Wake Up Australia: Australian Common Law Protection Society Most often, income is a term used interchangeably with salary or wages. A person earning $1,000 a week may be said to have an income of $52,000 a year. Also, however, a business may be said to have an income of so many million dollars per quarter, or per year, and it may issue a quarterly or annual income report. There, the term is used interchangeably with profits or earnings . Note the confusion between those two groups of usage. If a person has a salary and thats called income, then the higher the salary the higher the income. However if a company pays salaries to employees, the higher the salaries the lower the profits - the effect is opposite. To a person, wages always add to income; to a business, wages always reduce income . Further, in everyday speech income might sometimes refer to everything that comes in and in the case of a person that might be close or identical to his salary - but in the case of a company everything that comes in would normally be many times greater than its income or profit. For that reason its more usually called sales revenue. Note also the difference between the parties doing the earning: if income means wages it can be earned only by individuals, whereas if it means profits it can be earned only by businesses; the definition therefore directly determines who is being taxed and who is not. In everyday speech there are striking differences among several alternative ways in which the term income is used. If its to be used in the law, the exact meaning there must be spelled out because no single ordinary, common meaning exists. Bouviers Law Dictionary defines income as The gain which proceeds from property, labor, or business; it is applied particularly to individuals; the income of the government is usually called revenue. The aspect of gainseems pre-eminent and is troubling. Clearly a business can receive gain, by trading; thats what its there for, to produce profit for its shareholders. But can an individual receive gain, for his labor? Is not his labor provided in a straight exchange for wages or salary, with no profit or gain arising?The contradiction further confirms that income is not a term with a common, ordinary meaning in legal speech. However if its said that a worker can derive a gain from a wage, then why would not the border between exchange and gain not be subjectively set in different places by two or more different workers? One may say Yes, I gained enough (profit, income) to take a 2-week vacation from my years work - while another may say that his gain amounted only to the sum he was able to squirrel away; a third may recognize that his savings took the form of increased equity in the home on which hes paying a mortgage. Its a rats nest of questions and uncertainties and indeed there may have been court cases that have ruled one way or another; the point is not to choose here between these but to remark that the meaning of income is by no means ordinary, common and singular. Theres more. In the ato acts they use the curious phrase income, from whatever source derived. This falls far short of a definition, but it does clearly say that income in the law is an entity derived from sources., compensation for personal services which is often taken to mean the same as wages and salaries. If it does, then we have a statement that income can not consist of or include wages and salaries because, of course, nothing can ever be derived from itself; beer is derived from hops, but certainly does not include any or consist of them. In any case unlike corporations individuals cannot derive anything from a salary; they either receive it, or they dont. In legal speech, the meaning of income is obscure as well as undefined, though these clues indicate it may have something to do with the profits earned by a corporation. Usage of the term income is very far from uniform and unambiguous, so it should not be used in law without a definition and only a new Amendment in the ATO INTERPRETATIONS can legally produce one. Since the entire alleged income tax - is based upon a literally meaningless term and is, therefore, void. INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 202A entity means a body corporate or unincorporated association, but does not include a natural person or a partnership. financial institution (a) a bank; or (b) a co-operative housing society. person includes a partnership, a company and a person in the capacity of trustee of a trust estate. income from personal exertion or income derived from personal exertion means income consisting of earnings, salaries, wages, commissions, fees, bonuses, pensions, superannuation allowances, retiring allowances and retiring gratuities, allowances and gratuities received in the capacity of employee or in relation to any services rendered, the proceeds of any business carried on by thetaxpayer either alone or as a partner with any other person, any amount received as a bounty or subsidy in carrying on a business, any amount that is included in the assessable income of the taxpayer by reason of section 393-10 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the income from any property where that income forms part of the emoluments of any office or employment of profit held by thetaxpayer, and any profit arising from the sale by the taxpayer of any property acquired by the taxpayer for the purpose of profit-making by sale or from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit-making undertaking or scheme, but does not include: (a) interest, unless the taxpayers principal business consists of the lending of money, or unless the interest is received in respect of a debt due to the taxpayer for goods supplied or services rendered by the taxpayer in the course of the taxpayers business; or (b) rents, dividends or non-share dividends. individual means a natural person. NATURAL PERSON IS NOT DEFINED IN ANY OF THE ATOS ACTS AND NEITHER IS THE SINGULAR WORD INCOME
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 11:29:39 +0000