not pay an income tax. A bare minimum, giving every consideration to 'your' side, would be no lower then 20% more likely 35%.

In fact, you keep avoiding hard data and repeating the words of men rather then using your own judgment, morals and common sense.

[Law Construction rules require that the meanings of words in a list take the meaning of the company they are with.]
Wow, you're absolutely nuts. Courts have continuously ruled income to take its everyday meaning in context of tax laws. Do you even have any evidence (yet again) to support your claims?

You have provided zero proof congress did not have the power to tax income prior to the 16th amendment. You just keep saying things with no evidence. The fact that 96% of people didnt pay before 1945 proves nothing.

["[I]f anything in our tax law is clear, it is that: 'wages are income.' ... [A]ny contention to the contrary is patently frivolous..."]

'Wages' are paid to 'employees'.

Law Construction rules require that the meanings of words in a list take the meaning of the company they are with.

Every item in the list defining 'employee' is based on a government worker or corporate officer. Corporations are government licensed entities. Notice they included Officers of a corporation, but not the workers.

[Read WILLIAM MOBLEY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE to find out more about the different courts. Tax courts are not Article III courts, but they are courts.]

There is the trap I set for you. If 'Includes' is as powerful as you believe it is, Tax Court _would_ have, no questions asked, been covered in the definition of 'courts' by the ruling.

No one disputes it is a court, but the _term_ 'court' as defined, did not include it in its embrace. Includes didn't include courts, then add to it.

I have told you why they were not several times in this thread alone. The reason why 96.4% of the American population believed they didn't owe any income tax by 1945 is because income does 'not' mean everything you earn.

Income is specifically based on making money from 'federally controlled or owned' properties and earnings. These items are not rights. They are privileges that may be taxed as a fee of use, and there for also qualifies as the 'voluntary' aspect that keeps being mentioned.