Irwin Schiff B.S.

Thursday, January 15, 2004

"Gross Income Defined"
"Sections 61(a) vs 22(a)" Irwin Schiff is Wrong!

Many believe because of Irwin Schiff that wages, salaries & tips are not income and are not taxable as such. Why? Because Irwin Schiff says so that's why and "he's the Self-Proclaimed leading authority on the income tax" self-proclaimed I mind you. He takes completely out of context what was actually said so it would say what he wanted it to say and mean instead of what it actually really says and means. Now it is a well, known fact that courts give great attention and importance to what the actual intent was of Congress regarding statutes they enacted.

Schiff has always contended that Congress removed the enforcement provisions from the code when they went from the 1939 code to the 1954 code by removing wages, salaries and tips from the list in section 22a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1939 code when they changed it to and became section 61a "Gross Income Defined" of the 1954 code. Irwin Schiff now has proved his own theory on "Gross income Defined" of the 1939 Section 22a vs 1954 Section 61a code wrong.

Schiff is now using a footnote not a part of the actual decision of C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass 348 US 426 (1955) and "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No.1622" to back his theory that he does not have income in its "Constitutional Sense" because in the Glenshaw Glass case they refer to "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622" in the footnote. His new contention is that what was meant by the intent of Congress in this report is that "income" in its "Constitutional Sense" means only corporate profit even though that is not what they said. Corporate profit is mentioned nowhere in either the "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622 or in the "C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass" case.

Now here is why you must verify everything and not take some Self-Proclaimed Guru's word for anything. In the 1939 code they listed wages salaries and tips as items of income. When they changed to the 1954 code they removed these items but added "not limited to" to the statute meaning that gross income was not just limited to the items listed and added "and similar items" to Compensation for services. Now even thou they removed wages, salaries and tips from the listed items that does not mean they are not considered Gross income. Of course Schiff ignores this fact.

Schiff further ignores the implementing regulation 26 CFR Section 1.61-2, which specifically adheres to the intent of Congress regarding Section 61a of the 1954 Code as recorded by "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622":

26 CFR 1.61-2
Section 1.61-2 Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items.

(a) In general. (1) Wages, salaries, commissions paid salesmen, compensation for services on the basis of a percentage of profits, commissions on insurance premiums, tips, bonuses (including Christmas bonuses), termination or severance pay, rewards, jury fees, marriage fees and other contributions received by a clergyman for services, pay of persons in the military or naval forces of the United States, retired pay of employees, pensions, and retirement allowances are income to the recipients unless excluded by law.

But here is where Schiff proved his own theory to be incorrect. Schiff as usual only reads what he wants the evidence to say instead of reading what the evidence actually says as he does with all case law and statutes.

Congress stated their intent very clearly in "House Report No. 1337 and Senate Report No. 1622".

Section 61. Gross income defined
This section corresponds to section 22(a) of the 1939 Code. While the language in existing section 22(a) has been simplified, the all-inclusive nature of statutory gross income has not been affected thereby. Section 61 (a) is as broad in scope as section 22(a). Section 61(a) provides that gross income includes "all income from whatever SOURCE derived." This definition is based upon the 16th Amendment and the word "income" is used in its constitutional sense. Therefore, although the section 22(a) phrase "in whatever form paid" has been eliminated, statutory gross income will continue to include income realized in any form. Likewise, no change is effected by the elimination of the specific reference to compensation of the President and judges of courts of the United States, and the compensation of such individuals will continue to be taxed in the same manner as that of other taxpayers. In view of the fact that certain types of income are excluded from gross income by other sections of the income tax subtitle of the new code, section 61(a) contains a clause excepting such income from the general definition of gross income. After the general definition there has been included, for purposes of illustration, an enumeration of 15 of the more common items constituting gross income. It is made clear, however, that gross income is not limited to those items enumerated. Thus, an item not named specifically in paragraphs (1) through (15) of section 61(a) will nevertheless constitute gross income if it falls within the general definition in section 61(a).

You can read the report as contained in Westlaw here. It is clear that using the statement that wages are not taxable since they are not listed in Section 61a would be an incorrect stance. This is why Section 61a says "Gross Income from whatever SOURCE derived". So that is why you must find out whether your income comes from a taxable SOURCE. Why do you think under the index "INCOME" "SOURCES of Income" is listed in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC)? SOURCES within the US and SOURCES without the US. You can have wages salaries and tips and unless they come from a taxable SOURCE then your income is not taxable.

This is not complicated. If you argue that "Gross Income" in its "Constitutional Sense" does not include wages, salaries and tips you will be Wrong and you will lose every time as Irwin Schiff has done repeatedly. So it is evidently clear that Irwin Schiff has missed the point and he has many believing and doing the same.

Irwin Schiff Self-Proclaims himself to be the Nations leading authority on the "income tax". Does that make him so? NO! Schiff claims to have written and self-published more books on the "income tax" then any other author. This may be so. Does this make him an expert? NO! Does this mean his theories are sound and based on logic and solid evidence? NO! I am not a doctor nor have I ever gone to medical school. So if I proclaim to be the Nations leading authority on heart surgery does that make me so? NO! I can write 10 books on heart surgery. Does that make me an expert? NO! Would you want me operating on you? I bet the answer is NO!!!!

You must never take some Self-Proclaimed Guru's word for anything. You must always look at the "Evidence" yourself for what it is, not for what you want it to be or some Guru says it is. You must always read Court decisions i.e. "case law" yourself for what they say and refer to, not for what you want them to say and mean or some Guru says they mean.


Home