Detecting language using up to the first 30 seconds. Use `--language` to specify the language Detected language: English [00:00.000 --> 00:06.440] United States Secretary of Treasury Janet Yeltsin, on behalf of President Biden, wants [00:06.440 --> 00:12.120] to impose a tax on unrealized capital gains. [00:12.120 --> 00:19.480] A New York Times headline recently read, proposed tax on billionaires raises question, what [00:19.480 --> 00:22.360] is income? [00:22.360 --> 00:28.080] So I read the entire article, and at no point in the article did the New York Times address [00:28.080 --> 00:30.480] the question, what is income? [00:30.480 --> 00:39.040] So I'm going to answer that for you right now. [00:39.040 --> 00:50.840] The Dr. Reality Vodcast with Dave Champion. [00:50.840 --> 00:56.320] I'm the author of the book Income Tax Shattering the Miss, which is the result of a 17-year [00:56.320 --> 01:02.840] deep dive into the origins of the income tax from 1895 all the way through the 21st century, [01:02.840 --> 01:09.120] as well as focusing on the question, upon whom has Congress actually imposed the income [01:09.120 --> 01:10.120] tax? [01:10.120 --> 01:15.360] And perhaps more important than that, who has Congress not imposed the income tax upon? [01:15.360 --> 01:19.880] The point being that I am one of the national experts at the history and particulars of [01:19.880 --> 01:21.040] the income tax. [01:21.040 --> 01:25.040] So let's talk about what the definition of income actually is. [01:25.640 --> 01:27.920] A couple of quick notes before I get rolling. [01:27.920 --> 01:32.260] About two years ago, I did a presentation on capital gains. [01:32.260 --> 01:33.260] Who owes it? [01:33.260 --> 01:36.160] And again, more importantly, who doesn't? [01:36.160 --> 01:40.940] Second, if you're unfamiliar with the Supreme Court's various decisions over the decades [01:40.940 --> 01:46.280] about matters such as direct tax and indirect tax that pertains to the income tax, some [01:46.280 --> 01:50.560] of the quotes I'm going to share with you may lack meaningful context because you're [01:50.560 --> 01:54.540] unfamiliar with what the court was actually trying to say, but just go with it in terms [01:54.540 --> 01:58.340] of the definition of income, which is what we're talking about. [01:58.340 --> 02:03.340] Whenever we consider the income tax, there are three factors or three elements that bear [02:03.340 --> 02:08.060] upon the legality, the constitutionality of income tax. [02:08.060 --> 02:14.300] The first is Congress's inherent right to impose a tax on certain people for certain [02:14.300 --> 02:15.300] activities. [02:15.300 --> 02:18.540] Number two, the slight modification made by the 16th Amendment. [02:18.540 --> 02:23.980] And number three, the various tax acts passed after the adoption of the 16th Amendment. [02:24.420 --> 02:27.700] The good news is we don't need to get into all that in order to discuss the meaning and [02:27.700 --> 02:30.460] definition of income for the purpose of the income tax. [02:30.460 --> 02:35.100] All we have to do is look at what the United States Supreme Court has said. [02:35.100 --> 02:38.620] Let's start with Merchant Loan and Trust v. Smetanka. [02:38.620 --> 02:45.100] Its site, if you want to look it up and read for yourself, is 255 U.S. 509, United States [02:45.100 --> 02:46.660] Supreme Court, 1921. [02:46.660 --> 02:52.640] And here's a quote, income must be given the same meaning in all the income tax acts of [02:52.640 --> 02:57.520] Congress that it was given in the Corporate Excise Tax Act. [02:57.520 --> 03:07.920] And what that meaning is has become definitely settled by the decisions of this court. [03:07.920 --> 03:12.600] The Merchant Court continues with this, quote, in determining the definition of the word [03:12.600 --> 03:18.720] income thus arrived at, this court has consistently refused to enter into the refinements of lexographers [03:18.800 --> 03:24.400] and economists and has approved in the definitions, quoted, what it believed to be the commonly [03:24.400 --> 03:29.080] understood meaning of the term, which must have been in the minds of the people when [03:29.080 --> 03:34.440] they adopted the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, close quote. [03:34.440 --> 03:40.040] In other words, Merchant, the United States Supreme Court was saying that the term income, [03:40.040 --> 03:46.560] the meaning of the term income had to be the same as in the Corporate Tax Act of 1909 as [03:46.560 --> 03:50.560] in the tax acts of 1913, 1916, and 1917. [03:50.560 --> 03:57.400] Now the important part about this is that the 16th Amendment was adopted in 1913, the [03:57.400 --> 03:58.660] early part of 1913. [03:58.660 --> 04:05.480] So the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909 was pre-16th Amendment and the other three tax [04:05.480 --> 04:10.560] acts that the court is considering in Merchant were post-enactment of the 16th Amendment. [04:10.560 --> 04:16.040] And what the court is saying is that the definition of income has to be consistent through all [04:16.040 --> 04:17.040] of those acts. [04:17.040 --> 04:21.240] In other words, the meaning that it was given before the 16th Amendment is the same meaning [04:21.240 --> 04:25.040] it has after the 16th Amendment because when the people of the United States adopted the [04:25.040 --> 04:30.680] 16th Amendment, the definition that was applicable to the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909, to [04:30.680 --> 04:33.520] quote the court, must have been in their minds. [04:33.520 --> 04:36.520] The next case relevant to our inquiry is Eisner v. McComber. [04:36.520 --> 04:41.720] Again, the citation, if you want to look it up and read for yourself, is 252 U.S. 189. [04:41.720 --> 04:42.720] It was decided in 1920. [04:43.400 --> 04:47.800] Since we're talking about cases that were decided back in the early 20th century, I [04:47.800 --> 04:53.480] want to take a moment to share that these are still good decisional law in the United [04:53.480 --> 04:54.480] States. [04:54.480 --> 04:58.440] The Supreme Court has not reversed any of these cases, either in whole or in part. [04:58.440 --> 05:02.920] So these stand, as I'm recording this in 2021, as the law of the land. [05:02.920 --> 05:03.920] All right. [05:03.920 --> 05:07.280] So onto the text from Eisner v. McComber. [05:07.280 --> 05:09.760] Income is derived from capital. [05:09.800 --> 05:14.080] The gain derived from capital, et cetera. [05:14.080 --> 05:19.240] Here we have the essential matter, not gain accruing to capital, not growth or incremental [05:19.240 --> 05:27.600] of value in the investment, but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value severed [05:27.600 --> 05:35.800] from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in being, quote, derived, that [05:35.840 --> 05:44.760] is received or drawn by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and disposal. [05:44.760 --> 05:48.480] That is the income derived from property. [05:48.480 --> 05:51.960] Nothing else answers the description. [05:51.960 --> 05:56.280] We can clearly see that the court has determined the definition of income in terms of being [05:56.280 --> 05:58.320] able to tax income. [05:58.320 --> 06:04.360] Is it the gain or profit from an investment must be, to quote the court, received or drawn [06:04.360 --> 06:09.800] by the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and disposal? [06:09.800 --> 06:11.080] Janet Yellen. [06:11.080 --> 06:11.920] Really? [06:11.920 --> 06:14.080] Unrealized capital gains? [06:14.080 --> 06:19.840] The Supreme Court has said unrealized gains are not income subject to taxation. [06:19.840 --> 06:23.480] Now let's discuss one of the key restrictions that the founding fathers built into the federal [06:23.480 --> 06:25.880] government's ability to tax. [06:25.880 --> 06:28.720] That comes from Bruce Schaber v. Union Pacific Railroad. [06:28.720 --> 06:33.720] And again, the citation, if you want to look it up and read it for yourself, is 240 US [06:33.720 --> 06:40.120] 1, in this case is from 1916, and quote, quoting the court, concluding that the classification [06:40.120 --> 06:49.120] of direct was adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible to burden by taxation accumulation [06:49.120 --> 06:56.680] of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment. [06:56.680 --> 07:00.200] In other words, the Supreme Court is saying that the income tax cannot be used to burden [07:00.280 --> 07:05.320] the accumulation of property, or phrased a way that might make more sense here in 2021. [07:05.320 --> 07:12.480] The court was saying that the income tax cannot be used to burden the accumulation of wealth. [07:12.480 --> 07:18.360] And this from Bruce Schaber, quote, moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the [07:18.360 --> 07:26.000] Pollock case recognized the fact that taxation on income was, in its nature, an excise, entitled [07:26.000 --> 07:32.680] to be enforced as such, unless or until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount [07:32.680 --> 07:37.520] to accomplishing the result, which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation. [07:37.520 --> 07:39.520] Okay, I'll translate that for you. [07:39.520 --> 07:43.240] The court was saying that the income tax is an excise. [07:43.240 --> 07:45.080] We're going to get into that in a moment. [07:45.080 --> 07:51.960] And it's entitled to be enforced as an excise until enforcing the tax that's supposed to [07:51.960 --> 07:55.880] be an excise actually burdens the accumulation of wealth. [07:55.880 --> 07:59.680] At that point, it fails to be an excise. [07:59.680 --> 08:05.840] All of the exact, specific, and complex reasons that that is true, you'll have to find it [08:05.840 --> 08:06.840] income tax. [08:06.840 --> 08:07.840] Chattery the best. [08:07.840 --> 08:09.200] I can't do it here in a video. [08:09.200 --> 08:12.280] You can't translate 408 pages into a video. [08:12.280 --> 08:15.060] So just roll with me on this for now. [08:15.060 --> 08:18.560] In those quotes from Bruce Schaber, you heard the court talk about direct and indirect taxes. [08:18.560 --> 08:20.800] So let's talk about direct for a moment. [08:20.800 --> 08:25.400] Direct taxes under the federal system are more narrow than the generalized term direct [08:25.400 --> 08:26.520] taxes. [08:26.520 --> 08:31.800] Direct taxes as that term was met by the founding fathers when they placed it in the United [08:31.800 --> 08:37.000] States Constitution meant a tax on land or slaves. [08:37.000 --> 08:42.680] That was confirmed in the 1796 Hiles and case and again in the 1895 Pollock case. [08:42.680 --> 08:46.920] And of course, since the 13th Amendment, obviously there's no more slaves. [08:46.920 --> 08:53.080] So a direct tax for the purpose of federal taxation applies exclusively to land. [08:53.080 --> 08:56.800] When we consider the income tax, there's either direct or indirect. [08:56.800 --> 09:00.120] And as we've just discussed, there is no federal direct tax. [09:00.120 --> 09:03.560] So the income tax must be an indirect tax. [09:03.560 --> 09:05.480] And there are several forms of indirect taxation. [09:05.480 --> 09:08.520] But when it comes to the income tax, the only one that's relevant is something called an [09:08.520 --> 09:10.280] excise tax. [09:10.280 --> 09:14.120] So the court has already stated in one of the previous quotes that we heard that the [09:14.280 --> 09:17.240] income tax is in its nature an excise. [09:17.240 --> 09:19.920] So what is an excise tax? [09:19.920 --> 09:24.960] Well, according to the federal courts, this from American Airways v. Wallace, quote, [09:24.960 --> 09:29.080] The term excise tax and privilege tax are synonymous. [09:29.080 --> 09:33.680] The two are often used interchangeably, close quote. [09:33.680 --> 09:36.720] As an aside, were you aware that working for somebody else or hiring people to work for [09:36.720 --> 09:41.120] you has been adjudicated by the federal courts to be a constitutionally protected right? [09:41.120 --> 09:43.780] It is a fundamental right. [09:43.780 --> 09:45.420] It's not a privilege. [09:45.420 --> 09:51.220] So if it's not a privilege, then how can an excise tax, which is a privilege tax, we just [09:51.220 --> 09:55.980] heard that from the federal court, then how can money be taken out of your paycheck to [09:55.980 --> 10:02.420] pay an excise privilege tax for something which is, when you do it, a fundamental right? [10:02.420 --> 10:08.420] The answer is as simple as, it's probably going to be disturbing to you, it's because [10:09.420 --> 10:16.420] a form W-4, which is you attesting under penalty of perjury that you are in this tiny, tiny, [10:18.020 --> 10:23.020] tiny percentage of people for whom earning a living in the United States is not a right [10:23.020 --> 10:25.660] but a privilege, therefore subject to the income tax. [10:25.660 --> 10:30.540] So you signed under penalty of perjury that you're in that tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny group [10:30.540 --> 10:35.620] of people for whom earning a living in the United States is not a right but a privilege. [10:35.620 --> 10:40.320] So along the same lines, owning a business and performing whatever it is you, your business [10:40.320 --> 10:46.460] does for other people or other companies is also a constitutionally protected right, not [10:46.460 --> 10:47.660] a privilege. [10:47.660 --> 10:54.660] So how is the fruits of that subject to an excise privilege tax, the income tax, when [10:54.860 --> 10:59.420] all you're doing is exercising a fundamental right, and of course we know that no government [10:59.420 --> 11:04.500] within the United States can tax any right, so how is it that what you do is taxed as [11:04.540 --> 11:10.540] a privilege when it's actually a right? Well, just like people who work for others, people [11:10.540 --> 11:17.540] who own businesses fill out a form W-9, which again is them attesting under penalty of perjury [11:18.300 --> 11:23.700] that they are in this small, small, small group of people for whom earning a living [11:23.700 --> 11:28.380] within the United States is a privilege, not a right. [11:28.380 --> 11:34.100] It's all right there in the law, you've just never read it. [11:34.100 --> 11:41.100] So back to the definition of income. Why has the Supreme Court defined income? Well, that's [11:43.260 --> 11:50.260] because there is no definition for income in the tax code. Imagine a body of law that [11:51.380 --> 11:58.380] purports to tax income that never defines income. Yes, my friends, it's all part of [11:58.460 --> 12:04.180] the government's flim-flam that's been run on you for your entire life concerning income [12:04.180 --> 12:08.380] taxation and what you think it is because you've been socialized to believe this and [12:08.380 --> 12:13.760] such, what you think it is versus what it really is when you read the law. [12:13.760 --> 12:19.300] And if you'd like to know more about that, a lot more about that, I want to encourage [12:19.300 --> 12:24.860] you to go to DrReality.News, pick yourself up a copy of Income Tax Shattering the Mist, [12:24.900 --> 12:31.900] but I have to warn you, you are going to be pissed off. When you see the evidence, when [12:32.580 --> 12:38.940] you see what the law really says and when you determine what the government has actually [12:38.940 --> 12:43.700] done and how they have lied to an entire nation committing what I refer to as the largest [12:43.700 --> 12:47.700] financial crime in the history of the world, you are going to be pissed. [12:47.700 --> 12:52.300] Now, what you do about that is up to you. I don't know how many tens of thousands, hundreds [12:52.300 --> 12:57.820] of thousands of people have looked at the Income Tax Shattering the Mist and chosen [12:57.820 --> 13:02.820] to leave the system. You may not be that guy, but you should know, should you not, what [13:02.820 --> 13:06.700] the truth is and that the government is running a flim-flam on you? [13:06.700 --> 13:11.780] And while you're at DrReality.News, there's two other things that might be very useful [13:11.780 --> 13:18.780] to you. One is the Withholding Guide for Businesses, which talks about the truth. It's very short. [13:18.860 --> 13:23.940] It's 13-14 pages. I designed it so that people who want to leave the system can take that [13:23.940 --> 13:27.780] to their payroll department, to their boss, depending on circumstances, and show it to [13:27.780 --> 13:31.700] them and say, look, it's very short, 13-14 pages. Give that a read and then let's talk [13:31.700 --> 13:38.020] because there is absolutely no way to rebut the facts once you see what the law really [13:38.020 --> 13:43.820] says. And for the purpose, the narrow purpose of withholding from a paycheck, I designed [13:43.820 --> 13:46.340] the Business Withholding Handbook. [13:46.340 --> 13:51.140] The other one that many people will find interesting and have found interesting is the Business [13:51.140 --> 13:55.540] Guide for W-9 and 1099. I hinted about that a moment ago concerning people who own their [13:55.540 --> 14:00.660] own businesses and they're constantly being requested to fill out W-9s, which when they [14:00.660 --> 14:05.100] do declares that what they're doing is not a constitutionally protected right, but rather [14:05.100 --> 14:10.140] a government-granted privilege. Yeah, you're probably thinking this is insane, right? But [14:10.140 --> 14:14.080] that's what happens every time you fill out a W-9. You're attesting that you're not actually [14:14.080 --> 14:18.400] exercising a constitutional right. You are engaged in a government-granted privilege. [14:18.400 --> 14:24.760] And the W-9 1099 Guide, just like the Withholding Handbook, details in about 13 pages what the [14:24.760 --> 14:30.800] law really says. And people who own their own business have used this to considerable [14:30.800 --> 14:34.040] success when somebody they're doing business with says, hey man, I need you to fill out [14:34.040 --> 14:40.760] this W-9. Like, well, not really. Here, read this. Boom. End of story in the majority of [14:40.760 --> 14:41.760] cases. [14:41.760 --> 14:46.440] So with all that said, to get the full and complete picture of what the United States [14:46.440 --> 14:51.840] government has done, the largest financial crime in the history of the world, you need [14:51.840 --> 14:56.680] to read Income Tax Shattering. It's not 400 pages. It's going to be the most mind-blowing [14:56.680 --> 15:02.040] 400 pages you have ever read. You have my word on that. Also, if you want to find out [15:02.040 --> 15:07.240] about establishment flimflams, while you're there, grab yourself a copy of Body Science [15:07.240 --> 15:12.320] and when you read that, you will learn that virtually everything that you have understood [15:12.320 --> 15:17.320] to be true of physiology, with a specific emphasis on nutritional physiology, has been [15:17.320 --> 15:22.720] much like the Income Tax, just another establishment lie. But the good thing about reading Body [15:22.720 --> 15:26.520] Science is you can never get flimflammed again. Once you read Body Science, it will give you [15:26.520 --> 15:32.280] a frame of reference, anything that the establishment, whether it's some industry-funded bogus research, [15:32.280 --> 15:35.640] whether it's some statement by the United States government, whether it's from the American [15:35.920 --> 15:40.600] Heart Association, once you've completed Body Science, you will have all of the information [15:40.600 --> 15:45.000] up here. So as you look at these various preposterous statements, you will, for the first time in [15:45.000 --> 15:50.800] your life, know that they are preposterous. It empowers you to make the best and most [15:50.800 --> 15:55.360] correct decisions for your health in your life. And by purchasing Income Tax Shattering [15:55.360 --> 16:02.360] The Mist, Body Science, one of the handbooks, not only do you get amazing, fabulous information [16:02.360 --> 16:09.640] worth well more than the cost of the product, you help me stay here for you. Thanks.