User talk:152.216.3.5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning sign


Notice to Vandalism Reporters: This user has received a Level 4 warning (also known as a Final Warning) and, if any other vandalism occurs, report this user here. You may delete this template when the user is blocked. Please do not give any more final warnings.
Attention 152.216.3.5: Your vandalism has reached Level 4. Any further vandalism will result in your account being blocked.

Contents

[edit] Regarding commentary on Talk page for Income tax in the United States

Note: The commentary below was inserted by an editor at IP address 152.216.3.5 on 25 January 2006:

The following statement from the article is questionable.

"The Court then enunciated what is now understood by Congress and the Courts to be the definition of taxable income, "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion." Id. at 431."

Chief Justice Warren had completed his theoretical discussion and was moving on to an application of the law to the facts of the case. The description given was not of income in general, but of the damage award under consideration in the case. He was not defining income, merely noting that it would be absurd if "undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" were not income.

It has never been necessary that a taxpayer have complete dominion over an accession to wealth, or that it be clearly realized by the taxpayer in order for it to be income to that taxpayer. In UNITED STATES v. MITCHELL, 403 U.S. 190 (1971), a woman was held to have received income for purposes of the income tax despite having an, at best, incomplete knowledge of the income, much less complete dominion over it. Withheld income tax and social security tax are part of an employee's gross income despite his having little dominion over the former and none over the latter.

You need to look elsewhere for the definition of income.

Note: The above commentary was inserted by an editor at IP address 152.216.3.5 on 25 January 2006.

Dear editor at 152.216.3.5:
The term "complete dominion" as used by the Court in Glenshaw Glass has a more technical legal meaning than the one you are using. For purposes of U.S. income tax law, the woman in the Mitchell case -- actually the "women" in the case -- did have "complete dominion" over the income realized in their cases -- as that term is used in Glenshaw Glass. Similarly for purposes of taxability under U.S. income tax law, I certainly have "complete dominion" over all my wages -- even the withheld Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and Federal income tax portions I never actually see or touch. The property law concept underlying the tax law discussed here is that property law is "relational." For example, as between me and everyone else in the world, I do have complete dominion over my own wages (including the withheld part) for purposes of Glenshaw Glass. The term "dominion" as used in Glenshaw Glass has a technical legal sense and not the more colloquial sense I believe you are ascribing to it.
And, yes, for purposes of U.S. income tax law, the term "realized" is also something of a term of art. The general rule is that income must be "realized" to be includible in gross income under Internal Revenue Code section 61. (Income doesn't necessarily have to be realized in the form of money, cash, etc., but there generally does have to be a "realization" event before the income can be "recognized" for tax purposes.)
Glenshaw Glass is one of the very first court cases that almost every tax lawyer studies. It is a leading case. The quote from Glenshaw Glass regarding "instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" is so pervasively repeated by American legal scholars as an example of a definition of income that, I argue, it is eminently appropriate in the main article in Wikipedia. Famspear 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome from Ravedave

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. I really reccommend signing up for an account . Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

Remember to place any articles you create into a category so we don't get orphans.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

P.S - I like messages. :) -Ravedave 21:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops sorry I see that you do have a user account - User:Doug_Reiss You just need to logon - I'll put this welcome there as well... -Ravedave 21:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] February 2006

Hi. Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Hbackman 04:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Hbackman 04:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:People of Praise, you will be blocked from editing. Trusilver 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

[edit] November 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, you will be blocked from editing. faithless (speak) 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Marshall Mathers LP, you will be blocked from editing.  – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

To edit, please log in.

Editing by anonymous users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled. Registered users, however, are still able to edit. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, you may email us using an email address issued to you by your ISP or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network.

In your email, please tell us your preferred username and an account will be created for you. Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Comments: 31 hour block.

[edit] Personal attacks

If you continue to make personal attacks in this talk page, you will be blocked from editing this as well. – Tivedshambo (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Ngugi wa Thiong'o, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Snowolf How can I help? 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

Final Warning Attention 152.216.3.5...
Your recurring vandalism has been sighted, removed, and reported. This is your final warning. Any more vandalism and you will be blocked from Wikipedia. Please be careful when editing. Harland1 t 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Laura Bush, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gtstricky 16:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)