- 4 - tax purposes. His argument was disjointed, as reflected in his testimony at trial: It is that wages have been found to be property by courts. Property, in order to tax that, that would be in effect servitude of the taxpayer, making them, basically taking -– I don't know how to phrase it exactly, but * * *. Well, wages are not included in what is commonly called gross income in the Tax Code. In fact, as property, it would be taxable as ordinary income under the Tax Code, which the only ordinary income which is taxed is real estate. So, therefore, there is no actual tax put on wages as property. When the Court pointed out to petitioner that section 61(a)(1) defines gross income to mean all income from whatever source derived including, but not limited to, compensation for services, his response was that the compensation he received as an employee "would be corporate services". Petitioner agreed that he was not a corporation: "my position is that the income tax is on corporations and not on individuals. When it refers to compensation for services, it's referring to services rendered by a corporation." The Court rejects that reasoning. Petitioner's argument is completely lacking in factual and legal foundation and constitutes a textbook case of a protest of the Federal tax laws. Such protester arguments have been heard on numerous occasions by this Court, as well as other courts, and have been consistently rejected. The Court sees no need to further respond to petitioner's arguments with somber reasoning and copious citations of precedent, as to do so might suggestPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011