For questions about the material on this site or for problems concerning the mechanics of this site contact
Spot
Like the new site? Let us know!
|
Historical Perspectives on the Federal Income Tax |
|
Home Introduction Table of Contents Table of Graphs Bibliography C.R.S. REPORT Correspondence About Us |
Allison Giles, Staff Director February 19, 2001
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
RE: Response to request for written statement concerning President Bush’s tax relief proposal dated February 6, 2001.
Dear Ms. Giles,
The following information in offered in response to the Committee’s request and we would like to have this information included in the record. We do not profess to represent anyone but ourselves, although we probably speak for a great number in voicing our concerns.
We do not protest the taxation of income, in fact we agree with its original purpose. We do however, question the intent of Congress in their application of the Income Tax to "personal living and family expenses". The reason we question their intent is evident by the statement of Judge Hull in his synopsis of the first income tax levied under the 16th Amendment. The synopsis is found in Volume 50, Part 6, of the Congressional Record dated October 16, 1913 and begins on page 5679. There are two major concerns addressed by this synopsis to which the Committee should be enlightened.
First: "The statutory exemption of $3,000 is allowed for personal living and family expenses; however, this and other gross income for which special deductions are allowed by the law must be embraced in the return of gross income…"
It seems to us that this would be the proper place to begin any tax reduction; for the simple reason that it treats every taxpayer the same, regardless of the amount of "income" involved. The Court recognized this principle in 1895 through Justice Harlan’s and Justice Brown’s dissenting opinions in the Pollock Cases 158 U.S. 601 @ 676 and 694:
"The basis upon which such exemptions rest is that the general welfare requires that in taxing incomes, such exemptions should be made as will fairly cover the annual expenses of the average family, and thus prevent the members of the such families becoming a charge upon the public. The statute allows corporations, when making returns of their net profits or income, to deduct actual operating and business expenses. Upon like grounds, as I suppose, Congress exempted incomes under $4,000."
"The exemption of $4,000 is designed, undoubtedly, to cover the actual living expenses of a large majority of families, and the fact that it is not applied to corporations is explained by the fact that corporations have no corresponding expenses. The expenses of earning their profits are, of course, deducted in the same manner, as the corresponding expenses of a private individual are deductible from the earnings of his business. …"
Attorney General Olney, in the 1895 Pollock Cases, also recognized this principle in his statements before the Court, 157 U.S. 427 (pg. 778):
"In the present case there is no lack of uniformity as between corporations and individuals. The exemption of $4,000 a year in the case of individuals or families, as will be shown, is intended as a compensation for the necessarily excessive burden of consumption taxes upon small and moderate incomes.
There is no such situation in the case of a business corporation. Every cent which it expends is allowed it. It is taxed only on its net profits, deducting the wages account; which corresponds to the living expenses of the individual."
Second: "The Treasury regulations soon to be prepared will make it clear to every taxpayer the requirements of the law and its application to income derived from the various kinds of business. To any person who keeps familiar with his business affairs during the year to the extent that at its end he known with reasonable accuracy the amount of his aggregate annual profits, the matter of executing his tax return would be both simple and convenient."
What type of a "business" is the labor for hire employee in, and what "profit" do they acquire from their annual wages? It is evident from the above quotes, and the historical information contained in the Statistical Abstract of the United States, that the average labor for hire employee was not subject to the Federal "Income Tax" until after 1940 (actually the "Individual Income Tax Bill of 1944" [H.R. 4646]). This is especially interesting when you realize that labor for hire employees were earning more than the "single personal exemption of $1,000" allowed as early as 1917. What changed the levy of the "income tax" on net income (business) to include the gross receipts (employee wages) of labor?
Perhaps it is time to look into the "Public Salary Tax Act of 1939" and the "party politics" which endorsed it. The reason we suggest this, to us, is simple. The Congress that passed this legislation intended for it to be challenged. Many of the comments made by the minority Republican Members indicate the possibility that certain provisions of the Act were indeed unconstitutional. Congressman Plumley of Vermont made this statement in reference to the Act:
"So radical a change in our constitutional system as is contemplated and proposed by this act can and should only be made after and by the submission and adoption of a constitutional amendment, which will so extend the power of the Federal Government as to impose such a tax." (Congressional Record of February 9, 1939 page 1308)
His statement follows that of Congressman Buck recorded on page 1305. In addressing the issue of constitutionality Mr. Buck says:
"The value of an affirmative decision by Congress on the question of Federal taxation of officers of States and their subdivisions lies in the fact that the tax would be supported by the presumption of constitutionality attaching to a law passed by Congress and passed by its deliberate judgement after debate."
In this same light Senator Brown, on page 3765, in quotes as saying:
"The Senator from Vermont for himself may certainly make that reservation; but there is no question, under the accepted practice here and in the courts, that the fact that we pass the bill will lend to it the presumption of constitutionality."
Just an observation: The Democratic majority was 2:1, with Roosevelt as President.
The reason for our concern is a statement made by Congressman Disney on page 1313 where he says:
"The bill provided for a direct tax upon the State employee…"
Direct taxes levied upon employees are commonly referred to as "poll taxes", or "capitation" taxes requiring apportionment. At least they were in the opinion of the Judges in office prior to 1937. ("Taxing the Exercise of Natural Rights" by John MacArthur Maguire, Harvard Legal Essays 1934 pp. 273-322 [cited by Justice Cardozo in Steward Mach. Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 @ 581]).
Final point: The Sixteenth Amendment provides for the taxation of incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment. It is clear from that Amendment that taxation of the source was not included or permitted without apportionment. So what is the meaning of the word source?
That may sound like a silly question, but think about it. Immediately after the ratification of the Amendment the Court took up the question of what the term "income" meant. No one considered that a silly question, although the answer was universally known. They, however, defined it in light of the 16 Amendment as; "the gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined". How many "sources" did they list, only two. Why? Because, "income" belongs to the person owning the capital or providing the labor and has nothing to do with "who" paid for it. This all changed in 1939 with the "Public Salary Tax Act" and the Court’s decision in the Graves v. New York Case [306 U.S. 466].
The above case deals with the question of sovereign immunity in the taxation of governmental entities. The question presented to the court was:
"We are asked to decide whether the imposition by the State of New York of an income tax on the salary of an employee of the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation places an unconstitutional burden upon the federal government."
The answer the court gave is found on page 480, it reads:
"The present tax is a nondiscriminatory tax on income applied to salaries at a specific rate. It is not in form or substance a tax upon the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation or its property or income, nor is it paid by the corporation or the government from their funds. It is measured by income which becomes the property of the taxpayer when received as compensation for his services; and the tax laid upon the privilege of receiving it is paid from his private funds and not from the funds of the government, either directly or indirectly. The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legally or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable."
What about the employee’s labor, isn’t that the real "source" of the employee’s income (salary or wage), and if that happens to be his only income, is that not a tax upon the "source" unless compensated for by the allowance of the personal exemption?
What is meant by "nondiscriminatory"? The tax levied upon corporations is levied only upon their "net-profits". The tax levied upon business, professions and the dealings in real and personal property is levied only upon net income, the gain derived from such things. The employee, however, is required to pay the "income" tax on the basis of their annual gross receipts. Yet, all three are classified as "persons", subject to the tax law?
In a recent case the Supreme Court took up the question of an "occupation" tax levied by Jefferson County, Alabama. The court recognized the fact that the County did not have the authority to levy an "income tax", but did have the authority to levy a "license or privilege" tax. They then upheld the tax based upon the "Public Salary Tax Act". (No. 98-10. Argued March 29, 1999—Decided June 21, 1999, Jefferson County, Alabama v. Acker, Senior Judge)
In 1903 the Federal District Court of Arkansas ruled upon a 13th and 14th Amendment issue [125 F 322]. In making that decision the court refers to the "unalienable" rights of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". In doing so, Judge Trieber seems to reduce those rights to their most basic form. He starts out with a question:
"Can there be any doubt that the right to purchase, lease, and cultivate lands, or to perform honest labor for wages with which to support himself and family, is among these rights thus declared to be "inherent and inalienable"?
And ends with the statement:
"That the rights to lease lands and to accept employment as a laborer for hire are fundamental rights, inherent in every free citizen, is indisputable;"
Is it possible to have the inalienable right to labor for others and yet the receipt of wages earned by that labor be taxable as a "privilege"?
We do not object to a reasonable income tax, so long as the basis of that tax allows for a reasonable standard of living. It is well known that the higher one’s income is, the less impact the "income tax" has upon living expenses. The question then is what "standard" of living is reasonable? Isn’t the attainment of a basic standard of living the driving force behind labor, and are not the wages earned by hired labor in direct relation to the cost of providing that basic standard of living? Raising the "Personal Exemption" is fair to all, it treats everyone the same whether rich or poor. Why should you take the basic necessities away from the poor and not take the luxuries away from the wealthy, yet that is what our current system does. The current "personal" exemption is less than $3,000 a year, hardly enough to buy groceries let alone pay rent and utilities.
Raising the "Personal Exemption" is also the fastest way of putting money back into the economy, it simply lowers the amount withheld from wages and reduces the quarterly tax payments. Other than that, there are no other changes required in the Tax Law. The money thus injected into the lower brackets ultimately will end up in the higher brackets through increased consumer spending. A side benefit will be the decrease in the number of tax returns filed, thereby reducing the cost of processing those returns.
Respectfully submitted,
John Gary Given Sr.
Michele L Given
P.O. Box 562
Joshua Tree, CA 92252
(760) 366-8838
taxgiven@msn.com E-mail
Bibliography
16th Amendment 1909-1913 S.J.R. 25/ 39/ 40
Congressional Record-Senate April 28, 1909 p. 1568-1570
June 16, 1909 p. 3344
June 17, 1909 p. 3377
June 28, 1909 p. 3900
June 30, 1909 p. 3968-3979
July 1909 p. 4067
July 05, 1909 p. 4105-4121
Feb. 10 1910 p. 1694-1699
Feb. 23, 1910 p. 2245-2247
March 01,1910 p. 2539-2540
Aug. 28, 1913 p. 3836-3859
Congressional Record-House July 12, 1909 p. 4389-4440
April 26, 1913 p. 503-518
May 06, 1913 p. 1236-1264
Oct. 16, 1913 p. 5679-5680
Congressional Record Vol. 50, Part 7 Appendix p. 89-90
Revenue Act of 1924
Congressional Record—House Feb. 16, 1924 p. 2612-2614
Feb. 18, 1924 p. 2681-2682
May 24, 1924 p. 9416-9419
Revenue Bill of 1926 H.R.-1
Congressional Record—House Dec. 08, 1925 p. 519-525
Dec. 09, 1925 P. 539-567
Dec. 10, 1925 p. 642-678
Dec. 11, 1925 p. 692-724
Dec. 12, 1925 P. 731-757
Dec. 14, 1925 P. 771-798
Dec. 15, 1925 p. 879-898
Dec. 16, 1925 p. 937-969
Dec. 17, 1925 p. 1005-1037
Dec. 18, 1925 p. 1108-1165
Jan. 07, 1926 p. 1673-1675
Jan. 16, 1926 p. 2230-2231
Social Security Act 1935 H.R. 7260
Congressional Record-Senate June 08, 1934 p. 10769-71
April 22, 1935 p. 6100-6101
May 28, 1935 p. 8334-
June 14, 1935 p. 9267-9273
June 14, 1935 p. 9283-9297
June 15, 1935 p. 9351-9353
June 17, 1935 p. 9418-9442
June 18, 1935 p. 9510-9543
June 19, 1935 p. 9624-9650
July 17, 1935 p. 11276-81
July 17, 1935 p. 11307-10
Congressional Record-House Mar. 18, 1935 p. 3874-3875
April 11, 1935 p. 5454-5462
April 18, 1935 p. 5948-5995
April 19, 1935 p. 6037-6093
June 19, 1935 p. 9733-9736
July 17, 1935 p. 11320-43
Statutes at Large, 74th Congress Chap. 531 Aug. 14, 1935 p. 622-648
Internal Revenue Code of 1939 H.R. 2762
Statutes at Large, 76th Congress Vol. 53 Feb. 10, 1939 Part 1
House Misc. Reports, 76th Congress 1-185 Jan. 20, 1939 Report #6
Public Salary Tax Act of 1939 H.R. 3790
Congressional Record-House Feb. 09, 1939 p. 1299-1332
April 10, 1939 p. 4025-4026
Congressional Record-Senate April 03, 1939 p. 3701-3705
April 01, 1939 p. 3764-3773
April 06, 1939 p. 3910-3911
Senate Misc. Reports 76th Congress 2-5 Feb. 24, 1939 Report #112
House Misc. Reports 76th Congress Feb. 07, 1939 Report #26
Congressional Record-Appendix. Extension of Remarks Vol. 84
"New Deal and the Republican Program" p. 1335-1337
"The Unemployment Program" p. 1384-1387
"H.R. 4931-Attack on the Central Problem of Modern Am. P. 1491-1501
"The New Deal Administration" p. 1555
"Recovery Obstacles" p. 1566
"Relief-Recovery-Re-employment" p.1592-1593
"Constitution of the United States-The Charter of Liberty p. 1634-1624
"Failure of the New Deal" p. 1666
"Federal Tax Changes" p. 1671-1672
"Necessary Additional Money Supply" p. 1806-1808
"Collapse of the New Deal" p. 1826-1827
"Three Percent Interest on Federal Land Bank Loans" p. 1896-1897
"Labor and Taxes" p. 1928-1930
"Paying the Government Debt With a Fountain Pen" p. 2012-13
"Taxes Now Consume 30% of the National Income p. 3237-3238
"The Constitution and the Will of the People" p. 3265-3267
"Who pays the Taxes" p. 3336
"Self-liquidating Loans" p. 3340-3341
"The American Tax Burden" p. 3352-3355
"New Problems of Government" p. 3397-3399
"Lending Programs for Self-liquidating Programs" p. 3588
‘Federal Spending" p 3684-3685
"The Constitution-Written and Unwritten" p. 3689-3690
"Construction and Financing of Self-liquidating Loans" p. 3721-3724
"A Sixty-two Billion Dollar Debt" p. 3884-3885
"The Federal Governments Encroachment Upon the States" p. 3915-3917
"Important Shifts in Constitutional Doctrines" p 3950-3956
"An Appeal for our Federal Employees" p. 4000-4002
"The Best Defense of American Democracy is to Broaden" Vol.86 p. 3502-3504
"Taxation During the Twenties" p. 3782-3785
"Taxpayers on the War Path" p. 5415-5416
The Revenue Bill of 1940 H.R. 10039
Congressional Record-House June 11, 1940 p. 7959-8021
Congressional Record-Senate June 17, 1940 p. 8374-8375
76th Congress House Reports June 10, 1940 Report #2491
The Revenue Bill of 1942 H.R. 7378
Congressional Record-House July 16, 1942 p. 6252-6317
July 17, 1942 p. 6318-6350
Oct. 20, 1942 p. 8441-8481
Nov 1942 p. 8997-8999
Congressional Record-Senate Oct. 06, 1942 p. 7792-7852
Oct. 07, 1942 p. 7879-7912
Oct. 08, 1942 p. 7918-7942
Oct. 09, 1942 p. 7980-8018
Oct. 10, 1942 p. 8058-8063
Congressional Record-Appendix July 18, 1942 p. A2827-28
Oct. 20, 1942 p. A3793-99
Revenue Act of 1943 H.R. 3687
Congressional Record-Senate Jan. 12, 1944 p. 85-120
Individual Income Tax Bill of 1944 H.R. 4646
Congressional Record-House May 03, 1944 p. 3968-3983
May 04, 1944 p. 4010-4033
May 22, 1944 p. 4829-4831
Congressional Record-Senate May 19, 1944 p. 4702-4730
May 20, 1944 p. 4783-4787
C.R.S. Report for Congress #92-303A (1992) "Frequently Asked Questions"
"Taxing The Exercise of Natural Rights" J.M. Maguire Harvard Legal Essays (1934)
Colliers Encyclopedia (1969) Vol. 7&8 Constitution—Declaration of Independence
C.J.S. Volumes 47 and 47A Income Taxes
Statistical Abstract of the United States, Volume 38 (1918) to Volume 118 (1998)
Web Sites
Office of Management and Budget (http://www.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2000/guide02.html)
Social Security Administration
(http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html)
U.S. Department of Commerce/ Bureau of the Census
(http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html)
Findlaw
Court Cases
The Slaughter-House Cases 83 U.S. 36 (wall) (1872) Pursuit of Happiness
Heyden Fielt v. Daney 93 U.S. 634 (1876) Interpretation of words
Blake v McClung 172 U.S. 239 (1898) Bankruptcy
Newton V Archison 31 Kan 151 (1883) License tax
Holy Trinity V. U.S. 148 US 457 (1891) Labor for hire
Albeyer V. State 165 US 578 (1896) Pursuit of happiness
Burch V. Savannah 42 GA 597 (1870) Taxes on occupations
Rome V. McWilliams 52 GA 251 (1874) Taxes on occupations
State V. Gillespie 168 NW 58 (1918) License tax
Hughes V. C.I.R. 38 F 2d 755 (1930) Tax on "business occupation"
Washburn V. C.I.R. 51 F 2d 949 (1931) Tax on "business occupation"
Dupont V. Deputy 308 US 499 (1939) Tax on "business occupation"
Hill V. Comm. 181 F 2d 906 (1950) Tax on teacher
Coughlin V. C.I.R. 203 F 2d 307 (1953) Tax on lawyer
Folker V. C.I.R. 230 F 2d 906 (1956) Tax on officer of Corp.
Trent V. C.I.R. 291 F2d 669 (1961) Trade or business
Whipple V. C.I.R. 373 US 193 (1963) Trade or business
Sullivan V. C.I.R. 368 F2d 1007 (1966) Trade or business
Tyne V. C.I.R. 385 F2d 40 (1967) Trade or business
Fausner V. C.I.R. 472 F 2d 561 (1973) Trade or business
Butchers Union V. Crescant City 111 US 746 (1883) Pursuit of Happiness
U.S. V. Morris 125 F 322 (1903) Pursuit of Happiness
Coppage V. Kansas 236 US 1 (1914) Pursuit of Happiness
Meyer V. Nebraska 262 US 390 (1922) Pursuit of Happiness
Redfield V. Fisher 292 Pac 813 (1930) Property - income taxes
Whitcomb V. Emerson 115P 2d 892 (1940) Right to work
Jack Cole Co. V MacFarland 337 SW 2d 454 (1960) Privilege
Society for Savings V. Coite 73 US 594 (1867) Excise tax
Railroad Cases 116 US 138-116 Us 142-118 US 394 - 118 US 417 (1885-1886)
Home Ins. Co. v. State of N.Y. 134 U.S. 594 (1890) Classification and uniformity
Magoun V. Illinois Trust 170 US 283 (1898) Excise tax
Pollock V. Farmers 157 US 429 (1895) Income tax
Pollock V. Farmers 158 US 601 (1895) Rehearing
Nicol V. Ames 173 US 509 (1898) Excise Privilege
Knowlton V. Moore 178 US 41 (1899) Uniformity Excise
Patton V. Brady 184 US 608 (1901) Excise License
Thomas V. U.S. 192 Us 363 (1904) Excise taxes privilege
Flint V. Stone Tracy 220 US 107 (1910) Privilege of doing business
Billings v. U. S. 232 U.S. 261 (1914) "Use"
Stratton’s Independence 231 US 399 (1913) Income defined
Brushaber V. U.P. 240 US 1 (1915) Income tax - confusion
Stanton V. Baltic 240 US 103(1915) Mining is business
Doyle V. Mitchell Bros. 247 US 179 (1917) Income defined
Peck V. Lowe 247 US 165 (1917) Net income
Evans V. Gore 253 US 259 (1919) Judges not taxable
Eisner V. Macomber 252 US 189 (1919) Income defined
LaBelle V. U.S. 256 US 377 (1920) Uniformity
U.S. V. Philadelphia 262 F 188 (1920) Income - excise
Merchants Loan V. Smietanka 255 US 509 (1920) Income defined
Greiner v Lewellyn 258 U.S. 384 (1922) Estate Tax
Meyer v Nebraska 262 U.S. 390 (1923) Privileges and immunities
Blodgelt V. Holden 11 F 2d 180 (1926) Subjective - objective – use
United States v. Katz 271 U.S. 354 (1926) Meaning of words
Karnuth v United States 279 U.S. 231 (1929) "Immigrant"
Old Colony Trust v C.I.R. 279 U.S. 716 (1929) Employee
Bromley v McCaughn 280 U.S. 124 (1929) Gift tax
Welch V. Helvering 290 US 111 (1933) Ordinary - necessary expense
State of Ohio v. Helvering 292 U.S. 360 (1934) Meaning of "person"
U.S. V. Safety Car 297 US 88 (1935) Income
Beeland V. Davis 88 F 2d 447 (1937 Social Security Act
Chas. Steward Mach. Co. V. Davis 89 F 207 (1937) Social Security Act
Davis V. Boston & M.R. 89 F 2d 368 (1937) Social Security Act
Steward Mach Co. V. Davis 301 US 570 (1937) Social Security Act
Helvering V. Davis 301 US 619 (1937) Social Security Act
New York v Graves 300 U.S. 308 (1937) State taxing power
Helvering v Geerhardt 304 U.S. 405 (1938) Federal Taxing power
Graves v New York 306 U.S. 466 (1939) State taxing power
O’Malley v Woodrough 307 U.S. 277 (1939) Taxing the Judge
State T.C. of Utah v. Van cott 306 U.S. 511 (1939) Taxing gov’t employees
Helvering V. Griffiths 318 US 371 (1943) Rehearing Eisner Case
Keasbey Mattison V. Rothensies 133 F 2d 894 (1943) Foreign income tax
Helvering V. Edison Bros. 133 F2d 575 (1943) Income
C.I.R. V. Wilcox 327 US 404 (1945) Benefits
U.S. v Silk 331 U.S. 704 (1947) Social Security
U.S. V. Gilbert 345 US 361 (1952) Judgment creditor
Gen. Am. Inv. V. C.I.R. 211 F 2d 522 (1954) Accession to wealth
C.I.R. V. Glenshaw Glass 211 F 2d 928 (1954) Income
C.I.R. V. Glenshaw Glass 348 US 426 (1954) Accessions to wealth
United States v. Shirley 359 U.S. 255 (1959) Meaning of words
Flemming v. Nester 363 U.S. 603 (1960) Old Age Benefits
James v United States 366 U.S. 213 (1961) gross income
Arnold V. U.S. 289 FS 206 (1968) Living expenses
Conner V. U.S. 303 FS 1187 (1969) Must be gain
Primuth V. C.I.R. 54 TC 374 (1970) Employee
Kowalski V. C.I.R. 65 TC 44 (1975) Employee
Cupp V. C.I.R. 65 TC 68 (1975) Tax filing
Central Illinois v United States 435 U.S. 21 (1978) withholding
Broughton V. U.S. 632 F 2d 707 (1980) Wages
Rowan Cos v United States 452 U.S. 247 (1981) FICA/FUTA
U.S. V. Stillhammer 706 F 2d 1072 (1983) Failure to file
Romer V. C.I.R. 716 F 2d 693 (1983) Personal injury awards
Parker V. C.I.R. 724 F 2d 469 (1984) Presumption of correctness
U.S. V. Koliboski 732 F 2d 1328 (1984) Willful failure
Ficalora V. C.I.R. 751 F 2d 85 (1984) Income not defined
Harris V. U.S. 758 F 2d 456 (1985) Wages not income
Hyslep V. U.S. 765 F 2d 1083 (1985) Frivolous suit
Charczuk V. C.I.R. 771 F 2d 471 (1985) Income not defined
Connor V. C.I.R. 770 F 2d 17 (1985) Tax protest
Lukhard v Reed 481 U.S. 368 (1987) lost wages
Wilcox V. C.I.R. 848 F 2d 1007 (1988) Tax protest
U.S. V. Man 884 F 2d 532 (1989) Tax protest
Davis v Michigan 489 U.S. 803 (1989) all that comes in
U.S. V. Connor 898 F 2d 942 (1990) Tax protest
Lonsdale V. U.S. 919 F 2d 1440 (1990) Tax protest
Maisano V. U.S. 908 F 2d 40B (1990) Tax protest
U.S. V. Melton 94-5535 U.P. (1996) Tax protest
Caniff V. C.I.R. 94-2937 U.P. (1996 Tax protest
Webb v. U. S. of A. 94-1854 P. (1994) Statute of Limitations
Bachner v. C.I.R. 95-7121 P. (1997) Statute of Limitations
The Bubble Room v. U.S. 97-5030 P. (1997) FICA
Coleman V. C.I.R. 791 F 2d 68 (1985)
Abney V. Campbell 206 F 2d 836 (1953) Social Security
Amon V. U.S. 514 FS 1293 (1981) Social Security
Trust Co. V. Lederer 229 F 800
Hofferbert V. Anerson 197 F 2d 504 (1947) Gross income
Oliver V. Halstead 86 SE 2d 858 Profit not wages
Misc. Documents
37 F D-377 Internal Revenue Key 211-236
Webster New Collegiate Dictionary 1973
Words and Phrases Excise, Property-Labor, Wages
Bouviers Law Dictionary Labor - Property Business
Blacks Law Dictionary Business - Labor - Property
Consolidated U.S. Income Tax Laws 1909 - 1921 Kixmiller - Baar
U.S. Stat. at Large 53rd Congress Sess. 1 Chap. 349 (1893-95)
U.S. Stat. at Large 63rd Congress Sess. 1 Chap. 1 (1913)
U.S. Stat. at Large 76th Congress Sess. 1 Vol. 53 Part 1
U.S. Stat. at Large 83rd Congress Sess. 2 Vol 68A
Federal Tax Regulations Part 39 Subpart B (1954)
I.R.C. Vol. 1 1996 U.S. Code Cong.
12/18/00
Edwards v. Cuba R. Co. 268 U.S. 628 (1925) income
Lucas v. Earl 281 U.S. 111 (1930) personal tax
McDonald v. C.I.R. 323 U.S. 57 (1944) business
C.I.R. v. Culbertson 337 U.S. 733 (1949) partnership
Commissioner v. Sullivan 356 U.S. 27 (1958) net-income
Commissioner v. Tellier 383 U.S. 687 (1966) net-income
Jefferson County v. Acker 98-10 Decided June 21, 1999 "occupation tax"
For questions about the material on this site or for problems concerning the mechanics of this site contact
Spot
Like the new site? Let us know!
