What is "taxable" income under Trump's tax reform plan?

johnwk

Gold Member
May 24, 2009
3,945
1,883
200
.

From what I have been able to glean from Donald Trump’s own comments, his tax reform idea keeps alive income taxation and will offer a number of adjustments which he alleges we will "like". But, what will be the definition of "taxable" income under Trump’s proposal? Is it all money coming in, or restricted to profits and gains?


What is and what is not taxable income is a vital question which must be answered. Seems to me the meaning of taxable “income” as understood when the 16th Amendment was adopted boils down to profits and or gains, collectively called “income”. And to calculate one’s taxable “income” all necessary outlays and expenses were to be deducted from gross receipts, the remaining portion of which was taxable.


Income from a business which was wholly illegal was held subject to income tax in United States v. Sullivan, 274 U.S. 259. Nevertheless, it was necessary to determine what that income was, and the cost of an illegal purchase of liquor was subtracted from proceeds of the illegal sale of the liquor in order to arrive at the gain from the illegal transaction which were subjected to a tax in that case.


And, in Sullenger vs. Commissioner, 11 T.C. 1076, 1948, the Court allowed the business owner [who made illegal purchases of meat] to deduct the cost of meat purchased at a higher price then set by the Office of Price Administration, a World War II price control agency, which he then resold for profit. The “income” from those sales was being taxed which was at issue in the case. The Court went on to cite Sullivan and concluded: “No authority has been cited for denying to this taxpayer the cost of goods sold in computing his profit, which profit alone is gross income for income tax purposes.”


So, what is the cost of goods sold by a wage earner? What is the value of his/her time, labor, skills, etc., that is invested, the value of which must be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain? Does Trump's plan allow corporations to deduct outlays and expenses from gross receipts to arrive at taxable income which the poor working wage earner will not be allowed to deduct from gross receipts when calculate their "taxable income"?


Shouldn't a working person be allowed to deduct transportation costs to and from work in calculating their profit or gain? How about the costs involved with providing the necessities of life or medical expenses which a wage earner incurs and makes their labor possible? Shouldn't the wage earned be allowed to deduct these costs from gross receipts in calculating his/her profit or gain? How about the eight hour of life which a working person invests in earning a wage? Is this not to be considered as their property and a "capital outlay" in earning a wage, the value of which ought to be deducted from gross receipts in order to arrive at an alleged profit or gain?

I'll bet under Trump's plan a business owner will be allowed to deduct all necessary outlays and expenses such as rent, utilities, maintenance costs, capital outlays, and a host of other expenses. If so, will our wage earner also be allowed to make such deductions? And if not, WHY?

So, what exactly is the definition of taxable income under Trump's tax reform plan?

My suggestion to Trump is a tax reform proposal which would withdraw Congress' power to lay and collect taxes calculated from incomes, ending the socialist experiment with this tax, and return us to our Constitution's original tax plan which is articulated in the proposed Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment



JWK


"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 him from 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." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
 
Under a Rump administration there would be no taxes.
They wouldn't be necessary. He'd just file lawsuits against everybody.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top