- Helvering v. Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. (1943); "The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment."
- Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918); "We must reject in this case . . . the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts -- everything that comes in -- are income within the proper definition of the term 'income'..."
- Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir. 1916); "It taxes only income 'derived' from many different sources; one does not 'derive income' by rendering services and charging for them."
- Southern Pacific v. Lowe, U.S. 247 F. 330. (1918); "... [I]ncome; as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in. The true function of the words 'gains' and 'profits' is to limit the meaning of the word 'income.' " (Emphasis added).
In other words, for something to be "income" it MUST be something that is a "gain" or "profit" to you.
- U.S. v. Ballard, 535, 575 F. 2D 400 (1976); (see also Oliver v. Halstead, 196 VA 992; 86 S.E. Rep. 2D 858); "There is a clear distinction between 'profit' and 'wages' or 'compensation for labor.' Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. . . The word profit is a different thing altogether from mere compensation for labor . . . The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who performed the services . . . is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it and is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to Regulations of the Treasury Department..." (Emphasis added).
Wow, so what did we learn from the above case cites? (There are many more). "Income" didn't include American's wages prior to the 16th Amendment. There was never a regular lawful tax on wages because working has always been a right and not a privilege that can be taxed...
"The legislature has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right." Sims vs. Ahrens, 167 Ark. 557; 271 S.W. 720, 730, 733 (1925).
"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed." Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). (Emphasis added).
The income tax is an "excise" tax as the courts ruled. An excise tax is a tax on privilege. Working is NOT a privilege you can be taxed for...
"It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional... A state [or federal government-author] may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal Constitution." Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113; 480, 487; 63 S Ct at 875; 87 L Ed at 1298 (1943).
"The right to engage in an employment, to carry on a business, or pursue an occupation or profession not in itself hurtful or conducted in a manner injurious to the public, is a common right, which, under our Constitution, as construed by all our former decisions, can neither be prohibited nor hampered by laying a tax for State revenue on the occupation, employment, business or profession." The Antelope, 23 U.S. 66, 120.
"Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment... It has been well said that, the property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable ...to hinder his employing.., in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of the most sacred property." Butchers' Union Co. V. Crescent City, CO., 111 U.S. 746, 757 (1883). (Emphasis added).
"Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lies to a large extent at the foundation of most other forms of property, and of all solid individual and national prosperity." Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, at 127 (1873).