Domestic Private Sector Labor Wages Are Not Taxable Income Various Court statements *Meese v. Keene, 481 US 465 - Supreme Court (1987) “When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term’s ordinary meaning. It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term. Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, 392, and n. 10 (1979). As judges it is our duty to construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman, or as it might be understood by someone who has not even read it. *U.S. Supreme Court, Steward Machine Co. v. Collector of Internal Revenue , 301 U.S. 548 (1937) to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, because if it has not already been settled upon sound reason and authority, it never will be. I take the received and just construction of that article, as if written to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises in order to pay the debts and in order to provide for the common defense and general welfare. It is not a substantive general power to provide for the welfare of the United States, but is a limitation on the grant of power to raise money by taxes, duties, and imposts. If it were otherwise, all the rest of the Constitution, consisting of carefully enumerated and cautiously guarded grants of specific powers, would have been useless, if not delusive. Every employer (with stated exceptions) is to pay for each calendar year an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, the tax to be measured by prescribed percentages of the total wages payable by the employer during the calendar year with respect to such employment. § 901. One is not, however, an employer within the meaning of the act unless he employs eight persons or more. § 907(a). There are also other limitations of minor importance. The term employment too has its special definition, excluding agricultural labor, domestic service in a private home and some other smaller classes. The subject matter of taxation open to the power of the Congress is as comprehensive as that open to the power of the states, though the method of apportionment may at times be different. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises. Art. 1, § 8. If the tax is a direct one, it shall be apportioned according to the census or enumeration. If it is a duty, impost, or excise, it shall be uniform throughout the United States. Together, these classes include every form of tax appropriate to sovereignty. Cf. Burnet v. Brooks, 288 U. S. 378, 288 U. S. 403, 288 U. S. 405; Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U. S. 1, 240 U. S. 12. Whether the tax is to be Page 301 U. S. 579 illustrations of excises common in the colonies. They are said to have been bound up with the enjoyment of particular commodities. Appeal is also made to principle or the analysis of concepts. An excise, we are told, imports a tax upon a privilege; employment, it is said, is a right, not a privilege, from which it follows that employment is not subject to an excise. * Corn v. Fort, 95 S.W.2d 620 (1936) The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but the individuals Right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. *Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” *Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105 “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” *Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.” *BROMLEY VS MCCAUGHN, 280 U.S. 124 (1929) As to direct taxes, in which the Supreme Court states in crystal clear language “As the present tax is not apportioned, it is forbidden, if direct.” *United States Supreme Court, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) “[Taxation of income is] in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone, and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it” * United States Supreme Court, Peck v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918) “The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects...” Peck v. Lowe (1918)... As pointed out in recent decisions, it [the 16th Amendment] does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. * Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1916), Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co. 240 US 103, at 112 (1916) It was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation, possessed by Congress, from the beginning, from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation, to which it inherently belonged... *American Airways v. Wallace 57 F.2d 877, 880; Congress agrees with this: House Congressional Record 3-27-1943 page 2580 The terms excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous. The two are often used interchangeably. The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. *Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury vs. Madison, 5, U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803). All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, *Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616. “If it is law, it will be found in the books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.” *Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489. The claim and exercise of a constitution right cannot be converted into a crime. *Hoke vs. Henderson,15, N.C.15, 25 AM Dec 677. To be that statutes which would deprive a citizen of the rights of person or property without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of common law, would not be the law of the land. *U.S. vs Bishop, 412, U.S. 346 (1973) at 2017. W-4, 1040. The requirement of an offense committed willfully is not met, therefore, if a taxpayer has relied in good faith upon a prior decision of this court. *Waring vs. the Mayor of Savanah, 60 Georgia at 93. People are supreme, not the state. *Kinney vs. Beverly 2 HEN. & M(VA) 318, 336. No man shall be deprived of his property without being heard in his own defense. * U.S. vs. Dickerson 413 F 2D 1111. Who would believe the ironic truth that cooperative taxpayer fares much worse than the individual who relies upon his Constitutional rights. * Miller vs. U.S., July 11, 1974, 43 LW 2042 CA 2. Waiver, through oversight, Internal Revenue Service did not send notice, thus notice of amount due exceeded 2 year limitations. *United States vs. Daly, 481 F 2D 28, (1973). The chief error in defendants position is his blanket refusal to answer any questions on the returns relating to his income or expenses for the years in question. *United Station vs. Dickerseon, 413 F 2D 1111. Only the rare taxpayer would be likely to know that he could refuse to produce his records to Internal Revenue Service agents. *Tennessee Supreme Court in Jack Cole v. Commissioner MacFarland, 337 SW2d 453 (1960): The right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every person, and realization and receipt of income is therefore not a privilege that can be taxed. [from:Taxation West Key 933] *Long v. Ramussen, 281 F 236, 238 (1922): The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers, and not to non-taxpayers. The later are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for non-taxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither of the subject nor of the object of the revenue law. Reaffirmed in Gerth v. US, 132 F. Supp. 894 (1955) and in Economy Heating Co. v. U.S., 470 F2d 585 (1972) *Idaho Gold Dredging Co. v. Balderston, 58 Idaho 692, 78 P.2d 105 (1938); Dooley v. City of Detroit, 370 Mich. 194, 121 N.W.2d 724 (1963); Foster & Creighton Co. v. Graham, 154 Tenn. 412, 285 S.W. 570, 47 A.L.R. 971 (1926). “An excise tax is any tax which does not fall within the classification of a poll tax or a property tax, and which embraces every form of burden not laid directly upon persons or property.” * Fed Crop Insurance Corporation v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947). Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority... and this is so even though, as here, the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority. *Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at page 74. ...we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at the suit of the state. The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. He has no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of this life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights...an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute... *The Mathis Decision, (No. 726, May 6, 1968, 3 910 S.) (Winterhaven, Florida). The Supreme Court argued that the IRS could not use material gained by IRS agents under a routine questioning for what purported to be a routine audit. The difference between a routine and a criminal investigation was too minor to justify departure from the Miranda Doctrine. Justice White drew a mandatory conclusion, Indeed, he added, the Black opinion suggested that the Miranda warnings are required through the immensely broad area of investigations which frequently lead to criminal inquiries. * Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915), Included in the right of personal liberty and the right of private property - partaking of the nature of each - 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. * Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923), ...The term [liberty] denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life... The established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest by legislative action... *Loan Association v. Topeka - 87 U.S. 655 (1874). To lay with one hand the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is nonetheless a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called taxation.” * Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739. Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means gain... and in such connection Gain means profit...proceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal... Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor. * Oliver v. Halstead 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9. There is a clear distinction between `profit and `wages, or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor. * Helvering v Edison Bros. Stores, 133 F2d 575. The Treasury cannot by interpretive regulations, make income of that which is not income within the meaning of the revenue acts of Congress, nor can Congress, without apportionment, tax as income that which is not income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment. * Flora v U.S., 362 US 145, never overruled. ... the government can collect the tax from a district court suitor by exercising its power of distraint... but we cannot believe that compelling resort to this extraordinary procedure is either wise or in accord with congressional intent. Our system of taxation is based upon ASSESSMENT AND PAYMENT , NOT UPON DISTRAINT. If the government is forced to use these remedies(distraint) on a large scale, it will affect adversely the taxpayers willingness to perform under our VOLUNTARY assessment system. * Evens v Gore, 253 U.S. 245. US Supreme court, never overruled. After further consideration, we adhere to that view and accordingly hold that the Sixteenth Amendment does not authorize or support the tax in question. (A tax on salary) * Hale v. Henkle, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) 201 U.S. 43, The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. * Edwards v. Keith, 231 F 110,113. The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income derived from many different sources; one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute. * McCutchin v Commissioner of IRS, 159 F2d, The 16th Amendment does not authorize laying of an income tax upon one person for the income derived solely from another.[wages] * Blatt Co. v U.S., 59 S.Ct. 186. Treasury regulations can add nothing to income as defined by Congress. * Olk v. United States, february 18, 1975, Las Vegas, Nevada. Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable. * Commissioner of IRS v Duberstein, 80 5. Ct. 1190. Property acquired by gift is excluded from gross income. * Brushaber v Union Pacific R/R 240 U.S. I, 17; 36 S.Ct. 236, 241. Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112). The worker does not receive a profit or gain from his/her labors-merely an equal exchange of funds for services * Central Illinois Publishing Service v. U.S., 435 U.S. 31. Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two. * Anderson Oldsmobile, Inc. vs Hofferbert, 102 F Supp 902. Constitutionally the only thing that can be taxed by Congress is income. And the tax actually imposed by Congress has been on net income as distinct from gross income. THE TAX IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND COULD NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE UPON GROSS RECEIPTS ... * Conner v US, 303 F supp 1187 Federal District court, Houston, never overruled. ..whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true at the time of Eisner V Mcomber, it was true under section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the IRS code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income,CONGRESS HAS TAXED INCOME, NOT COMPENSATION! * Bowers vs Kerbaugh-Empire Co., 271 US 174D. Income has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, in the Sixteenth Amendment and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed .... * Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1. The conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such... * Simms v. Ahrens, 271 SW 720. An income tax is neither a property tax nor a tax on occupations of common right, but is an EXCISE tax...The legislature may declare as privileged and tax as such for state revenue, those pursuits not matters of common right, but it has no power to declare as a privilege and tax for revenue purposes, occupations that are of common right. * Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189 US Supreme court, never overruled. ...the definition of income approved by this court is: The 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. * Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. vs Matthews, 345 Pa. 239; Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit * Schuster v. Helvering, 121 F 2nd 643. Income is realized gain. And in one of the most eloquent opinions ever delivered by the Court.. * Butchers Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746. 1883. Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant, the right any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment...It has been well said that, THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IS HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE... *United States v. Wong Kim Bo, 472 F.2d 720, 722 (CA5 1972). See United States v. Wooten, Russello v. United states. Inclusio unuis est exlusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. [W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. *Bother v. Fluor Engineers and Constructors, 713 F2d 1405, at 1414 (1983), For a levy to be statutorily authorized in the circumstances here, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, a 10-day notice of intent to levy must have issued. See 26 U.S.C. § 6331(a). Second, the taxpayer must be liable for the tax. Id. Tax liability is a condition precedent to the demand. Merely demanding payment, even repeatedly, does not cause liability. *Bente v. Bugbee, 103 N.J.L. 608, 137 A. 552 (1927), ‘Tax’ is legal imposition, exclusively of statutory origin, and liability to taxation must be read in statute, or it does not exist. *Laureldale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 A 239, and 47 A.2d 277 (1946): Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit. *U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, at 113 (1943): A state may not ... impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. *U.S. Supreme Court in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 US 40: The power to tax the exercise of a [right] ... is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment. *Spreckels Sugar Ref. Co. v. Mclain, 24 SCt 382 (1904): the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language. *Oregon Supreme Court in Redfield v. Fisher, 292 P 813, pg 819 (1930): The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state: but the individuals right to live and own property are natural rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed. *Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F2d 946(1973). ... there can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights. *Miller v. U.S., 230 F 489. The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime. *Clarkson v. Internal Revenue Service, 678 F.2d 1368 (11th Cir. 1982). In this case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the IRS improperly maintained records regarding the exercise of the plaintiffs First Amendment rights. The plaintiff, a tax protester, was followed and investigated by the IRS, who kept a file on him containing surveillance reports, newsletters, and press releases. The court found that these were in violation of the Privacy Act, even though the IRS contended that the records were not kept in a system of records, since they were kept in a general Tax Protest File, from which the IRS said it could not retrieve individual records by name. *In 1992, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed an action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas. Division (CA3-92-0169-T) against Information Systems Consulting (I.S.C.). Mr. Thomas son applied for a job with Taco Bell in 1993 and was told he could not be hired without supplying a Social Security number. Arthur Thomas put together some paperwork which informed Taco Bell of the pertinent law on the subject and provided the company with a copy of the EEOC case against Information Systems Consulting of Texas. [In 1992, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) filed an action in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas. Division (CA3-92-0169-T) against Information Systems Consulting (I.S.C.) for firing Bruce Hanson (an employee) on 8-15-89 solely because he would not provide the company with a SSN that he did not have due to his religious beliefs.] It is important to note that a court case was never filed by the Thomas’s. Taco Bell entered into a settlement agreement with the the young Mr. Thomas prior to the filing of any legal action and settled amicably for money [the amount young Thomas would have earned working for Taco Bell during that summer] and an offer of employment on condition he would agree not to sue. *1132.75 (12-21-87) Criminal Investigation Division. The Criminal Investigation Division enforces the criminal statute applicable to income, estate, gift, employment, and excise tax laws (other than those excepted in IRM 1112.51) involving United States citizens residing in foreign countries and nonresident aliens subject to Federal income tax filing requirements by developing information concerning alleged criminal violations thereof,... *Pollack v. Farmers Loan, 157 U.S. 429 158 U.S. 601 (1895): The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 was a 2% tax on PROFITS OF CORPORATIONS. The Supreme Court had, in POLLOCK v. FARMERS LOAN , in 1894, ruled as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the EXACT SAME KIND OF TAX MOST AMERICANS ARE NOW PAYING! [A direct tax without apportionment.] This decision has NEVER been overturned! Both BEFORE and AFTER the sixteenth amendment passed (?), THE COURTS SAID INCOME WAS CORPORATE PROFIT! The Separation of powers doctrine says only CONGRESS can collect a tax! *Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction: Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, affd 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57. (Id at p. 265, emphasis added) *United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923), the Supreme Court clearly stated at pp. 187-88: On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153. *Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, Taxation, Sec. 316, Strict or Liberal Construction, supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said: Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. *Tandy Leather Company, supra, at 694. that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid. *Water Quality Assn v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309:It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statutes language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something. *President Jefferson, concluding his first inaugural address, March 4, 1801: ... a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government … The privilege in which the income tax does apply, is on incomes derived from foreign sourced activity, for example foreigners here in the US or citizens abroad and US or foreign persons that have control, receipt, custody, disposal, or payment of an item of income of a foreign person in receipt of. Also it is on U.S. source public sector income such as government income. Example “the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing”. These are people and the activity in which a privileged/excise income tax have been placed upon.
Posted on: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 05:53:04 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015