tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post8248000391144564678..comments2024-03-26T04:21:43.535-05:00Comments on Free Association: A Mysteriously Overlooked Tax CaseSheldon Richmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-10648671786056393482007-01-08T12:10:00.000-06:002007-01-08T12:10:00.000-06:00Both of us are half-right. Actually, the Murphy d...Both of us are half-right. Actually, the Murphy decision is a 2-part decision. Reading it (from your post), the first part agrees with you, and it appears that Murphy is losing. But when you get to Section (?) C (titled, "The Sixteenth Amendment"; page 9), the court switchs to part 2. The last sentence before Section C says, "But is that constitutional?", transitioning from part 1 to part 2 (Murphy doesn't say anything about the Constitution). So at the end, the IRS lost. If the IRS limited itself to only defending what Murphy said, the IRS would have won. But the IRS over-argued the case. It did what any government does: it messed-up a perfectally sound case.Thomas Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367944713775628182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-51225480605668616412007-01-07T19:00:00.000-06:002007-01-07T19:00:00.000-06:00The issue is not to define "income," but to determ...The issue is not to define "income," but to determine if it includes compensatory damages for nonphysical injuries that are not intended to replace lost wages but rather are to make a person whole. That's an important distinction. It is the outer edges of "income" that are in dispute. As I say, this case gives the tax-denial movement no assistance at all.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-20261452116334231372007-01-07T16:48:00.000-06:002007-01-07T16:48:00.000-06:00Thank you for mentioning my name! And you answere...Thank you for mentioning my name! And you answered in the 2nd sentence above with the incorrectness in the first (I said the IRS MIGHT win this one). And the issue (in Murphy) is to define "income" as used in the 16th Amendment. And, in the original, the IRS lost. We will wait and see on the re-trial.Thomas Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367944713775628182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-54477180731654520142007-01-07T14:32:00.000-06:002007-01-07T14:32:00.000-06:00I assume that what you're saying is that the IRS w...I assume that what you're saying is that the IRS will win this one after all. Maybe, maybe not. But remember, the issue is not whether wages are taxable income. So the decision will not help the tax-denial movement either way. I think it will hurt it regardless of what happens.Sheldon Richmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15672237234580563637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20077444.post-30238023102677589792007-01-07T13:20:00.000-06:002007-01-07T13:20:00.000-06:00You have not listened to the same websites as I. ...You have not listened to the same websites as I. Look up:<br /><br />americanradioshow.us/archive2006.html<br /><br />scroll down to September 9, and listen to hour 2 (13:30 to the end [45:00]). There it is. You are so close, but not accurate. At the end, the IRS lost.<br /><br />However (on your last post), on Christmas, the appellate court vacated their decision. That means the government will have "2 out of 3". The re-trial will be around April. We shall wait and see if the court will abandon their old but accurate decision and render a "new" decision which favors the government. That story is on:<br /><br />americanradioshow.us/archive.html<br /><br />January 6, hour 1, 23:00 to the endThomas Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07367944713775628182noreply@blogger.com