Attorney acquitted on federal income tax charges

Federal juries are waking up to the fact that you can't tax income unless it is profit or gains.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

I hope this doesn't get axed 'cause this is proof of what Aaron Russo has been saying in his documentary America From Freedom to Fascism.

Loony in what way? A federal jury acquitted the man for the reasons stated in the documentary

Minds.

when the government says you have to do something always ask "why?" and then ask for " exactly where does it say I have to?"

www.freedomtofascism.com


group think and sheep like behavior is the best thing for dictators and kings.....

:popcorn: :beer:

I'm not even sure why the question of law (as opposed to fact) described here was even put to a jury. But I'd be willing to bet the ranch that if this case is appealed...and I assumed it will be...that the government ultimately prevails. Why? Because there is an extensive body of law at odds with the conclusion described in the article cited in the OP.

For exmple, in the Buras case (9th Circuit Court of Appeals), the court rejected the argument that when a wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot be taxed. The court stated that this argument is refuted by Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), where the SCOTUS defined income as gain derived from labor but went on to explain that "the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital" are commonly treated as income. Id.

Here are some quotations from other cases upholding the imposition of federal income tax on wages:

Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68, 70 (7th Cir. 1986): "Coleman says that wages may not be taxed because they come from his person, a depreciating asset. The personal depreciation offsets the wage, leaving no net income. Coleman thinks that only net income may be taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment -- net income as Coleman defines it, not as Congress does.... These are tired arguments. The code imposes a tax on all income. See, 26 U.S.C. ? 61. Wages are income, and the tax on wages is constitutional."

Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 904-905 (10th Cir. 1986): "Appellant's contention that the amounts he received from his employers constituted an equal, nontaxable exchange of property rather than taxable income is clearly without merit. This court specifically rejected this argument in United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982), as did the Tax Court in Rowlee v. Commissioner, 80 T.C. 1111, 1119-22 (1983).... Value received in exchange for services constitutes taxable income pursuant to I.R.C. ? 61(a)(1)."

Connor v. Commissioner, 770 F.2d 17, 20 (2d Cir. 1985): "The taxpayer next argues that wages are not income but an exchange of property. As money is property and labor is property, so his argument goes, his work for wages is a non-taxable exchange of property. Wrong again. Wages are income. See, e.g., Schiff v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 116, 117 (2d Cir. 1984). The argument that they are not has been rejected so frequently that the very raising of it justifies the imposition of sanctions."

Olson v. United States, 760 F.2d 1003, 1005 (9th Cir. 1985): "Olson's attempts to escape tax by deducting his wages as 'cost of labor' and by claiming that he had obtained no privilege from a governmental agency illustrate the frivolous nature of his position. This court has repeatedly rejected the argument that wages are not income as frivolous, see, e.g., Gattuso v. Pecorella, 733 F.2d 709, 710 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981), and has also rejected the idea that a person is liable for tax only if he benefits from a governmental privilege."

United States v. Koliboski, 732 F.2d 1328, 1329 n.1 (7th Cir. 1984): "he defendant's entire case at trial rested on his claim that he in good faith believed that wages are not income for taxation purposes. Whatever his mental state, he, of course, was wrong, as all of us already are aware. Nonetheless, the defendant still insists that no case holds that wages are income. Let us now put that to rest: WAGES ARE INCOME. Any reading of tax cases by would-be tax protesters now should preclude a claim of good-faith belief that wages?or salaries?are not taxable." (emphasis in original).

United States v. Lawson, 670 F.2d 923, 925 (10th Cir. 1982): "The defendant?s wages for personal services are income under the Internal Revenue Code.... Notwithstanding Lawson's belief that his wages are not gains or profits but merely what he has received in an equal exchange for his services, the Internal Revenue Code clearly includes compensation of this nature within reportable gross income."

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D.Wis. 1985): " states that the income taxes are directed to taxable gain. Because he receives a paycheck for his labor, and because the paycheck is equal to the fair market value of his labor, he argues there is no gain. No court has ever accepted this argument for the purpose of determining taxable income. Indeed, it has always been rejected. For once and for all, wages are taxable income. Granzow v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 739 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1984)."

In Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a good faith misunderstanding of the law could be a defense to criminal charges of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return and willfully attempting to evade income taxes. The Court held that a good faith belief that one is not violating the law can negate willfulness, stating:

In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, and the jury believed him, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including...any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income. (emphasis added). Id. at 202. Justice Blackmun, joined by Justice Marshall, dissented, finding Mr. Cheek?s belief that wages are not income too unreasonable to be accepted as a defense:

t is incomprehensible to me how, in this day, more than 70 years after the institution of our present federal income tax system with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 166, any taxpayer of competent mentality can assert as his defense to charges of statutory willfulness the proposition that the wage he receives for his labor is not income, irrespective of a cult that says otherwise and advises the gullible to resist income tax collections. Id. at 209-210.