tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post1522988953341700122..comments2023-12-18T05:12:50.293-05:00Comments on LAW PROF on the LOOSE: Tax Protestor Gets Off!Jon Siegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05903271363747693689noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-70385931798763871692007-10-15T01:58:00.000-04:002007-10-15T01:58:00.000-04:00Prof. SiegelWhile I find the arguement interesting...Prof. Siegel<BR/><BR/>While I find the arguement interesting regarding the validity of the constitutionality of the federal income tax, I can't help but disagree with some of your findings. <BR/><BR/>First, Dr. Edwin Vieira who is one of the most foremost experts on Constitutional Law (He holds 4 doctrates from Harvard)even stated that the definition of income in the Constitution was defined by the Supreme Court in the Eisner v. Macomber case where income is defined as gains or profits in corporate activity.<BR/>Also, when Arron Russo interviewed Sheldon Cohen, former IRS Commissioner and General Council to the IRS, he put Mr. Cohen right in a corner where Mr. Cohen answers "You've caught me unprepared", where then Mr. Russo offers to come back once Mr. Cohen may gather the information he needed. Of course, he declined. The most incredible statement by Mr. Cohen was when he said that "THE SUPREME COURT RULINGS ARE INAPPLICABLE" which he's saying the IRS doesn't have to comply with the Supreme Court rulings. Wow, doesn't sound like America, more like Russia here.<BR/><BR/>Also, Peter Gibbons who is a tax attorney even said "Your labor is your private property. When you go to work for somebody it's an even exchange, I do some work, you give me some money."<BR/>This can be found in Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1,14 (1914)<BR/>"Chief among such contracts is that of personal employment by which labor and other servcies are <B> EXCHANGED</B> for money or other forms of property."<BR/><BR/>You also should read the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto and see how many of those apply right here to the United States.<BR/><BR/>Oh, and what you are saying about the Federal Reserve is totally incorrect. That's another debate I suppose. <BR/><BR/>I would like to know what your thoughts are refuting Dr. Vieira's claims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-51013212346730667352007-10-14T00:08:00.000-04:002007-10-14T00:08:00.000-04:00I have poured over Mr. Siegel's writings deconstru...I have poured over Mr. Siegel's writings deconstructing the tax protestor's 861 arguments as well as those of Tommy Cryer. Though I am not a layman, even my Ivy League scientific education does not provide me with sufficient background to come to a conclusion as to which body of evidence is correct. However, one thing which is arguably provable and evident for all to see is the strong likelihood that Prof. Siegel's political affiliations may have colored his interpretation of the tax law to such an extent as to prevent him from interpreting them in any other fashion. Specifically, I refer you to his contributions to those who would use the government to further redistribute private property:<BR/><BR/>http://opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=WUVJF&txtName=siegel,%20jonathan&txtState=DC&txtAll=Y&Order=N<BR/><BR/>I acknowledge in advance the rebuttal that one's viewpoint does not prove a fact, however, I, too, cite, former Sen. Pat Moynihan's quip that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.<BR/><BR/>http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/danielpatr182347.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yours in liberty,<BR/>FreemarketAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15888296820044489181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-53417780157602428322007-09-22T05:33:00.000-04:002007-09-22T05:33:00.000-04:00Cryer argues rationally using logic and reason in ...Cryer argues rationally using logic and reason in his 104 page <A HREF="http://www.gcstation.net/liefreezone/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf" REL="nofollow">memo</A> raising numerous points in support of his position. <BR/><BR/>Rather than rationally and critically evaluating his legal arguments, you choose to label him a Tax Protester, and then resort to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" REL="nofollow"><I>ad hominem</I></A> arguments.<BR/><BR/>I guess even Law Professors resort to logical fallacies to avoid rationally addressing the points raised.<BR/><BR/>Why not address his memo point by point and demostrate by superior logical argument how his legal arguments don't hold water?<BR/><BR/>I won't hold my breath.John Carusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578364129096484812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-84233830123734090622007-08-30T03:30:00.000-04:002007-08-30T03:30:00.000-04:00Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes Professor...Don't try to pull the wool over our eyes Professor. The charges against Mr Cryer were one count of "tax evasion" and one count of "willful failure to file" a federal income tax return.<BR/>You wrote "the the government has the burden of proving, not only that the defendant didn't pay his taxes, but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes."<BR/>Those are to separate charges and you linked them together which they were not. The jury aquitted him of the two "separate" charges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-22214794583202619022007-08-12T20:25:00.000-04:002007-08-12T20:25:00.000-04:00Mr. Siegel, I have looked through your site for th...Mr. Siegel, <BR/><BR/>I have looked through your site for the law that people are arguing about. I was unable to find it. <BR/><BR/>Would please take the time to provide two things that should quash all the tax-protesters on here:<BR/><BR/>1. A link to the law in question.<BR/>2. A ruling from the supreme court that defines income.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, <BR/><BR/>- DanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-22819814578468028662007-08-07T16:23:00.000-04:002007-08-07T16:23:00.000-04:00Siegel,Smoke and mirrors (Title 26, etc) + Darth V...Siegel,<BR/><BR/>Smoke and mirrors (Title 26, etc) + Darth Vader (IRS/DOJ) = Income Tax.<BR/><BR/>Your analysis of the "income" tax is incomplete and biased. Therefore, your your instructions on this topic are not competent, and you should resign.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-78036284155076180152007-08-06T10:27:00.000-04:002007-08-06T10:27:00.000-04:00But let's assume--and it is a sound assumption...But let's assume--and it is a sound assumption--that the wage earner is paid less for his/her product than is warranted, then clearly the worker would be incurring "business" losses on his/her human capital. So here's a case of the wage earner's "net income" being negative. In this case "negative income" would be reported to the IRS. <BR/><BR/>And in the cases of self-employed workers an "income tax" should be levied only on net income--after all other costs will have been factored in. The same principle applies in the case of the big corporations who often end up paying no "income taxes".<BR/><BR/>All that aside, the point is that if direct taxes on wages were supported by the Constitution and the 16th Amendement then such would have been taken off the top automatically--i.e. deducted from one's wage, as in the case for SS tax. It is not done simply because there is no law that requires wages to be taxed directly without apportionment. The reason is that--as per fundamental law--any unapportioned tax must be an indirect excise tax.<BR/><BR/>That's why the IRS threw in this thing about "voluntary filing"--and leaving everything up to the wage earner to file--but with coercion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-73099532996417843012007-08-05T20:50:00.000-04:002007-08-05T20:50:00.000-04:00I often read these tax arguments. What I always se...I often read these tax arguments. What I always see is "show me the law" and "I just did". <BR/><BR/>The part that never seems to get communicated properly is why the seemingly obvious law (which I have read and is definitely there) requiring a wage earner to file a return doesn't apply.<BR/><BR/>As I understand it, the problem is not so much that there is no law which the average citizen would interpret as requiring them to file and pay taxes. The problem is that the terms in this law such as "income" are not defined anywhere in the law.<BR/><BR/>In order to properly apply the law there must be a definition of the terms. Since the term is not defined in any law the next best place is the supreme court. The supreme court effectively ruled that income is defined as any increase in wealth.<BR/><BR/>You may say, well there it is. You worked and now you are wealthier through the wage, therefore you owe tax on that income.<BR/><BR/>It is not so simple however. In order to receive the wage you had to sell your labor. After giving your time, and effort you are less than you were before because you can never get back that time and effort which you expended. Therefore you paid a cost or basis for the wage you received.<BR/><BR/>Trading an item such as an ounce of gold for it's current value in Federal Reserve Notes produces no gain and therefore no tax liability. Similarly trading your time and effort for the market rate of Federal Reserve Notes produces no gain and therefore no tax liability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-24832874948871962962007-08-05T20:39:00.000-04:002007-08-05T20:39:00.000-04:00So, the tax is an excise on the exercise of privil...So, the tax is an excise on the exercise of privilege, not a tax on money... <BR/><BR/>"PRIVILEGE: A particular benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or class beyond the common advantages of others citizens. An exceptional or extraordinary power of exemption. A particular right, advantage, exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class, not generally possessed by others." <BR/>Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. <BR/><BR/>“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right…” <BR/><BR/>“It has been well said that '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. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and 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’.” <BR/>United States Supreme Court, Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1883) <BR/>Thank You Peter Henderickson for this quote. http://www.losthorizons.com/<BR/><BR/>Professor, please explain how the SCOTUS can be wrong? MunchiewizardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-17867994259530212292007-08-05T16:33:00.000-04:002007-08-05T16:33:00.000-04:00“The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income...“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 the tax.” F. Morse Hubard, U.S. Congressional Record, March 27, 1943 (page 2580) <BR/><BR/><BR/>What the government sycophants can't seem to grasp (or refuse to acknowledge)is that the "income tax" is a tax on certain ACTIVITIES that fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate. The tax is not ON income, per se. Congress did not tax the MONEY earned from the activities, but rather the activities THEMSELVES. The "income" earned is the MEASURMENT OF THE TAX.<BR/><BR/>The ACTIVITIES which actually are statutorily taxed are found in the "operative sections" of the Internal Revenue Code in Subchapter N, which is aptly titled "Tax Based on Income from Sources Within or Without the United States." (this is where the law provides the NECESSARY specifics as to what constitutes "income from whatever source derived.")<BR/><BR/>There is NO "operative section" describing the activities of the average American, only international and posssessions commerce.<BR/><BR/>Section 61 is nothing but a broadly worded GENERAL definition statute. It does not establish liability for anyone, including the people for whom the code actually does make liable (which are the people who engage in the activites described in the "operative sections." Examples of "operative sections" are 26 USC 871, 26 USC 911.<BR/><BR/>In addition, more than one Supreme Court ruling (sorry, don't have the cites immediately at hand, but they were never reversed) have concluded that the 16th Amendment "conferred no new taxing powers" upon the Fed Gov't.<BR/><BR/>Finally, there's the "Except as otherwise provided..." introduction to the description of "gross income". Go to www.whatistaxed.com for a fuller discussion, and to view the results of data-mining both 26 USC & 26 CFR.<BR/><BR/>By the way, Prof, Tom Cryer is not the only attorney who is a member of the Tax Honesty Movement. You might consider the possibility that someone does exist who actually knows the Income Tax better than you do. It certainly is possible. To think otherwise results in unmitigated hubris.<BR/><BR/>:)<BR/><BR/>Sincerely,<BR/>ScottScott Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14822015880980374198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-63576842413197775502007-08-05T14:49:00.000-04:002007-08-05T14:49:00.000-04:00Siegel, please state the specific code section tha...Siegel, please state the specific code section that creates a liability for the type of revenue generated by Mr. Cryer; you can not.<BR/><BR/>In 1861/1862 congress passed legislation that did provide federal tax liability for specific occupations and activities - including the practice of law. These laws were repealed after the civil war ended.<BR/><BR/>In 1894 the US Sepreme Court ruled an income tax unconstitutional in Pollock v Farmers. Subsequent rulings by the Court declared that the 16th Amend. did not change or alter the Pollock doctrines, and that the tax did not reach new or excepted subjects. This is the reason there is no specific code or legislation that creates a liability for Mr. Cryer's "income".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-1722125158569303242007-08-05T14:16:00.000-04:002007-08-05T14:16:00.000-04:00Siegel:Ever heard Galileo and his challenge ...Siegel:<BR/>Ever heard Galileo and his challenge to Papal Tribunals on their stupid dogmatic belief that the earth was the center of the universe? And Giordano Bruno--poor man was burnt by the Papists for his beliefs about the structure of the universe? <BR/><BR/>The thing with Cryer is that he has that kind of free-thinking temperament that tells that--look!--"the Emperor is--well--just naked; and everybody is just afraid to look".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-78498470703325540502007-08-05T14:04:00.000-04:002007-08-05T14:04:00.000-04:00OK Siegel, quit the kibitting and answer the ...OK Siegel, quit the kibitting <BR/>and answer the questions! Specifically, answer the question on the constitutional or SC[fundamental law] definition of "income". <BR/><BR/>And don't you know that on strict logic the 16th Amendment has to mean that the so-called "income" tax cannot be a direct tax--but an indirect excise tax? The logic here is unassailable: if the income tax is unapportioned--as per the 16th--then it has to be indirect.<BR/><BR/>You also feign ignorance of t he fact that the big SC debates about the so-called "income tax"--Pollock, Brushaber, etc.--had to do with "income"[i.e. "gains" "profits"] from stock and other kinds of property. These SC decisions had absolutely nothing to do with "wages" or the pittances than ordinary workers gained in a share-cropping capitalist system.<BR/><BR/>Maybe too many of your relatives are raking in big greens from being "tax attorneys"--or any lazy man's work having to do with taxes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-49306517775106307572007-08-05T14:02:00.000-04:002007-08-05T14:02:00.000-04:00>>3. Taxation is not slavery. The "slavery" previo...>>3. Taxation is not slavery. The "slavery" previously practiced in this country, and forbidden by the 13th Amendment, consisted of the master owning the slave and having control over the slave's work. Taxation is different -- you have to pay a portion of your income in taxes, but you are free to do whatever work you want.>><BR/><BR/>"Taxation" as practiced today IS slavery! Why? <BR/><BR/>"Look at the tax system. The whole concept of the income tax assumes they own all of you and they’ll permit you to keep a certain percentage. And then even after we work hard, save our money and invest if we sell something we have to share our profits with the government? Then if we die we can’t even give it to our kids without….saying ‘we’ll were part owners of with the government we have to give the government this much we get to keep this much.’<BR/><BR/>So there’s another example where you have to state the principal: They don’t get anything! They shouldn’t get anything because they’re not part owners in our life and our families! And yet so often they’ll say ‘well maybe it’s 30%, we ought to settle for 28%’ you know and think it’s a great victory.” <BR/><BR/>- Ron Paul at this link...<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/25ztwg<BR/><BR/>People who do not allow themselves to be conscripted into this system are not "free" to work and cannot support their families without subjecting themselves and their families to this tyranny/fascism which will not answer and be accountable to We The People. <BR/><BR/>If there is a law then why doesn't the government just identify it? Why does the government refuse to answer anyone of the questions - posed as "facts" - in We The People's "Right To Petition" lawsuit? See.....<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/2zc2lfThe Freedom Fellowshiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11788272213603576761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-77619634079796569352007-08-01T12:29:00.000-04:002007-08-01T12:29:00.000-04:00[quote]2. Wages are income even though they just r...[quote]2. Wages are income even though they just represent an "equal exchange" of money for something of equal value. If you think about it, pretty much every transaction is an "equal exchange" of this kind -- when you pay $1 for a newspaper, you get a newspaper worth $1 in exchange. <BR/>The seller's income from a sale transaction is the sale price minus the seller's cost, not the sale price minus the value of the thing sold. (For more detail, see my page on the "wages are not income" argument.)<BR/>[/quote]<BR/><BR/>Exactly! You defeat yourself with your own argument! A paper sold to me for $1, cost only $.50 to make and distribute. The company that makes and distributes it has a profit of $.50 and this is built in to the selling price. <BR/>My working wages have no built in profit margin. My wages are an equal exchange. I have not gained or prfited in any way. I have simply turned my work into another form of currency. <BR/>If you can tell me how I can get a built in profit margin, I will gladly listen and pay tax on that margin.cmagichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17085262064714334673noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-69351559098692105552007-07-31T18:52:00.000-04:002007-07-31T18:52:00.000-04:00"but that the defendant knew he had to pay his tax..."but that the defendant knew he had to pay his taxes."<BR/><BR/>A person would "Know" he had to pay if there was a law to show that he had to.<BR/><BR/>There is a site up that will pay yu $60,000 if you can show them the law. No one has been able to collect it for over 4 years. Why don't you go there and show them the law and collect the money.netzorrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03816455400166803038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-69753502994409270752007-07-30T13:33:00.000-04:002007-07-30T13:33:00.000-04:00Law Prof,Thanks for a great commentary on this deb...Law Prof,<BR/>Thanks for a great commentary on this debate. <BR/>I've had a few tax protestors over at my site, too, and I was not able to articulate (without rolling my eyes while typing) in the same manner what it is that you said. So, I'm going to redirect those folks back here.<BR/>Excellent job.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-10857829651946119782007-07-27T23:15:00.000-04:002007-07-27T23:15:00.000-04:00I have a question, does anyone know if the Supreme...I have a question, does anyone know if the Supreme Court ever defined the Constitutional definition of income? <BR/><BR/>The reason I ask is because I saw a Senate Committee document for the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 - HR8300 6-16-1954 which states in part: "Subchapter 3 - Computation of Taxable Income - Definitions"<BR/><BR/>Section 61 - Gross income defined...."Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived" This definition is based on the 16th Ammendment and the word "income" is used as in Section 22(a) in it's Constitutional sense. It is not intended to change the concept of income that obtains under section 22(a). Therefore although the section 22(a) phrase states "in whatever form paid" has been eliminated, statutory gross income will continue to include income realized in any form."<BR/><BR/>That said, what is the Constitutional definition of income they are talking about?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-6141175689690780762007-07-27T14:34:00.000-04:002007-07-27T14:34:00.000-04:00Thanks Professor. I appreciate your answer. It s...Thanks Professor. I appreciate your answer. It seems that this is the key issue, the fairness of the current tax system, not the constitutionality of it. Being real, legal and constitutional, as one Anonymous summarized, doesn't mean that it's fair. <BR/><BR/>I concur 100% with the Anonymous who said that our time and labor does cost us. I don't see how anyone can argue that fact, regardless of what the "law" says.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, all of this is tied to inequalities perpetrated by our government, to include the illegal Federal Reserve, the unfair Income Tax, and the recent Patriot Act. Slaves is what most of us feel like, and we need to start talking about what is fair, and then support that by fixing the law. <BR/><BR/>Considering that no money that we collect from the IRS goes to any social services, it all goes to interest on debt from the illegal federal reserve, there's some serious ethical problems with the way our current system works. But if you're all for further class division and a police slave state, keep singing the tune that everything is fine and everything is lawful and constitutional. That doesn't mean it's fair. We'll all know soon enough, because if it doesn't change, our economy will collapse, as it appears to be well on it's way to doing now.<BR/><BR/>Kind Regards,<BR/>BenjiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-77516109362859762252007-07-27T13:56:00.000-04:002007-07-27T13:56:00.000-04:00You have the patience of a saint. I teach income t...You have the patience of a saint. I teach income taxes to accounting majors and from time to time visit these tax protester issues. Thank you for your efforts. I visit your web pages regularly in class. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-91994303949203074162007-07-27T13:44:00.000-04:002007-07-27T13:44:00.000-04:00"The cost to you of your labor is zero, because yo..."The cost to you of your labor is zero, because you never paid anything to own your labor."<BR/><BR/>Is not time a cost? If one spends 40+ hours per week laboring for someone/something else, is that not a cost? If one spends time and money for the development of skills, is that not a cost?<BR/>If I perform manual labor, is there not an additional cost in terms of the physical diminishment of my body and therefore the diminishment of my ability for future earnings?<BR/><BR/>The cost to labor is not free. It consumes time and energy. These are the things I pay to own my labor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-90889334232063465312007-07-27T11:49:00.000-04:002007-07-27T11:49:00.000-04:00The facts are simple. The representatives we the ...The facts are simple. The representatives we the people elected passed a law saying we have to pay a portion of our income to the federal government as taxes. Whether the tax is a direct tax or not is irrelevent because a constitutional amendment was ratified allowing a tax on incomes. The term "gross income" includes wages and wages are subject to the tax. Any person who receives income - including wages -is subject to this tax on incomes and is a "taxpayer." While there are some constitutional issues out there that the courts have failed to properly address (the taxation of CFC earnings violates Eisner v. MacComber; "enterprise zones" are unconstitutional to the extent the tax is an indirect tax; the exemption of certain religious sects from the social security tax violates the establishment clause; many income tax provisions are so narrowly drawn because they are intended to apply to ONE taxpayer only), the overall concept and implementation of the income tax is real, legal, and constitutional. Just the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-5313310402737348092007-07-27T08:53:00.000-04:002007-07-27T08:53:00.000-04:00Benji, I do think the income tax law is constituti...Benji, I do think the income tax law is constitutional -- that question has been to court many times on many different constitutional theories and the law has always been upheld. Whether the tax law is fair is a different question, one on which I'm not really an expert.Jon Siegelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05903271363747693689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-5386338023640256672007-07-25T22:51:00.000-04:002007-07-25T22:51:00.000-04:00Professor, do you think the "law" is constitutiona...Professor, do you think the "law" is constitutional? The irony is that most of American citizens are in a virtual prison, a slave to the system, while a very small part of the elite control everything, largely in part due to our illegal Federal Reserve system and a progressive taxation system. If our government really cared about "freedom", taxes would be on commerce in the economy only, not on income and commerce, which is worse than the mafia. So if you do believe it's a law, do you also think it's fair and/or constitutional?<BR/><BR/>Kind Regards,<BR/>BenjiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6196201224507060771.post-60674843072895161872007-07-19T19:46:00.000-04:002007-07-19T19:46:00.000-04:00ProfessorI guess I misunderstood how to site the s...Professor<BR/>I guess I misunderstood how to site the statute. I did really mean volume 52 page 452 - IRC 1938.<BR/><BR/>I read section 4 as General provisions are ONLY applied to these special classes of taxpayers.<BR/><BR/>I guess I am wrong.<BR/>Thank you for conversing.<BR/>P.S. Although I think the IRC 1938 has not been repealed because its not listed in the tables, FDR cite it as an authority after 39 code was enacted, and I have not seen it being repealed in the notes on the current code. But is doesn't matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com