In my of making the most
hated irrefutable verifiable truth known to
Christian Church leaders, I have yet to find one
Christian Church leader that does not hate the most
hated irrefutable verifiable truth! They hate it because it greatly threatens their livelihood and, if applicable, position. You'll know they love truth, that is, the most
hated irrefutable verifiable truth, if they continuously (at least once a month) make it known to a significant portion of their congregation until such time all the lies that
Christian Church leaders use to hide it have been exposed. You most likely have guessed what the one particular supposed law this website will focus on is. Following are extremely important quotes that present the truth:
Here is what the one and only true God says in regards to the matter:
The laborer is worthy of his [compensation].1 Timothy 5:18In other words, nothing is to be deducted from the laborer's compensation!
Use "compensation", not "wages", slaves/serfs receive wages!
Here are some Supreme Court cases that confirm the stated fact:
First, Labor is Property:
Cite 1.1:
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 this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property.U.S. Supreme Court in Butcher's Union v. Crescent City, 111 US 746Cite 1.2:
Included in the right of personal liberty…is the right to make contracts for the acquisition of property. Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment, by which labor and other services are exchanged for money and other forms of property.Coppage v. Kansas, 236 US 1 (1915)Note "money and other forms of property", "money" is a from of Property!
Cite 1.3:
The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary. What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry? What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity?Judge Joseph Story, 1852
Second, Compensation for labor or service is not "income":
Cite 2.1:
One does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them.Edwards v. Keith, 231 Fed 1Cite 2.2:
It certainly was not the intention of the legislature to levy a tax upon honest toil and labor.Wilby v. Mississippi, 47 S 465Cite 2.3:
If there is no gain there is no income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation.Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187 (1969) on page 1191Cite 2.4:
Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit.Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946)Cite 2.5:
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.Oliver v. Halstead, 86 SE2d 859 (1955)Notice that the courts prefer "Compensation" to "wages".
Cite 2.6:
The rule of Eisner v. Macomber has been reaffirmed on so many occasions that citation of the cases to this effect would be unnecessarily burdensome. ... That there cannot be 'income' without a 'gain' accords with the common understanding of the term, a test of construction which is particularly appropriate in our system of self-assessed Federal income tax ....1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 Tax Court page 681Cite 2.7:
'income' 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'So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. Supp. 736, 247 US 330
Third, Congress can not define the word "income":
Cite 3.1:
... it becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not 'income'...
Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised ...
Income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.
This is not in the case, but for explanation only:
Yes, "income" can be derived from labor. But the operative term is "derived". Here is one way "income" is "derived" from labor: A temporary employment agency hires out its employees (its "capital assets") and it receives from the contractor $30 per hour of labor provided by its employees and the agency pays its employees $20 per hour. The agency derives $10 of income per hour from the labor of its employees, but the employee does not have any income since the $20 per hour is a trade of property for property, money for labor.
Eisner v. Macomber, 40 SCt 192 and 252 US 189 (1920) and subsequently reaffirmed in Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 US 527 (1921)Cite 3.2:
Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat.112), in the 16th Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed.Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 U.S. 170, 174, (1926) 37In law, all items in a list, such as the one in the above cite, are of the same kind or refer to the same thing, which in this case refer to the same thing, that is, the meaning of "income". The meaning of "income" is only defined in the first item of that list and that meaning is the same in all items of that list. In other words, the meaning of "income" is, and only is, as defined in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909! Especially since neither the 16th Amendment nor any subsequent revenue act defines "income". By the way, an "excise tax" is a tax on a government granted privilege, such as doing business as a "legal fiction" such as a corporation. Therefore, unless your labor is a government granted privilege and the money you receive in trade for your labor or service is corporate net profit, it cannot be "income" and therefore cannot be taxable as such!
Perhaps, since the IRS knows this, it sends tax forms out with a name spelled just like your names but instead of styling them as proper nouns, "John Doe", it styles it as a legal fiction, "JOHN DOE", hoping that you will accept and be liable for that legal fiction and its liabilities.
Cite 3.3:
Moreover, that which is not income in fact manifestly cannot be made such by the legislative expedient of calling it income ...1959 Tax Court case Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 Tax CourtCite 3.4:
The general term 'income' is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code.U.S. v. Ballard, 400 F2d 404 (1976)Cite 3.5:
...It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income...Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930); Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527 (1921)
Fourth, The United States taxing authority is not valid in the States:
Cite 4.1:
... but for a very long time this court has steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that the taxing power of Congress does not extend to the states or their political subdivisions.Ashton v. Cameron County Water Improvement District, 298 U.S. 513, 56 S.Ct. 892 (1936)This is also true of any law passed by Congress, they do not extend to the states or their political subdivisions! Any objective critical thinker will come to the correct conclusion that if Congress could pass laws that extended to the states or political subdivisions, the state would not be sovereign!
I call the important fact revealed by the above Supreme Court cases and many other Supreme Court cases "
The most hated irrefutable verifiable truth"! It is "irrefutable": no one can produce any material fact or evidence contrary to it. It is "verifiable": there are so many court cases on the matter that verification of its veracity is unavoidable to the honest objective researcher. Therefore, to claim it to be anything other than the truth, one would have to be a liar or a lunatic. It is "the most hated" because
Christian Church leaders and many professions would see their livelihoods disappear, or at least greatly diminished, if the most
hated irrefutable verifiable truth becomes generally known by the American People.
The most hated irrefutable verifiable truth is:
Monies received in direct trade for your labor or service is not and never has been "income", and therefore is not and never has been taxable as "income"!
Not only do the above Supreme Court cases prove the above, you will find in the section
God prepares me then calls me to be His messenger that the IRS agreed that the above is true!
Carefully read Jack Cohen's
Stop Withholding Federal Taxes- Legally for a comprehensive walk through of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) that you are deceitfully lead to believe applies to you.
Since the above is absolutely true, and has always been true, why do nearly all hard working Americans pay an income tax on the monies received in direct trade for their labor or service? And, more importantly, why do
Christian Church leaders refuse to make said truth known to their congregations, especially after being made aware of this truth? Read the section
God prepares me then calls me to be His messenger to find out what the many
Christian Church leaders of the first two churches I made aware of the above truth did to me. They persecuted me and made me unwelcome, none would investigate the matter.