• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir. 1916).

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Not open for further replies.


How can the income tax not be a gain from profit?

Edwards v. Keith, 231 F. 110 (2nd Cir. 1916). "The statute and the statute alone determines what
is income to be taxed. It taxes only income ‘derived’ from many different sources; one does not
‘derive income’ by rendering services and charging for them."

I have read this case from the Lexis Nexis database so it is in good standing.


Doyle v. Mitchell Brother, Co., 247 US 179 (1918). “We must reject in this case...the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts - everything that comes in - are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income'..."

Slaughter House, 83 U.S. 36, at 127 (1873). "Property is everything which has an
exchangeable value, in the right of property includes the power to dispose of that
according to the will of the owner. Labor is property, and as such merits protection. The
right to make it available is next in importance to the rights of life and liberty. It lives to a
large extend the foundation of most other forms of property, and of all solid individual
and national prosperity."
Jack Cole Company v. Alfred T, MacFarland, Commissioner, 206 Tenn. 694, 337 S.W.2d 453 Sup. Court of Tennessee (1960). "Since the right to receive income or earnings is a right belonging to every persons, this right cannot be taxed as privilege."
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103; Stratton's Independence v. Howbert 231 U.S.
"Income, as defined by the Supreme Court means, 'gains and profits as a result of
corporate activity and profit gained through the sale or conversion of capital assets.'"
(Also see 399. Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. 247 U.S. 179, Eisner v. Macomber 252 U.S.
189, Evans v. Gore 253 U.S. 245, Merchants Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 225 U.S.
509. (1921) Summers v. Earth Island Institute, No. 07-463 (U. S., March 3, 2009) (citing
Bender v. Williamsport Area School Dist., 475 U. S. 534, 541 (1986)).

How can these cases not be true?


Sorry to bother anyone with Supreme Court
Precedent and Law. To make it very clear I am not debating nor starting a discussion. I am looking for something locally sound. As far as the Tax laws are written are not locally sound.

This is a realistic:

Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that Supreme Court case
precedent, and Congressional and other testimony on these questions, are lawful, valid and sound and may be relied upon by anyone at any time.

This is a real case file that I pulled it from.


Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees the Internal Revenue Service is
taxing Petitioner, and all Americans so taxed, outside lawful constitutional taxation
means, that of direct or indirect taxes, and is unlawful and illegal.

Again real case and compelling explanation on the facts.

I am here to find a rebuttal to the facts.

I am still in litigation for almost a year now with the MA DOR. Final briefs where submitted March first.

If the argument was frivolous like you are thinking. They would have said so. They DOR attorneys are trying to dismiss on the grounds that I didn’t file a return.


Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees there is no valid, verified law
whatsoever in the Internal Revenue Code that could subject most Americans to process
requiring the filing of a 1040 form due to any personal tax liability.

I am sure that you’re not an legal attorney but a spectator that knows nothing about the facts.

You’re that crazy person who goes on:

presumptions and
hearsay arguments!

Intervener, Solicitor General of the United States, agrees that all presumptions and
hearsay arguments made against Petitioner in inferior courts throughout are frivolous, and
void by law, and no evidence in fact of “frivolous” on the part of Petitioner was ever of record in any inferior court cases cited.

With that said!

Answer please! With no worries that you will have nothing to say.....
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential