Where is the law that requires a Doctor to pay for an income tax?
If the supreme court said that the 16th Amendment did not give congress any new taxing power, and if the supreme court stated that the income tax is a tax on activities (excise tax) and not the income, where in title 26 does it address my activity? I am looking for something like this: "There shall be assessed, levied, collected, and paid annually upon the gains, profits, and income received in the preceding calendar year by every citizen of the United States from any profession, trade, employment, or vocation carried on in the United States or elsewhere, or from any other source whatsoever, a tax"
According to the supreme court the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax and neither did it destroyed the apportionment requirement for DIRECT TAXES, although that fact is irrelevant to the question. Also the 16th Amendment is not in Title 26, What it did was to prohibit congress from labeling the income Tax a direct tax from whatever source derived. There is simply no supreme court case, post 16th Amendment, that states that the income tax is a direct tax. The Supreme Court in two post 16th Amendment, Unanimous, landmark cases , that have never been overturned, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916), stated that the income tax is an excise tax (indirect tax). Therefore my questioned is derived from the proper definition of an excise tax (indirect tax). The Supreme Court defined an excise tax as such:
“A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruit
“A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)”
Another words a tax laid on an activity (event) as distinguished from its tangible fruit (property or income) is an indirect tax. Therefore the subject of the income tax is the activity that produces the income, and not the income itself. It would be an illogical conundrum to believe that the subject of an excise tax is the income. Here is another example of an indirect tax: When we pay a toll (tax) to cross a bridge, the thing being taxed is not the bridge, clearly, but the event (activity) of crossing the bridge. We are being taxed (fee) for the use of the bridge. In the payment of the toll (tax) it would not be logical to state that taxing the toll (tax) is the subject of the tax. That would mean that we are being tax for the collection of a tax!
Now that it is very clear that
1)the subject of an excise tax (indirect tax) is the activity,
2)that the 16th Amendment did not create the income tax (the constitutional authority is in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution)
3)That the 16th Amendment is not Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code).
4)That mumbling amongst yourself that there is a law, does not constitute law.
5)That making references to income is not addressing the subject of the income tax as in "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— "
6)That the statement “whatever source derived” means (according to the supreme court) all income taxes are indirect taxes from whatever source derived.
7)That any law that provides rules for collecting taxes must contend with the 6th Amendment's nature and cause, and explain, at least generally address the particular activity that is being taxed.
1)Also this is not law:
You are a taxpayer
You have taxable income
how do you become a taxpayer?
Because you have taxable income.
What makes your income taxable?
Because you are a taxpayer!
So the question is: I am a Doctor where in Title 26 does it say that any profession, trade, employment, or vocation is a taxable event.
Friendly reminder: While Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, may have been affected by the 16th Amendment, the 16th Amendment is not title 26 (Internal Revenue Code). My question is specific to Title 26. Addressing the 16th Amendment is not answering the question. Furthermore, my question is not about what the government can tax or cannot tax, the question is specific to title 26 and the particular law that addresses my particular activity. Claiming that the Government can tax any activity is not addressing the question.
There are only three possible subjects of taxation in the entire world. There are no others. A government can tax property, they can tax people (as in capitation taxes when there was slavery), and they can tax activities (or variants thereof). There is simply no other logical taxable subjects anywhere. In the United States , the founding fathers addressed these as either direct or indirect taxes. We know for certain that a direct tax is a tax on property and
This clear and simple definition has never been overturned. You could sherpadize the case if you wish, however, there are many other supreme court cases that define what an indirect tax is:
"Excises are taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain (licensed) occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of privilege."
Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911)
"Direct taxes bear immediately upon persons, upon possessions and enjoyment of rights. Indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange."
Knowlton v. Moore 178 U.S. 41 (1900)
So once more: The Income Tax is an indirect tax:
“The Sixteenth Amendment simply prohibited the power of income taxation from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation”
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)
1) So it is clear that the income tax is an excise tax (indirect
2) And it is also very clear that the subject of the income tax is the activity, and not the income.
3) We also understand that the law for the collection of the Income tax resides within Title 26.
The question remains:
I am a Doctor where in Title 26 does it say that any profession, trade, employment, or vocation is a taxable event.
Please read the question and the comment leading to the quesion.
Dont repeat what has already been stated.
- NGC6205Lv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
You have some misconceptions.
The Supreme Court decision that you are referring to is Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916). You can read the entire decision at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/240/240.U... The "no new power" phrase is taken out of context by many tax protesters. When read in context, the court explains that the 16th amendment didn't grant any new power because Congress possessed the power to tax incomes from the beginning. The only thing that the 16th amendment did was prevent an income tax from being classified as a direct tax and instead clarifies that income taxes are INDIRECT taxes.
As for what you are looking for in Title 26, it is in there. It just isn't in whatever magic words that you wish it to be. Section 1 of Title 26 states, "There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of— " married individuals, widows and widowers, heads of households, single people, estates and trusts, unearned income of children, etc. etc. That includes you.
So, what is taxable income? Again, someone who can read can find it in the law. Taxable income is defined in Section 63 as "gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter..."
Now, what is gross income? That is defined in Section 61 as "all income from whatever source derived..."
There you go. All income from whatever source. That includes fees a doctor would charge patients. There are certain deductions from gross income that are allowed by the law and what is left after subtracting those deductions is generally taxable income. The law imposes a tax on that taxable income.
EDIT: Re: "A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax." Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)”
Another[sic] words a tax laid on an activity (event) as distinguished from its tangible fruit (property or income) is an indirect tax. Therefore the subject of the income tax is the activity that produces the income, and not the income itself."
No, that is not what that quote means. A tax laid upon the happening of an event may be an indirect tax, but that does not mean that all indirect taxes are limited to happenings or events. The statement that you made is a fallacious argument. Therefore, everything that you state after that which relies on that fallacious argument is wrong. While the 16th amendment is not Title 26, that does not mean that Title 26 is not law. Title 26 is law, contentions to the contrary are simply wrong. Title 26 does not have to state that your profession is a taxable event and Title 26 is Constitutional regardless of what you may believe.
Additionally, the courts have specifically rejected the argument that an excise is limited to an activity. In fact, the Supreme Court has stated that an excise "extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right." Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
"All individuals, freeborn and nonfreeborn, natural and unnatural alike, must pay federal income tax on their wages, regardless of whether they have requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government." United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499, 501 (7th Cir. 1991), CERT. DEN. 112 S.Ct. 940 (1992).
EDIT #2: I had to remove some of my previous answer due to space limitations of answers at Yahoo.
First, you need to learn the meaning of the term, 'obiter dicta'. You are making the same mistake that some other non-lawyers make when reading court opinions: You are confusing holdings and dicta.
Second, the quote from Knowlton, while dicta, actually doesn't support your position. "Indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event OR AN EXCHANGE." A person, whether they be a doctor, janitor, or candlestick maker, exchanges their labor and/or services for payment. The income from providing services is taxable.
Third, even though I provided an explanation earlier, here it is again...
1) Title 26 Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of all residents of the United States. If you are living within one of the fifty states, Washington, D.C., or one of several U.S. territories or if you are a U.S. Citizen living in a foreign country, then there is a tax imposed on your taxable income.
2) Taxable income is defined in Section 63 as gross income minus deductions allowed by Title 26.
3) Gross income is defined in Section 61 all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES...
Finally, the argument that the income tax is limited to privileged activities or to events is identified as a frivolous tax argument and is subject to the statutory sanction of $5,000. Be forewarned before filing a tax return and making the argument that your income is not taxable because you believe the income tax is an excise tax limited in some way.Source(s): Look, if you want to learn all about the tax laws, ask a tax lawyer or take the three semester-length classes on taxes that CPAs normally take as part of their accounting degrees. If you really are a doctor, you should be consulting with a CPA or tax attorney anyway.
- Bostonian In MOLv 79 years ago
You could not possibly be a doctor and be that stupid.
Yes, there is a Supreme Court ruling that does state that the 16th Amendment didn't create any new authority to tax. That's because the government ALREADY had the power to collect income taxes. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States grants the power to Congress to lay and collect ANY tax. It states, in part, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;..." Note that it does not specify what type of tax, meaning that ANY tax is authorized at the whim of Congress.
The ONLY thing that the 16th Amendment did was to override a prior Supreme Court ruling that designated the income tax in effect in the late 1800s as a direct tax subject to apportionment among the states. The wording of the 16th Amendment states, IN FULL, "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."Source(s): 7th grade Civics class
- Steve BLv 69 years ago
One of your premises is wrong. The Supreme Court never said the income tax is a tax on activities, not income. That is a tax denier fantasy, probably resulting from confusion about the meaning of the word "excise". The SC did state in the Brushaber case that all taxes on income are excises. Some people have convinced themselves that by doing so the SC was somehow limiting the meaning of "income", rather than expanding the meaning of "excise". That is absurd for a variety of reasons, the most obvious one being that the SC in Brushaber found that the 1913 income tax, which taxed income in the standard sense of the word, was constitutionally valid, a result the Court could not have reached if it thought Congress was taxing something it could not tax.
- Ralph TLv 79 years ago
Originally,the Constitution allowed Congress to tax the profits of business as income,there was no personal income tax on wages or bartering.
The IRS uses the 16th. Amend. to collect personal income taxes on wages and other income.
In the debate over personal income taxes,the U.S. Supreme Court told the IRS that they did not have the authority to collect taxes on wages.
The IRS has never produced anything in writing by Congress authorizing the collection of taxes on personal income.
The IRS did produce a section of the tax code that stated "personal income taxes are a voluntary tax".
Congress does have the authority to pass such a law and has done so in the past for short periods of time,I do not know when the personal income tax was made permanent.
It may be like the luxury tax on telephones that was passed to help fund WWI.
It was supposed to expire after WWI,but they kept collecting it until the 80's or 90's when a law suit brought it to an end.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous9 years ago
there is no law that says any specific job title is EXEMPT from taxes
show us where is SPECIFICALLY SAYS a doctor - OR ANYONE ELSE does NOT have to pay income taxes???
you won't find it
Ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment
In response, Congress proposed the Sixteenth Amendment (ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913), which states:
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
"FROM WHATEVER SOURCE" - case closed - pay your taxes or go to jailSource(s): Wikipedia
- 9 years ago
I think you might be looking for other information? If you are curious as to why doctor's pay the maximum 35% federal income tax when they incorporate, you need to look up the term "Personal Service Corporation". There are 8 career fields that pay the maximum rate when becoming corporations, and they include doctors (and veterinarians), accountants (and bankers), architects, actuaries, consultants, engineers, lawyers and "performing arts" (film makers).
Otherwise, Doctors pay the same income tax rates that the rest of us pay. Wikipedia has some interesting discussions on when income taxes became uniform on wage earners.
- taxreffLv 79 years ago
In tax terminology, those who advocate frivolous and discredited tax evasion ideas are know as illegal tax protesters. There are really only 2 kinds of illegal tax protesters. They are: (1) con men, and (2) their victims.
If you are looking for exact language, review the many hundreds of tax protester court cases which have been litigated over the decades. All have been won by the IRS. They have been defeated so many times that even relying on them in tax court in the face of so many losing precedents can result in a $5K fine. Its like going to traffic court and saying there is no law that a motorist has to stop for a red light.
- Anonymous9 years ago
All of us pay taxes there's no other law that Doctor's pay for income tax. They are also working so still the same with us. All their profits are also reported and pay taxes based on their profits. Don't confused yourself.
- Anonymous9 years ago
It is the same law that requires plumbers, grocery store clerks and drug dealers to pay income tax. There are two words that describe argument to the contrary and the first one is bull.
- troLv 79 years ago
doctors derive income from their services like anyone else and are subject to income tax