+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Is Human Labor taxable?

    TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 1 > § 17

    § 17. Antitrust laws not applicable to labor organizations
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

    Release date: 2005-08-01

    The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws.


    *********************************
    http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta03003.htm#ta03004

    and therefore cannot be made subject to any tax as though it were such.

    ..

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    26,313

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    ya....i remember lookin into this stuff awhile back!!i must say it made sense to me!!even the difficult to grasp "person" status of men as entitys of taxable agencys.but this reuired voluntary acceptance.you only had to abstain to be free of such incumberences.great technical stuff!!but as always,practice and followership precludes truth.why beyatch when your not the one in the electric chair!? :eek: :( :mad:

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    This has been one of the more common concepts used by tax protestors over the years. There is a difference between labor and an economic gain from labor (ie wages, salary, bonus, etc.) Labor is not, and never will be, taxed. Off the top of my head, he is a quick scenario:

    1) You use labor to mow your lawn. Taxable? No.
    2) You use labor to mow the old lady's lawn across the street as a favor. Taxable? No.
    3) Your neighbor pays you $50 to mow his lawn. Taxable? Yes.

    Tax protestors over the years have used the cititions you quoted to try and claim that wages are not taxable. So far, they are batting 0-forever.

    Z-

  4. #4
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    Quote Originally Posted by VinnyZ
    This has been one of the more common concepts used by tax protestors over the years. There is a difference between labor and an economic gain from labor (ie wages, salary, bonus, etc.) Labor is not, and never will be, taxed. Off the top of my head, he is a quick scenario:

    1) You use labor to mow your lawn. Taxable? No.
    2) You use labor to mow the old lady's lawn across the street as a favor. Taxable? No.
    3) Your neighbor pays you $50 to mow his lawn. Taxable? Yes.

    Tax protestors over the years have used the cititions you quoted to try and claim that wages are not taxable. So far, they are batting 0-forever.

    Z-
    I believe you are wrong in your theory between labor and economic gain. The statute is pretty clear, human labor is not commerce. So, whether you are laboring in your own yard or bartering your labor in a neighbors, it's still labor and not subject to taxation.


    Lady Mod

  5. #5
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    Labor definition according to Black's Law dictionary: Work; toil; service; mental or physical exertion. Term in its ordinary use is synonymous with "employment," "job" or "position". Don Nelsen Const. Co. v. Landen, 198 Nev. 533, 253, N.W.2d 849, 852. Term normally refers to work for wages as opposed to work for profits; though the word is sometimes construed to mean service rendered or part played in production of wealth. Britt v. Cotter Butte Mines, 108 Mont. 174, 89 P.2d 266, 267. Includes superintendence o supervision of work. Kirk & Co. v. Shea-Adamson Co., D.C.Minn., 21 F.Supp. 831, 837.
    ****************************************

    The Statutes-at-Large definitely supersede the code, since the code
    is the statutes-at-large codified.

    Question: Will a judge sign an order compelling you to violate the
    legislative intent of a law? That's probably a good question to ask a judge,
    wouldn't you agree?

    I want to know if you see what I see, or am I going blind? The following
    links are to the government's own website. This is their info that they are
    disseminating. Go to the links and read it for yourself.

    Office of the Law Revision Counsel
    http://uscode.house.gov/lawrevisioncounsel.shtml

    The Office of the Law Revision Counsel prepares and publishes the United
    States Code, which is a consolidation and codification by subject matter of
    the general and permanent laws of the United States. (see
    http://uscode.house.gov/lawrevisioncounsel.shtml)

    Ok, now go to http://uscode.house.gov/about/info.shtml About the Office and
    the United States Code.

    Now read this very carefully.

    It states (1st paragraph): The Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the
    U.S. House of Representatives prepares and publishes the United States Code
    pursuant to section 285b of title 2 of the Code. The Code is a consolidation
    and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the
    United States.

    So, it states the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the U.S. House of
    Representatives gets its authority from section 285b of title 2 of the Code.


    Ok, now read the 3rd paragraph: Certain titles of the Code have been enacted
    into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the
    text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles.
    The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained
    in those titles. (Ok, Now read this very carefully!) The following titles of
    the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14,
    17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49

    Here is the punchline. Title 2 has not been enacted into positive law. Now
    that is their own words on their own website.

    Title 2 of the US Code (2 USC) is the Congress, is it not? Question: Is
    Congress truly operating with a lawful and legal enactment (authority) re
    this matter and/or others?

    By the way, isn't everyone a taxpayer? When one buys gas, is there not a tax
    one is paying? Not so much a taxpayer but more importantly a
    constitutionally approved and congressionally mandated taxable item.


    1 USC 204(a) United States Code.- The matter set forth in the edition of the
    Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with
    the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the
    United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day
    preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the
    legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of
    such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall
    be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the
    United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular
    possessions of the United States.


    1 USC 113 "Little and Brown's" edition of laws and treaties; slip laws;
    Treaties and Other International Acts Series; admissibility in evidence- The
    edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little
    and Brown, and the publications in slip or pamphlet form of the laws of the
    United States issued under the authority of the Archivist of the United
    States, and the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under
    the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence of the
    several public and private Acts of Congress, and of the treaties,
    international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the
    President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties,
    as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity
    and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of
    the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or
    authentication thereof.

    Positive law. "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper
    authority for the government of an organized jural society. Black's Law
    Dictionary 5th Edition

    Prima facie. "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so
    far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed
    to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." Black's Law
    Dictionary 5th Edition

    While you are at it what does 15 USC 17
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...itle=15&sec=17 mean
    to you? The first sentence states: The labor of a human being is not a
    commodity or article of commerce.

    Also, if you look again, Titles 26 and 27 have not been enacted into
    positive law. That's the Government's information, not mine. I'm just
    reading what they have written.

    Another question: Why would anyone even bring up anything about the 16th
    Amendment or anything pertaining to the "861 argument"? That is what a lot of tax protesters do. 861 is part of Title 26 and it has not been enacted into positive law. IT IS IRRELEVANT! IT DOES NOT MATTER!

    Lady Mod

  6. #6
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    1 USC 204(a) United States Code.— The matter set forth in the edition of the Code of Laws of the United States current at any time shall, together with the then current supplement, if any, establish prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature, in force on the day preceding the commencement of the session following the last session the legislation of which is included: Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States, the several States, and the Territories and insular possessions of the United States.

    1 USC 113 “Little and Brown’s” edition of laws and treaties; slip laws; Treaties and Other International Acts Series; admissibility in evidence- The edition of the laws and treaties of the United States, published by Little and Brown, and the publications in slip or pamphlet form of the laws of the United States issued under the authority of the Archivist of the United States, and the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence of the several public and private Acts of Congress, and of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.

    Positive law. "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition

    Prima facie. "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition

    Stephen v United States, 319 U.S. 423, 426, 63 S.Ct. 1135, 1137, 87 L.Ed. 1490, 1491 (U.S.Mich., 1943) (‘…The fact that the words of 18 USC 681 have lingered on in the successive editions of the United States Code is immaterial. By 1 U.S.C.A. 54(a) the Code establishing ‘prima facie’ the laws of the United States. But the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.”)

    Springfield Terminal Railway Co. v United Transportation Union. 767 F.Supp. 333, 346 (D Me, 1991) 45 USCA 441(b)(1) “The statute is correctly reproduced in the United States Code Annotated. 45 USCA 441(b)(1). The statute is incorrectly is incorrectly reproduced in the United States Service and in the Lexis Code Library.”

    Nashville Milk Co v Carnation Co., 355 U.S. 373, 379 78 S. Ct. 352, 356, 2LEd.2d 340, 345 (US Ill, 1958) “(‘…..[T]his codification seems to us, for the reasons set forth in this opinion, to be manifested inconsistent with the Robinson-Patman Act, and in such circumstances Congress has specifically provided that the underlying statute must prevail.”

    Taxing and licensing statutes are not enacted as `positive law' which consists of those statutes enacted by legislative bodies in pursuance to authority or mandate granted in United States or [State] constitutions. Such tax and licensing statutes are private, equity, maritime law contracts, which are entered voluntarily by private persons with the private corporate state. Escovedo v State of California, 35 Cal.2d 870.

    “The statute is a commitment to 'the principle that a democracy cannot function unless the people are permitted to know what their government is up to." Favish v. OIC, (9th. Cir., July 12, 2000)

    Official source for the United States laws is Statute at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. Royer's Inc. v. United States (1959, CA3 Pa) 265 F.2d 615, 59-1 USTC 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137.

    Statutes at Large are "legal evidence" of laws contained therein and are accepted as proof of those laws in any court of United States. Bear v. United States (1985, DC Neb) 611 F Supp 589, affd (1987, CA8 Neb) 810 F.2d 153.

    Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, title is only prima facie" evidence of law. Preston v. Heckler (1984, CA9 Alaska) 734 F.2d 1359, 34 CCH EPD 34433, later proceeding (1984, DC Alaska) 596 F Supp 1158.

    Where title has not been enacted into positive law, title is only prima facie or rebuttable evidence of law, and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had to original statutes themselves. United States v. Zuger (1984, DC Conn) 602 F Supp 889, affd without op (1985, CA2 Conn) 755 F.2d 915, cert den and app dismd (1985) 474 US 805, 88 L Ed 2d 32, 106 S Ct 38.

    Even codification into positive law will not give code precedence where there is conflict between codification and Statutes at Large. Warner v. Goltra (1934) 293 US 155, 79 L Ed 254, 55 S Ct 46; Stephan v. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L Ed 1490, 63 S Ct 1135; United States v. Welden (1964) 377 US 95, 12 L 2d 152, 84 S Ct 1082.

    United States Code does not prevail over Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent. Stephan v. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L Ed 1490, 63 S Ct 1135; Peart v. The Motor Vessel Bering Explorer (1974, DC Alaska) 373 F Supp 927.

    Although United States Code establishes prima facie what laws of United States are, to extent that provisions of United States Code are inconsistent with Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large will prevail. Best Food, Inc. v. United States (1965) 37 Cust Ct 1, 147 F Supp 749.

    Where there is conflict between codification and Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large must prevail. American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States (1961) 153 Ct Cl 201, 290 F. 2d 925; Abell v. United States (1975) 207 Ct Cl 207, 518 F.2d 1369, cert den (1976) 429 US 817, 50 L Ed 2d 76, 97 S Ct 59.

  7. #7
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Is Human Labor taxable?

    "This distinction between the Statutes at Large and the U.S.C. can be better understood in the context of positive and non-positive law. A non-positive law title of the Code (such as Title 29 -- Labor, for example) consists of Statutes at Large which have not been enacted directly to such title, but which have been codified to such title by the Law Revision Council. On the other hand, in a positive law title (such as Title 10 -- Armed Forces), Statutes at Large have been enacted directly to such title. Because of this distinction, it is not uncommon to find such words as 'title' or 'Act' appearing in the text of a Statutes at Large which have been codified to a non-positive law title of the Code. While we preserve such language in U.S.C.S., the compilers of the U.S.C. substitute words such as 'chapter' or 'subchapter.' This substitutionary policy has, on several occasions, resulted in conflict between the U.S.C. and the Statutes at Large. For example, in one case it was held that use of the word 'Act' in the Statutes at Large prevailed over substitution of the word 'chapter' by the compilers of the Code (see United States v. Vivian (1955, CA7 Ill.) 224 F.2d 53, cert den 350 US 953, 100 L.Ed. 830, 76 S.Ct. 340 (1956)).

    "The driving force behind our policy of adhering to the exact language of the Statutes at Large is to present and preserve federal statutes in their most accurate form. While this effort may lead to confusion when such words as 'title' or 'Act' appear in the text of a non-positive law section, we attempt to resolve any confusion by either inserting bracketed references in the text of the statute, or by dropping a 'Reference-in-text' note to inform the reader what is being referred to by the word or phrase in question.

    Statutes at Large v. United States Code

    "The following cases either expressly hold or support the proposition that when a conflict exists between the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) and provisions of a non-positive law title of the United States Code, the provisions of the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) prevail:

    UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
    Warner v. Goltra (1934) 293 US 155, 79 L.Ed. 254, 55 S.Ct. 46;
    Stephan v. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L.Ed. 1490, 63 S.Ct. 1135;
    Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. (1958) 355 US 373, 2 L.Ed.2d 340, 78 S.Ct. 352;
    United States v. Welden (1964) 377 US 95, 12 L.Ed.2d 152, 84 S.Ct. 1082;
    United States v. Neifert-White Co. (1968) 390 US 228, 19 L.Ed.2d 1061, 88 S.Ct. 959;
    Goldstein v. Cox (1970) 396 US 471, 24 L.Ed.2d 663, 90 S.Ct. 671;
    United States v. Bornstein (1976) 423 US 303, 46 L.Ed.2d 514, 96 S.Ct. 523;
    American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County (1983) 463 US 855, 77 L.Ed.2d 1072, 103 S.Ct. 3369.

    SECOND CIRCUIT:
    Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank (1936, CA2 NY) 81 F.2d 19, cert den 298 US 677, 80 L.Ed. 1398, 56 S.Ct. 941;
    United States ex rel. Kessler v. Mercur Corp. (1936, CA2 NY) 83 F.2d 178, cert den 299 US 576, 81 L.Ed. 424, 57 S.Ct. 40;
    United States v. Zuger (1984, DC Conn) 602 F.Supp. 889, aff'd without op. 755 F.2d 915, cert den 474 US 805, 88 L.Ed.2d 32, 106 S.Ct. 38.

    THIRD CIRCUIT:
    Royer's Inc. v. United States (1959, CA3 Pa.) 265 F.2d 615;
    Crilly v. SEPTA (1975, CA3 Pa.) 529 F.2d 1355;
    United States v. Hibbs (1976, ED Pa.) 420 F.Supp. 1365, vacated on other grounds 568 F.2d 347;
    United States v. Gigli (1984, WD Pa.) 37 BR 939.

    FOURTH CIRCUIT:
    United States v. Shively (1936, DC Va.) 15 F.Supp. 107.

    FIFTH CIRCUIT:
    Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co. (1947, CA5 Fla.) 160 F.2d 787.

    SIXTH CIRCUIT:
    Rose v. National Cash Register Corp. (1983,CA6 Mich.) 703 F.2d 225, cert den 464 US 939, 78 L.Ed.2d 317, 104 S.Ct. 352 (1983);
    Marx v. Centran Corp. (1984, CA6 Ohio) 747 F.2d 1536, cert den 471 US 1125, 86 L.Ed.2d 273, 105 S.Ct. 2656 (1985);
    United States ex rel. Boyd v. McMurtry (1933, WD Ky) 5 F.Supp. 515.

    SEVENTH CIRCUIT:
    United States v. Vivian (1955, CA7 Ill.) 224 F.2d 53;
    Lode v. Leonardo (1982, ND Ill.) 557 F.Supp. 675; Young v. IRS (1984, ND Ind.) 596 F.Supp. 141;
    United States v. Burgess (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.) 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227, 1987 WL 39092.

    EIGHTH CIRCUIT:
    United States v. Wodtke (1985, ND Iowa) 627 F.Supp. 1034.

    NINTH CIRCUIT:
    Preston v. Heckler (1984, CA9 Alaska) 734 F.2d 1359, 34 CCH EPD P 34433;
    Ryan v. Bilby (1985, CA9 Ariz.) 764 F.2d 1325;
    Woner v. Lewis (1935, DC Cal.) 13 F.Supp. 45;
    Peart v. The Motor Vessel Bering Explorer (1974, DC Alaska) 373 F.Supp. 927.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT:
    Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation (1988, App. DC) 854 F.2d 1438.
    OTHER COURTS:
    American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States (1961, Ct. Cl.) 290 F.2d 925, 153 Ct. Cl. 201;
    Best Food, Inc. v. United States (1956) 37 Cust. Ct. 1, 147 F.Supp. 749.

    "The two most recent cases which have addressed this matter 1 are Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation (1988, App. DC) 854 F.2d 1438 and United States v. Burgess (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.) 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227, 1987 WL 39092. In Five Flags, the court stated: 'Where the language of the Statutes at Large conflicts with the language of the United States Code that has not been enacted into positive law, the language of the Statutes at Large controls.' In Burgess, the court, in addressing the constitutionality of criminal prosecution under a statute not published in the United States Code, stated that the Statutes at Large are 'legal evidence of laws,' while those laws published in the United States Code are only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States."

Similar Threads

  1. Who has to work on Labor Day ?
    By Administrator in forum Government Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-20-2014, 08:12 AM
  2. About time: War against big Labor
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2011, 11:42 AM
  3. A Human is completely human only when s/he plays
    By coberst in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 02:03 PM
  4. Labor day
    By carolinahound in forum General Chat
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-03-2008, 12:17 AM
  5. CHEAP Labor?
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 04-15-2007, 03:40 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 1984, about, acceptance, accepted, accurate, across, acted, acts, aff, age, agencys, ain, als, american, and, anti, any, anyone, approved, are, article, ation, attempt, authority, back, bar, bat, bear, because, bee, been, being, believe, best, better, between, bodies, bonus, bri, bring, brow, brown, but, buys, cal, can, cannot, capital, carefully, case, cases, cash, cer, chair, chase, circuit, citi, claim, clear, code, color, columbia, comme, commerce, common, con, conflicts, confusion, cons, context, corp, corporate, council, county, courts, current, dallas, date, day, december, definition, den, department, der, difference, difficult, district, does, don, driving, dropping, duc, economic, edition, editions, elec, electric, equity, etc, even, ever, exists, explorer, face, favor, federal, fifth, first, fla, for, forces, forever, form, forma, free, freedom, from, fusion, gain, gas, general, gets, going, gol, good, gra, gran, great, had, han, hand, has, hat, have, head, held, help, her, here, hey, his, hose, house, html, huma, human, ice, ill, illegal, ime, inc, inc., individual, info, information, ing, inter, international, into, ion, iowa, isn, item, its, judge, know, labor, lady, large, las, last, law, lawn, lead, led, legitimate, les, less, lewis, line, lines, lot, made, mari, mat, matter, mea, meaning, members, men, mental, mich, milk, mines, mod, mont, more, mow, much, must, mutual, national, nature, never, not, note, nothing, objects, occasions, off, ohio, oil, old, one, only, operation, order, original, our, out, over, own, par, paragraph, part, paying, pays, permanent, person, persons, pertaining, physical, played, policy, position, positive, presiden, presto, pretty, prima, private, pro, probably, production, profi, profit, profits, proposition, protestors, published, question, quick, quote, ran, rea, read, reasons, red, references, register, rel, remember, rendered, ric, robinson, salary, say, scenario, scripts, search, sec, secretary, section, sense, service, session, set, sign, siste, size, sometimes, source, specifically, stated, states, status, stephen, sti, stock, street, stuff, subject, subs, such, supervision, supplement, supreme, supreme court, tal, tax, taxable, tech, technical, tent, tex, text, than, that, the, themselves, theory, there, they, this, those, time, title, top, trac, trade, tran, transportation, truth, try, two, under, uni, union, united, united states, ure, url, used, viola, wages, wan, was, were, western, wha, what, when, why, will, with, wrong, www, yard, years, yes, you, young, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •