Income and Trade

[RetiredGySgt]

You realize that not everything you own is considered an "asset" right?

Playing word games does not bolster your position.

 

[Paulie]

I'm probably going way off topic here, but is there an area for 'trade of services' on IRS 1040? I know my brother worked in college and for many years thereafter as a roofer. Many of those years while he was working his way up the police department hierarchy. I think it was when he made Chief of Detectives, the police department told him 'unofficially' he could no longer roof, it was too dangerous.

Over those years, he roofed house for friends/relatives of friends. In return he had tile work done, carpet laid, painting done. I don't think any of them claimed income for any of it. A roof for someone's mom, was worth X number of rooms of paint, if there was a shortfall, cash was exchanged or a debt incurred.

No, you're not off topic at all. You're right on topic, actually. I can't really comment on THAT situation, as it has nothing to do with me, and I don't know the financial workings of it, but it certainly makes sense. Why should someone be taxed on a trade of services?

If my buddy comes over and my house and replaces the spark plugs in my car, and in return I go to his house and paint his kitchen, where does tax code come in to play with that?

I don"t want any of you to get me wrong here...I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm merely trying to get opinions on this. I have a real hard time accepting that an equal trade deserves to be taxed.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, you're not off topic at all. You're right on topic, actually. I can't really comment on THAT situation, as it has nothing to do with me, and I don't know the financial workings of it, but it certainly makes sense. Why should someone be taxed on a trade of services?

If my buddy comes over and my house and replaces the spark plugs in my car, and in return I go to his house and paint his kitchen, where does tax code come in to play with that?

I don"t want any of you to get me wrong here...I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm merely trying to get opinions on this. I have a real hard time accepting that an equal trade deserves to be taxed.

Section 8 Article I of the Federal Constitution is quite clear. And the 16th Amendment is also pretty clear as well.

 

[Paulie]

Did you have those dollars before you 'traded' for them?

No, but I had my time, my efforts, my energy, the money it took to get to work, the wear and tear on my tools didn't exist yet, etc.

You're putting money on a pedestal here, as if somehow it's worth any more than anything else of equal value to it, which is where my argument lies.

How are you going to tell me that my time, skills, etc, are not worth what the money was that I received? Why would I even agree to do the exchange to begin with if NOT?

You put "traded" in quotes, as if somehow it wasn't actually a trade. You don't see you giving someone your time, skills, tool abilities, etc, in exchange for money a "trade"? What else is it, then?

 

[Paulie]

Section 8 Article I of the Federal Constitution is quite clear. And the 16th Amendment is also pretty clear as well.

I read that the first 50 times you posted it so far. You're not making a case by merely telling me to go read something I've already read.

I'm arguing AGAINST what it says. Actually, I don't agree with you on what you THINK it says, anyway. But that's a different argument. It is still considered the law. I'm exercising my right to challenge what has been accepted by the masses as law. If you're only going to point out that "the government says so", then what good are you as an objective citizen?

We should just lay down and lick boot, just BECAUSE?

Make a fucking argument RGS, or butt out. You're fucking boring as FUCK sometimes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the purpose of taxing income under the IRC, the IRS relies on the definition of income provided in a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case called Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955). According to this case, taxpayers have “income” when they experience "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." This means that a taxpayer has income for income tax purposes when he receives something of value (including money, property, securities, or anything else), the transfer is complete, and the taxpayer can control the thing of value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income

That is one definition.

There are others. The only time the word "profit" is included is when one is discussing a Business entity.

 

[Annie]

No, you're not off topic at all. You're right on topic, actually. I can't really comment on THAT situation, as it has nothing to do with me, and I don't know the financial workings of it, but it certainly makes sense. Why should someone be taxed on a trade of services?

If my buddy comes over and my house and replaces the spark plugs in my car, and in return I go to his house and paint his kitchen, where does tax code come in to play with that?

I don"t want any of you to get me wrong here...I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm merely trying to get opinions on this. I have a real hard time accepting that an equal trade deserves to be taxed.

I didn't take it that way, not at all. Not knowing your talents or those of friends, I'll stick with my brother.

Many of these guys during the years were in their 30's and early 40's, their parents in their 60's and 70's. For my brother it was often doing a roof for a mom, (the 'kids' had newer homes). A roof was worth many a room, more if it was steep or special, like cedar, etc. On the other hand, I know my brother did 2 houses for the guy that did his ceramic tiling, very labor intensive.

For all these 'trades,' the person receiving benefits bought all the material, it was a strait labor exchange.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I didn't take it that way, not at all. Not knowing your talents or those of friends, I'll stick with my brother.

Many of these guys during the years were in their 30's and early 40's, their parents in their 60's and 70's. For my brother it was often doing a roof for a mom, (the 'kids' had newer homes). A roof was worth many a room, more if it was steep or special, like cedar, etc. On the other hand, I know my brother did 2 houses for the guy that did his ceramic tiling, very labor intensive.

For all these 'trades,' the person receiving benefits bought all the material, it was a strait labor exchange.

And if the State or Federal Government wanted to they could tax the efforts. How ever the cost to chase down such is general more then the benefit to be gained by taxes collected.

 

[Paulie]

For the purpose of taxing income under the IRC, the IRS relies on the definition of income provided in a 1955 U.S. Supreme Court case called Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426 (1955). According to this case, taxpayers have “income” when they experience "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." This means that a taxpayer has income for income tax purposes when he receives something of value (including money, property, securities, or anything else), the transfer is complete, and the taxpayer can control the thing of value

Where in there does it say during an EXCHANGE or TRADE? It says when the transfer is complete. But that doesn't mean anything was exchanged for equal value. A transfer does not have to mean that both parties gave something up of equal value.

If I put money into a CD, when it matures I collect "something of value". The bank transfers my original money I put in, plus the interest, back to me. That wasn't an "exchange". I didn't give them something of value, they borrowed my money for a time, and then gave it back to me PLUS some. That's completely different from me offering someone my skills for their money.

 

[Paulie]

And if the State or Federal Government wanted to they could tax the efforts.

WTF are they going to tax??? No one gained any income by trading roofing work for painting work.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where in there does it say during an EXCHANGE or TRADE? It says when the transfer is complete. But that doesn't mean anything was exchanged for equal value. A transfer does not have to mean that both parties gave something up of equal value.

If I put money into a CD, when it matures I collect "something of value". The bank transfers my original money I put in, plus the interest, back to me. That wasn't an "exchange". I didn't give them something of value, they borrowed my money for a time, and then gave it back to me PLUS some. That's completely different from me offering someone my skills for their money.

Go ahead make that argument to the courts. I suggest you check out what happened to Wesley Snipes when he tried that line of reasoning.

 

[Paulie]

Go ahead make that argument to the courts. I suggest you check out what happened to Wesley Snipes when he tried that line of reasoning.

Again, you're assuming I'm trying to challenge the government's imposed laws PERSONALLY. I'm only debating how the laws are enforced. Just because Snipes didn't get off on it, doesn't mean it's just.

I don't see clear indication of how trading labor for money can be considered income, in the tax code. You can point to the text of it until rapture, and it still isn't clear.

My skills are worth just as much as the amount of money that gets agreed upon by both parties to exchange with me for said skills. If they weren't, someone wouldn't be making that transaction with me to begin with.

No matter what, none of the links you point me to are a clear indication of how I'm wrong on that. Even your heralded wikipedia definition of income didn't cut it.

 

[Care4all]

i don't believe there is a law that says the irs can tax the price of your labor....

at least that is the argument from those that refuse to file and pay....similar to what paul is saying....it is a trade, not a profit....unlike investing in the stock market, where that is where you can make a profit on mere money investment and not labor you've bartered.

weird that i just this moment caught a portion of a documentary on something called free speach tv on DISH network....on there being no law that supports paying taxes on workers who negotiate or ''trade'' their services....some in the documentary that haven't filed with the irs in over 20 years were ex IRS agents who said there is no law supporting the taxing of labor.....????????

i didn't really understand it, caught maybe 10 minutes of a 60 minute documentary....

but it has gotten my attention, enough to make me want to google it when i get a chance!

care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, you're assuming I'm trying to challenge the government's imposed laws PERSONALLY. I'm only debating how the laws are enforced. Just because Snipes didn't get off on it, doesn't mean it's just.

I don't see clear indication of how trading labor for money can be considered income, in the tax code. You can point to the text of it until rapture, and it still isn't clear.

My skills are worth just as much as the amount of money that gets agreed upon by both parties to exchange with me for said skills. If they weren't, someone wouldn't be making that transaction with me to begin with.

No matter what, none of the links you point me to are a clear indication of how I'm wrong on that. Even your heralded wikipedia definition of income didn't cut it.

Because you have a closed mind on the subject. The Constitution is clear. The Government could if they wanted ( well at least till the people threw them all out) tax us on the Air we breath. The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all.

 

[Paulie]

Because you have a closed mind on the subject. The Constitution is clear. The Government could if they wanted ( well at least till the people threw them all out) tax us on the Air we breath. The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all.

I have a closed mind???

You're justifying your side because the gov. SAYS SO. I'm making the case for why it SHOULD be challenged. That there are enough people who think like YOU, is why the gov. gets away with it to begin with.

Every election cycle there are the anti-tax candidates, and somehow, even though everyone complains about taxes, the masses vote for the pro-tax candidates.

You'll argue against taxes in one breath, and then defend the government to the death on them in another, because of the constitution.

Do you want to be a part of the problem, or the solution?

 

[Care4all]

Because you have a closed mind on the subject. The Constitution is clear. The Government could if they wanted ( well at least till the people threw them all out) tax us on the Air we breath. The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all.

The us constitution prohibits the tax on labor and wages....with SC rulings to back it up supposedly, according to these IRS rebellious.

the income tax is on income....income is defined as profits....the SC has held that an INCOME tax is constitutional, but income is not considered wages for labor....labor is your personal property according to this group and again supposedly the SC through some other decisions and NOT considered income....

WOW, wouldn't it be cool if all of this is really true?


WILD!

makes sense though...IF only it were true! (fingers crossed) lol I really gotta google this....damn interesting.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The us constitution prohibits the tax on labor and wages....with SC rulings to back it up supposedly, according to these IRS rebellious.

the income tax is on income....income is defined as profits....the SC has held that an INCOME tax is constitutional, but income is not considered wages for labor....labor is your personal property according to this group and again supposedly the SC through some other decisions and NOT considered income....

WOW, wouldn't it be cool if all of this is really true?


WILD!

makes sense though...IF only it were true! (fingers crossed) lol I really gotta google this....damn interesting.

Care

It is not true. Wesley Snipes being a prime example.

Income is ONLY defined as profit for Business. Personal Income is not defined as profit.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt wrote:

The Government has a blank check to tax what EVER it wants.

Federal government was NEVER granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt posted:

The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES.

 

[Ravi]

Do note, however, that bartering is not "free" money. The goods and services being bartered do need to be valued and declared on your income tax. The fair market value of goods and services exchanged must be included in the income of both parties. Income from bartering is taxable in the year in which you receive the goods or services. Generally, you report this income on Schedule C, Profit or Loss from Business Form 1040. If you are in a business or trade, you may deduct any costs you incurred in performing the work that was bartered.

http://www.smallbusinessnotes.com/financing/barter.html