SlaveNoMore
Active Member
You gotta admit that he has swagger though..
Obama Should Order the CIA to Assassinate Snowden...
- Thread starter AlabamaRedneck
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he certainly does.
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
You initiating aggression against a buffalo? Seems unlikely.So I guess you're not gonna believe that's me with the bow now?
Am I the only one that thinks that buffalo has a look of "The fuck is that?"?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Hey a stout boy could be 40-50# Cover that in hide armor, swing at the buffalo's head, boom, he is down. Damn!A buffalo could choke on a boy.cn
Stout boy!! Need another stout boy! Quick it's getting up.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Sure, I can see it. Without the yeti suit....yep...that's you.So I guess you're not gonna believe that's me with the bow now?
Kite High
Well-Known Member
IMO Obama should order the assassination of every politician including himself
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why stop there?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Ohhhh. ~slaps forehead~ not the buffalo. cn
Bretz
Member
Turd sandwich
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
has the united states started setting up concentration camps, banning art and given obama the ability to override the constitution?
no?
oh, guess you were wrong.
eat shit, pawlbot.
or, as cheesus would say: rawn pawl lost. get over it.
Yeah, didn't they run them off a cliff instead?
Bretz
Member
Turd sandwich
Tell me factually what the united states is so I can figure out what level to talk to you on.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Well which natives are we talking about? I know that was a tactic for killing mammoths. You're not mistaking plains tribes (who hunted buffalo as witnessed by modern European settlers) for paleolithic people such as the Clovis culture are you? While they may have both been native to the same regions, they are as far removed as any two people can be, just try and imagine your ancestors from over ten thousand years ago and how different they are from us. That is also assuming ancestry, which is actually controversial, and it is the topic of very much debate and not enough solid conclusions.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
You've obviously never read any of the cases you cited then. Let me help you out by giving you some additional context:
Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)
"This suit was instituted by several members of the Norfolk Cooperative Milk Producers Association, against the Association and James W. Halstead, a director and for 22 years the business manager of the Association, to enjoin Halstead from acting and receiving a salary for his services as manager...The bill alleged that Halstead was a director...§ 13-266(c) and the by-laws of the Association provide that a director shall not receive a salary as business manager of the Association while a director; and that contrary to both the spirit and letter...the directors elected Halstead business manager at an annual salary of $5,000. The Association and Halstead answered admitting as facts the material allegations of the bill, but denying that payment for the latter's service as business manager was illegal...[the code at issue said] "No director, during the term of his office, shall be a party to a contract for profit with the association differing in any way from the business relations accorded regular members or holders of common stock of the association, or to any other kind of contract differing from terms generally current in that district." There is no allegation that Halstead's contract of employment is unfair; therefore, our inquiry is confined to the determination of whether his salary is paid under a contract for profit."
This case was brought by members of an association claiming that a director, also hired as a business manager for $5,000, was violating a statute that said directors could not be part of a "contract for profit" with the association. They alleged the $5,000 payment for services as business manager was such a "contract for profit" and thus impermissible under the statute.
The court reached the conclusion you quoted us: "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor."
Thus the statute did not prevent the director of the association from also being paid $5,000 for his services as business manager. This has nothing to do with income tax; this does not say that compensation for work is not income. It says exactly the opposite! Because compensation for services (wages) are not "profits" under the statute, the director in this case got to keep his $5,000 payment.
Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930):
The quoted text isn't even from the case. I have no idea where you got it.
Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969):
This case involved an insurance payment for a home destroyed by a fire. The company paid about $88,500, with $4,200 intended to reimburse the people for renting another house while the burned home was being reconstructed. The IRS claimed the $4,200 for this purpose was income.
Now the first part of your quote from the case: "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income."
Now the next paragraph, which you excluded: "As already pointed out, plaintiffs' home was rendered uninhabitable by the fire. Plaintiffs had an insurance policy which reimbursed them for their necessary and reasonable increase in living expenses resulting from the fire. Plaintiffs rented another home, the rental payments were $600.00 per month, this lasted for six months, and plaintiffs paid out of their pocket $4,200.00 as rent (PX-11)."
If you had any doubt, let's keep going: "It is apparent that plaintiffs in this case realized no gain in connection with the reimbursement by the insurance company of the rental payments in the total amount of $4,200.00...If one of plaintiffs suffered a personal injury covered by insurance, the receipts of that insurance would be specifically excludable under section 104(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. The same would hold true under section 104(a)(2) if plaintiffs had been compensated for personal injury not covered by insurance. While it is recognized that these statutory exclusions apply only to personal injuries, the same logic on which they are based would control the issue of the judicial exclusion from gross income of the payments made to the plaintiffs here."
This is what leads to your final sentence: "Congress has taxed income, not compensation."
Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916):
"A single question is presented by the appeal, namely: whether or not the commissions payable to complainant under the contracts with the Assurance Society annexed to the complaint, upon renewal premiums paid on policies obtained through the instrumentality of appellant prior to March 1, 1913, but which commissions were not actually paid to and received by complainant until after March 1, 1913, and between that date and December 31, 1913, constitute a part of 'the entire net income of complainant 'arising or accruing from all sources' between those dates....If an agent for a life insurance company does a particular job, e.g., persuades John Doe to insure in the company on July 1st, 1915, and receives as part compensation for that work a certain sum when Doe pays his first premium in July, 1915, surely he includes that in his income return for 1915. That certainly is income. If under this arrangement with the company he receives a further sum of money as compensation for the same job in July, 1916, when John Doe pays his second premium, we cannot see why that is not income for 1916 in the ordinary sense of the word. Why it is not within the language of the act income arising or accruing in the calendar year 1916 and derived from personal services we are entirely at a loss to understand. The statute does not provide that the personal services, compensation for which is to be considered income, must be rendered in the same year in which the compensation is received."
The part you quoted doesn't make much sense without the rest of the text around it: "Reference is also made to certain instructions of the Treasury Department: A person receiving fees or emoluments for professional or other services, as in the case of physicians, or lawyers, should include all actual receipts for services rendered in the year for which return is made, together with all unpaid accounts, charges for services or contingent income due for that year, if good and collectible. Form 1040, instruction 14; from 1041, instruction 12. This form may be appropriate enough to give the department full information about an individual's earnings in any particular year so as to enable its officers to check up with accuracy some return of a future year, when his hope of being paid what he had earned finds fruition. But no instructions of the Treasury Department can enlarge the scope of this statute so as to impose the income tax upon unpaid charges for services rendered and which, for aught any one can tell, may never be paid. To take the illustration given above, the charge for the argument in the Court of Appeals, unpaid on December 31, 1915, could not be included as taxpaying income for 1915, because it was not paid in that year and the client might die insolvent on January 1, 1916; but as soon as it is paid it becomes taxpaying income of the year in which such payment is made, although it was made for services performed in a prior year. The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure; perhaps it means that there shall be included actual receipts (a) for services rendered in the year for which return is made and (b) for unpaid accounts, or charges for services rendered in former years, and paid in the year for which return is made. But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income derived from many different specified sources; one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them."
The text you quoted is merely questioning when it's appropriate for income to be recognized in a particular year, it doesn't say that the money received for services isn't "income."
You want to know how I'm certain you never even looked at this case? The dude arguing he didn't have "income" for whatever reason lost. The case you're quoting affirms that he has to pay tax on the income!
And this, which you put in quotes: "IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." That doesn't appear in the case.
Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946):
"... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit."
Since this doesn't say "compensation for services" is not INCOME, I don't even need to go into it like the rest.
Doer
Well-Known Member
My accountant said recently, he doens't care what they do to the tax code. It doesn't matter what the tax structure is.
The hard part is to figure out what you earned.
Taxes are paid on some but not all profit. But, profit, if any, is a book keeping term. It might be very advantageous to take no profit.
Taxes are paid on some but not all income. But, incomes, in all their variety are book keeping terms. It might be good to take less taxable income, in some years.
If you are just pushing a broom for a living this is not a game you will be playing.
But, when you invest some, after tax profit or income, then you get exposed to the love/hate of real money.
It is what you get to admit to the govt you made. Not so easy if you have property but still can be managed by TurboTax.
But, it take an army of accountants to figure that out in the real money world.
The hard part is to figure out what you earned.
Taxes are paid on some but not all profit. But, profit, if any, is a book keeping term. It might be very advantageous to take no profit.
Taxes are paid on some but not all income. But, incomes, in all their variety are book keeping terms. It might be good to take less taxable income, in some years.
If you are just pushing a broom for a living this is not a game you will be playing.
But, when you invest some, after tax profit or income, then you get exposed to the love/hate of real money.
It is what you get to admit to the govt you made. Not so easy if you have property but still can be managed by TurboTax.
But, it take an army of accountants to figure that out in the real money world.
WillyBagseed
Active Member
lol me 2... oops on the Ruger