$110 gross receipts -$100 less capital deposited $10 net receipts x 20% tax rate $2 tax due | $110 gross receipts - $2 minus tax $108 receipts after tax -$100 less capital actually invested $8 income to be spent. |
$110 gross receipts -$100 less capital deposited $10 net receipts x 240% tax rate $24 tax due | $110 gross receipts - $24 minus tax $86 receipts after tax -$100 less capital actually invested -$14 capital diminished |
$110 gross receipts -$100 less material & labor deductions $10 net receipts x 20% tax rate $2 tax due | $110 gross receipts - $2 minus tax $108 receipts after tax -$100 less capital actually invested $8 income to be spent. |
$110 gross receipts -$0 less material & labor deductions $110 net receipts x 20% tax rate $24 tax due | $110 gross receipts - $24 minus tax $86 receipts after tax -$100 less capital actually invested -$14 capital diminished |
I wish to post here--not elsewhere.
With all due respect to the good intention of the writer/moderator, he is attempting to question what is, or is not, INCOME.
By raising such a question, the court will shift onto the defendant the burden of proof to show the income does not apply in the issue before the court. Carrying the burden of proof will require convincing the court there is NO POSSIBLE WAY the unidentifed tax MIGHT apply to the accused. This burden of proof is impossible to overcome.
A valid indictment requires the prosecutor to allege a "known legal duty" (a statutory responsibility) claimed to have been violated by the accused. If that requirement is not met, the indictment is void.
Federal individual income tax indictments consistently rely upon IRC 7201 or 7203 as that known legal duty. Those statutes have been used to prosecute admission tax violations, fuel tax violations, marijuana tax violations, alcohol tax violations, etc. They obviously cannot identify a duty for an income tax. The Supreme Court has also shown the statutes apply to ALL taxes collected by the IRS. US v Sansone.
Tom Cryer, Larry Becraft, etc., decline to confront the courts with that knowledge.
Ref: http://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=31.0
"The law will not be discussed in my courtroom."
Did you read the Simkanin transcripts?
http://www.synapticsparks.info/tax/simkanin/railroaded.html
And I just found this researching for my reply:
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/law/research/U.S.%20v.%20Simkanin.pdf
1.5 MB. Look at page 505