for the amusement factor more than anything else. Buried in some of the comments is little smart assed remarks from "Robert Ingle". The little prick is, as far as I can tell, the comfort bitch for Doug Kenline and Gene Chapman. I can't see as he's ever done anything "noteworthy" in the tax protesting world. I suppose it's necessary to have someone to wipe asses and suck dicks. Congrats Ingle, you've found your lot in life.

open Letter to the law and other losers on triallogs.blogspot.com

Dear losers,

I first started visiting loserblog in an attempt to understand how people could fall for such stupid theories. After a full year of triallogs, kenline, chapman, rose, schiff et al, I'm still unable to figure it out.

The Government writes the laws, to think that they have to resort to verbal trickery to enforce laws that they have the ability to write and enforce, is totally idiotic. Yes, they have to remain consistent with the Constitution, but nothing in the Constitution forbids, or ever forbid, the laying of taxes, Personal or otherwise.

The idiots (the law, dale eastman; et.al) asserts that wages, tips, and other compensation received for personal services are not income, because there is allegedly no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money.

The reality:
For federal income tax purposes, "gross income" means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. ' 61. Any income, from whatever source, is presumed to be income under section 61, unless the taxpayer can establish that it is specifically exempted or excluded.


Relevant Case Law:
Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429-30 (1955)- referring to the statutes words "income derived from any source whatever," the Supreme Court stated, "this language was used by Congress to exert in this field 'the full measure of its taxing power.' ... And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."

Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977) - the Supreme Court found that payments are considered income where the payments are undeniably accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which a taxpayer has complete dominion.

United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 943-44 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1029 (1990) - the court stated that "[e]very court which has ever considered the issue has unequivocally rejected the argument that wages are not income."

Lonsdale v. Commissioner, 661 F.2d 71, 72 (5th Cir. 1981) - the court rejected as
"meritless" the taxpayer's contention that the "exchange of services for money is a zero-sum transaction."

McCoy v. United States, 88 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 7116, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18986 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2001) - the court rejected the taxpayer's argument that wages received were not income and described this position as meritless.

Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) - the Supreme Court reversed and remanded Cheek's conviction of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns and willfully attempting to evade income taxes solely on the basis of erroneous jury instructions. The Court noted, however, that Cheek's argument, that he should be acquitted because he believed in good faith that the income tax law is unconstitutional, "is unsound, not because Cheek's constitutional arguments are not objectively reasonable or frivolous, which they surely are, but because the [law regarding willfulness in criminal cases] does not support such a position." Id. (emphasis added). On remand, Cheek was convicted on all counts and sentenced to jail for a year and a day. Cheek v. United States, 3 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1112 (1994).

Reading v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 730 (1978), aff'd, 614 F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1980)- the court said the entire amount received from the sale of one's services constitutes income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment.

Stelly v. Commissioner, 761 F. 2d 1113, 1115 (5th Cir. 1985) – the court affirmed the Tax Court’s rejection of the taxpayers’ argument that taxing wage and salary income is unconstitutional because compensation for labor is an even exchange, not gain. The Fifth Circuit noted that “the frivolity of this argument is patently obvious, and the other contentions raised in the Stellys’ briefs are equally meritless.” The court also fined them for bringing a frivolous appeal.

United States v. White, 769 F. 2d 511 (8th Cir. 1985) – the appellate court affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction to prevent the promotion of any plan based on the false representation that there is no tax imposed on an even exchange of property (labor) for property (wages) of equal value.

United States v. Richards, 723 F.2d 646, 648 (8th Cir. 1983) - the court upheld conviction and fines imposed for willfully failing to file tax returns, stating that the taxpayer's contention that wages and salaries are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment is "totally lacking in merit."

United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981) - the court affirmed Romero's conviction for willfully failing to file tax returns, finding, in part, that "[t]he trial judge properly instructed the jury on the meaning of ["income" and "person"]. Romero's proclaimed belief that he was not a 'person' and that the wages he earned as a carpenter were not 'income' is fatuous as well as obviously incorrect."

Abrams v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 403, 413 (1984) - the court rejected the argument that wages are not income, sustained the failure to file penalty, and awarded damages of $5,000 for pursuing a position that was "frivolous and groundless ... and maintained primarily for delay."

Cullinane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-2, 77 T.C.M. (CCH) 1192, 1193 (1999) - noting that "[c]ourts have consistently held that compensation for services rendered constitutes taxable income and that taxpayers have no tax basis in their labor," the court found Cullinane liable for the failure to file penalty, stating that "[his] argument that he is not required to pay tax on compensation for services does not constitute reasonable cause."

Wheelis v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-102, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1543-45 (2002) - the court rejected the taxpayer's frivolous argument that his wages were not taxable based on his belief that "[p]roperty (money) exchanged for property (labor not subject to tax)" is not subject to income taxation. The court stated that such claims have been "consistently and thoroughly rejected" by the courts and imposed a penalty against Wheelis in the amount of $10,000 for making frivolous arguments.

Carskadon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-237, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 234, 236 - the court rejected the taxpayer’s frivolous argument that “wages are not taxable because the Code, which states what is taxable, does not specifically state that ‘time reimbursement transactions’, a term of art coined by [taxpayers], are taxable.” The court imposed a $2,000 penalty against the taxpayers for raising “only frivolous arguments which can be characterized as tax protester rhetoric.”


Would you like more?