as profLogic said, it all comes down to the definition of "income." the highest courts have answered this question and cite the corporate excise tax act, as the correct definition of the term. there can be no direct tax on individual's labor. this is unconstitutional and schiffs conviction was for supposedly filing an incorrect tax return. also, remember that all tax revenue generated now, goes only to service the debt. the federal reserve charges usury fees on fake money which is also unconstitutional.
sorry this is an inconvenience to some, i hope it doesn't interfere with surfing for britney twat pics on the internet or watching borat.
"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
from a US Supreme Court decision:
"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
sorry this is an inconvenience to some, i hope it doesn't interfere with surfing for britney twat pics on the internet or watching borat.
"[Income]must be given the same meaning, in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act, and what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. In determining the definition of the word 'income' thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexicographers or economists, and has approved in the definitions quoted, what it believes to be the commonly understood meaning of the term which must have been in the minds of the people when they adopted the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution." Merchants Loan & Trust v. Smietanka, 255 US 509 (1921)
from a US Supreme Court decision:
"The word 'income' as used in the Amendment does not include a stock dividend since such a dividend is capital and not income and can be taxed only if the tax is apportioned among the several states..."
Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 (1920)
