Talk:Gross income

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Possible merger?

Dear editors: Should this article be merged with Internal Revenue Code 61? Which article should survive? Yours, Famspear 21:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See my comment at Talk:Internal Revenue Code 61. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reduction or Reduced to income

I often see this phrasing in gross income discussions. Why the verb reduce? John wesley 15:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme court?

The article states that The Supreme Court has stated that Gross income can be seen as an undeniable succession to wealth. So which Supreme court would that be? Is it safe to assume the US supreme court? -Zer0fighta 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Clarification added. Yours, Famspear 01:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

Regarding proposed merger of Gross income and Gross profit

  • Oppose. The concepts of gross income and gross profit are completely different. Merging the two would create needless confusion. Both articles probably need some work to clarify the concepts. "Gross income" as used in the article of that name is primarily a U.S. Federal income tax law (tax accounting) concept. "Gross profit" as used in the article of that name is primarily a financial accounting concept. Yours, Famspear 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I referenced U.S. Code in my edit and it was deleted

I just want to point out the obvious bias in the "Gross Income" article on Wikipedia. I posted this update referencing U.S. Code and my added comments were just as sound as your logic that "income not specifically excluded is included in Gross Income".

Title 26, Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part II is titled ITEMS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED IN GROSS INCOME and by virtue of Part III being at the same level in the U.S. Code, carries the same legal weight. A person or court could also interpret "Therefore, unless the Code "specifies" that something is included in gross income, the assumption is that it is excluded". Items not specifically included are WAGES, TIPS, SALARIES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.108.121.106 (talk • contribs) 30 April 2008.

While you do provide a reliable source, the problem is with your phrase "a person...could also interpret" which appears to be Original Research which is not permitted on wikipedia. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear IP 170.108.121.106: The argument that wages, tips and salaries are not included in gross income is called a tax protester argument. It is not only legally incorrect, it has been ruled to be legally frivolous. Further, the plain language of section 61 contradicts any argument that wages, tips and salaries are not included in gross income. Here is the exact language of the relevant part of the statute:

Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items [ . . . ]

--(bolding added).

Further, even if the statute did not contain the words "but not limited to" (which are what we call an emphatic redundancy or intensive redundancy), the killer for your argument is the word "including." Under subsection (c) of 26 U.S.C. § 7701, the word "including" is a word of expansion, not a word of limitation. That means, by definition, that the list found in section 61 is not a complete list of every kind of income included in gross income under that section.

No one, absolutely no one, has ever prevailed in court under the laughable argument that wages, etc., are not "compensation for services," or that wages are not part of "gross income" under section 61. We are talking about probably hundreds of court cases on this since this issue began to be litigated in the late 1970s. To see how the United States Supreme Court views the "wages are not taxable" argument, you may want to study the United States Supreme Court case of Cheek v. United States, the most recent Supreme Court case talking at length about this subject.

Not only that, but even if the phrase "compensation for services" were deleted and the entire statute said only that "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," wages, etc. would still be included in gross income. There is no way around that.

Further, with all due respect, the references to Part II and Part III are meaningless. Section 61 is not found in Part II, "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income," or in Part III, "Items Specifically Excluded from Gross Income." Section 61 is located in Part I, which is "Definition of Gross Income, Adjusted Gross Income, Taxable Income, Etc." Absolutely nothing in parts I, II, or III says that any list in any provision of the Code is somehow a complete list of all the possible kinds of income under section 61. You might be trying to read the phrase "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income" as though it were worded: "The Only Items Included in Gross Income." Essentially, you may be trying to argue that unless the specific word you want (such as "wages") isn't physically printed in section 61 (or somewhere else), then the income described by that word isn't "really" part of gross income. That argument would be blatantly incorrect.

We are not here to insert our own interpretations of the law into Wikipedia articles. The commentary in the article was not only prohibited original research, it contradicted the statute itself, and it was simply incorrect. Famspear (talk) 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than putting our own personal theories in Wikipedia articles, let's review some examples of how the federal courts have actually ruled on wages as being taxable (included in gross income under section 61) (this taken from another Wikipedia article):

  • United States v. Connor, 898 F.2d 942, 90-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,166 (3d Cir. 1990) (tax evasion conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer’s argument — that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable — was rejected by the Court; taxpayer’s argument that an income tax on wages is required to be apportioned by population also rejected);
  • Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 84-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9209 (5th Cir. 1984) (taxpayer's argument — that wages are not taxable — was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; taxpayer charged double costs for filing a frivolous appeal);
  • Perkins v. Commissioner, 746 F.2d 1187, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9898 (6th Cir. 1984) (26 U.S.C. § 61 ruled by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to be “in full accordance with Congressional authority under the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution to impose taxes on income without apportionment among the states”; taxpayer’s argument that wages paid for labor are non-taxable was rejected by the Court, and ruled frivolous);
  • Sisemore v. United States, 797 F.2d 268, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9576 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam), cert. denied, 107 S. Ct. 274 (1986) (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the federal district court properly dismissed taxpayer’s frivolous lawsuit based on taxpayer’s tax return position that wages do not represent a taxable gain because wages are a source of income and are received in equal exchange for labor);
  • White v. United States, 2005-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,289 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, ____ U.S. ____ (2005) (taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was ruled frivolous by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; penalty — imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 for filing tax return with frivolous position — was therefore proper);
  • Waters v. Commissioner, 764 F.2d 1389, 85-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9512 (11th Cir. 1985) (taxpayer’s argument that income taxation of wages is unconstitutional was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; taxpayer required to pay damages for filing frivolous suit).

The argument that wages, tips and other compensation received for the performance of personal services are not taxable income has been officially identified as a legally frivolous federal tax return position for purposes of the $5,000 frivolous tax return penalty imposed under Internal Revenue Code section 6702(a). See 26 USC section 6702, as amended by section 407 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-432, 120 Stat. 2922 (Dec. 20, 2006). See Notice 2008-14, I.R.B. 2008-4 (Jan. 14, 2008), Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of the Treasury. Yours, Famspear (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear user at IP170.108.121.106: Editor Tiggerjay has pointed out to me that my response (with all the cases listed, etc.) may have been a little over the top. I apologize for that. I tend to hurl lots of information at a new user, which I did to you here. I hope I didn't scare you off from making contributions to Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)