Time: Sun Mar 23 06:44:27 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA25236; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:52:41 -0700 (MST) by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA14925; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:51:56 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 06:32:31 -0800 To: fwolist@sportsmen.net From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Has someone broken the IRC ? Re: IRC 61 (definition of "gross income") [very gross, indeed] Again, more duplicity. The things itemized are the "sources," not the "income." Here is how to transliterate Section 61, in plain English: Gross income means all income which has been derived from the following specific sources: interest, rents, royalties, and so on. The sources are not taxable and do not enter into the calculation of gross income, but the income DERIVED FROM those sources is taxable and does enter into the calculation of gross income. Income is to source as interest is to principal. The Richardson case says so. See Chapter 13 in "The Federal Zone" for a thorough treatment of this distinction between income and source, interest and principal. Now, if you want to disagree with me, go right ahead. I am happy either way. Even if you disagree with me, that disagreement (assuming it is done in good faith), is further proof of the ambiguity and deceptions in the IRC, which had to have been intentional. Tell me, do you stop for red and go for green in your town? Pretty clear common law, isn't it? Even color blind people can operate a car, because they can tell from the position of the lights, which are standardized all across the nation. Now, that is the way all laws should be and, if they are not, they are void for vagueness, pursuant to the Sixth Amendment "nature and cause" provision. See Appendix Z in "The Federal Zone" for a host of excellent authorities on the origins and applications of the void for vagueness doctrine. Use that as your benchmark, and go study more English if your education is not adequate to detect ambiguity in normal English phrases. This, unfortunately, is one of the great drawbacks of English, for writing law. Latin is much MUCH more precise, when it comes to avoiding ambiguity: Lex non cogit impossibilia. The law does not recognize impossibilities. It is impossible to resolve the meaning of certain English phrases, because they can have two, three, sometimes even more, different and perfectly valid meanings. Shakespeare was a genius when it came to expressing multiple ideas with the same English phrase. "Romeo. Romeo. Wherefore art thou Romeo?" This not only means, "Are you down there in the rose garden, my love?" It also means, "Why do you have to be Romeo, from the wrong family, a family into which I cannot marry?" There are a zillion examples of this, particularly when Shakespeare is telling jokes in the form of puns. This attribute -- void for vagueness -- is one of the most powerful principles in American Law, and for some strange reason, people refuse to pick up on it, choosing instead to argue themselves blue in the face with everyone who comes along with a different interpretation. I just sit back and laugh, because it happens with such regularity, particularly on the Internet. It is a new experience for many people to see their own writing in print; blame that on our schools. "Opinions are like men's watches," wrote Jonathan Swift. "Everyone's is different, but everyone believes his own." If you want to have some fun, read John Knox's winning brief in Appendix A of "The Federal Zone." Now, there was a man with the courage of his convictions. His logic is not entirely smooth, and he makes errors in his understanding of the law, but that particular brief was an immensely important path-breaker, in my opinion. I was very rewarded by my decision to sit down and listen -- surely a lost art in America, which is low on art almost everywhere I look these days. /s/ Paul Mitchell At 06:09 PM 3/23/97 -0700, you wrote: >================[ Distributed Message ]================ > ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order) > Type: Not Moderated > Distributed on: 23-MAR-97, 18:08:50 >Original Written by: IN:healsov-gtu@worldnet.att.net. >======================================================= > > > >At 08:27 PM 3/23/97 +0000, you wrote: >>================[ Distributed Message ]================ >> ListServer: fwolist (Free World Order) >> Type: Not Moderated >> Distributed on: 23-MAR-97, 13:23:24 >>Original Written by: IN:pmitch@primenet.com. >>======================================================= >> >> >> >>After all the work documenting the >>vagueness and duplicity in the IRC, >>you aren't seriously expecting any >>"experts" to agree on the meaning >>of the IRC, are you? I can tell >>you right now, without reading anything >>at the URL you have cited, that I will >>agree with some of it, disagree with >>some of it, and disagree strongly with >>some of it. So, what is that going to >>tell you? Why don't you tell us what >>parts of that URL *YOU* agree/disagree with? >>Now, THAT would be very interesting >>to me. I am happy with the paradigm >>which I pulled from the IRC; so is >>Justice Kennedy (after a fashion). > >Below is an excerpt from http://members.tripod.com/~fedinfo/tax_page.html >which I find very believeable. > >61. Gross income defined. > >(a) General definition. Except as otherwise provided >in this subtitle, gross income means all income from >whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) >the following items: > >(1) Compensation for services, including fees, >commissions, fringe benefits and similar items; > >(2) Gross income derived from business; > >(3) Gains derived from dealings in property; > >(4) Interest; > >(5) Rents; > >(6) Royalties; > >(7) Dividends; > >(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments; > >(9) Annuities; > >(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts; > >(11) Pensions; > >(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness; > >(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income; > >(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and > >(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust. > >(b) Cross references. > >For items specifically included in gross income, see part II >(Sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded >from gross income, see part III (Sec. 101 and following). > >So, "gross income" is defined as: > >"compensation for services, gross income derived from >business, gains derived from dealings in property, >interest, rents, royalties, dividends, alimony, >annuities, income from life insurance, pensions, income >from discharge of indebtedness, distributive share of >partnership..." > >You can see that the definition of gross income has all of these things >listed. But, I would like >you to remember that in1895 the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v Farmers >Loan & Trust >Co. that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest and >dividends of U.S. >citizens on deposit in U.S. banks. Both of those items are listed here in >section 61. Interest is >number (4) and Dividends is number (7). And the Supreme Court further ruled >in Stanton v >Baltic Mining Co. in 1916, that no new power of taxation was conferred by >the 16th >Amendment. > >So, if it was unconstitutional before the 16th Amendment, and no new power >was conferred by >it; How can Section 61 be constitutional when it states that interest and >dividends are part of >gross income and will be taxed? ... because it doesn't say that, that's why!! /s/ Paul Mitchell <snip> ======================================================================== Paul Andrew, Mitchell, B.A., M.S. : Counselor at Law, federal witness email: [address in tool bar] : Eudora Pro 3.0.1 on Intel 586 CPU web site: http://www.supremelaw.com : library & law school registration ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this ========================================================================
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail