Does the 16th Amendment specify what is to be considered as "income," is all labor earnings considered income?

Question

I know that the 16th authorizes the government to levy taxes on income, that is not the issue, the issue is that wages earned from working is not income, it is technically an equal exchange of capital for labor. This may seem inconsequential, but I wanted to know if anyone has evidence to the contrary. Peace.

Answer 1

No the tax code does that.

Answer 2

Income is defined in Title 26 of the US Code. Without listing everything there, the key item is "compensation for services..." That clearly covers your wages from employment, either from an employer or as self-employed.

The baffle-gab about "equal exchange of capital for labor" is classic Tax Kook gobbledygook. The phrase has no legal meaning under the law. No evidence is needed to debunk it because it is not defined in law. It has been raised so often enough by the tax protester fools and rejected by the courts that uttering the words at trial can attract a $25,000 fine for raising a spurious defense.

Answer 3

The 16th amendment does not specifically define income, but the Internal Revenue Code does. Wages do count as income according to the IRS. See the link below, which was posted on their website to answer the allegations swirling around the Internet.

Answer 4

Yes, CFR Title 26, aka the Internal Revenue Code. See Sec 61(a)(1) which includes "compensation for services" under the general definition of gross income.

Whereas you see it as an equal exchange, in fact there is no "cost basis" in labor. That is, you have never paid anything for it, thus there is no basis to deduct from the gross value received. So the full value received is taxable income.

Yes, this defies common sense, but is there anything that has come out of D.C. that does not?

Here's another common scenario: two contractors each exchange $1000 of their labor. The correct treatement is that each reports $1000 of income from this transaction. Of course, often they break the law figuring "it's just between us", no audit trail". Bad karma, too.

Answer 5

"Labor" has never been taxed and never will.

"Wages" are subject to income tax.

The constitution does have to specifically allow something in order for it to be taxed. That is and was up to the courts to decide.

Another way to look at it:

You give your boss 8 hours of your time and he pays you wages. How much does that time cost you? $0.00. We all get 24 hours a day. What we do with it is up to us.

Wages earned
Less: Cost of Time ($0.00)
Equals: Economic Gain.

Plus, the "no economic gain from exchanging labor for wages" argument has been used in court many times and has never won.

Answer 6

Money for labor is not an equal exchange for tax purposes according to the supreme court and this fruitcake argument has been discredited for decades. Don't waste your time on it.

Answer 7

I think the court's have pretty much covered that silly argument. Whether or not it's an equal exchange is your problem, but Uncle gets his cut.

Answer 8

this is all it says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Answer 9

yup I even have ideal till now ending my first marriage. I even had a chum that replaced into attracted to helping me. yet i replaced into only incredibly starved for interest, puzzled approximately my existence and nicely slightly curious. i did not elect to finally finally end up hurting her in my puzzled state so i did not enable something to start. She replaced into candy and if i replaced into going to change i might provide her a decision.

Answer 10

thats a very good question.