Talk:Gross income

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, 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 affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; taxpayer’s argument &mdash; that because of the Sixteenth Amendment, wages were not taxable &mdash; 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 &mdash; that wages are not taxable &mdash; 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) ( 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 &mdash; imposed under for filing tax return with frivolous position &mdash; was therefore proper);


 * Granzow v. Commissioner, 739 F.2d 265, 84-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9660 (7th Cir. 1984) (taxpayer’s argument that wages are not taxable was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ruled frivolous);


 * 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)

Confused on terms used
I'm a bit confused. The article clearly covers (not well) the U.S. concept of gross income. I believe the U.S. is the only country that has the concept. If so, why do we need a separate section on "U.S."? The following do not have the concept:
 * Canada has no such concept,
 * UK uses the term "gross income" as a term of convenience to refer to all income (as opposed to net income),
 * Singapore has no such concept,
 * Australia has no such concept, levying tax separately on 3 types of income,
 * New Zealand appears to have no such concept,
 * In India, when the term is sort of used, it is used as "gross total income" to refer inclusively to all income

I think we can qualify in the intro that the term is a U.S. term. Am I wrong here?

I'm also confused by the term "accession". It doesn't appear anywhere in the USC, or the regs under sec. 61. I have found the word in a very limited number of court cases, all of which cite one of only two USSC cases that uses the word, each only once. Is this a term the tax protesters are fond of? Why are we using it. In Macomber, the SC stated (citing Strattons Independence) "'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,' provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, ..." (252 US at 207; USSC 1920)

Finally, why the long discussion on gold coins? Again, is this for the tax protesters? More than a sentence seems undue weight. Same with "exchange of services". These things have long been well settled, except to tax protesters to whom nothing is ever settled. I don't see the need to pander to them in an article of broad application.

I'm going to undertake some clean-up of the article, including a rewrite of the intro. Comments very welcome here. Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My name my website my you tube also the other accounts tied to my phone number an the harassment from the headache to figure out these gliches I can continue Ljtay (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The stuff l/the material was taken off my websites an my accounts were compromised due to a hacker schemes Ljtay (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The stuff l/the material was taken off my websites an my accounts were compromised due to a hacker schemes Ljtay (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed move of sectoin to Tax protester statutory arguments
I propose to move the section of this article Gross income to be a new subsection of Tax protester statutory arguments. It is a fringe theory contrary to law on a very specific point, and should not, I believe, be in a general discussion of a major topic. Comments? Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

DRAFT article posted to user page for comments & edit
I have posted a draft major revision to the Gross income article on a subpage of my user page. It is available at User:Oldtaxguy/drafts. Please make edits & post comments to the discussion page on that user page, or on this page. I will attempt to make changes to this article by Labor Day. Oldtaxguy (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Exempt income for federal income tax purposes
I removed this sentence from the article:


 * Exempt income and Income that is not considered tax exempt is legally defined in 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and (iii).

The cited regulation defines "exempt income" and "income not considered exempt" for purposes of 'that particular Treasury regulation -- in particular, for purposes of determining the allocation of deductions related to one or more classes of gross income under 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(i)(A).

By contrast, the basic definition of gross income is found in Internal Revenue Code section 61. The definition of gross income is then narrowed by the provisions of Internal Revenue Code sections 101 through 140 (and, in certain cases, by various other Code sections such as section 911) and the Treasury regulations under those provisions. Section 861 of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Regulation found at 26 CFR 1.861-8T, do not define exempt income for purposes of section 61, or for purposes of sections 101 through 140, etc. Indeed, section 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) states that exempt income means "any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes." Where do you go to determine what income is exempt, excluded, etc.? To Internal Revenue Code sections 101 through 140, section 911, etc., etc. Famspear (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1.861-8T is an enhancement to 1.861-8, which states in the first paragraph, in part, "This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections [861-863] by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions..." The reg section by its very terms has nothing to do with determinations related to gross income. The tax protesters are taking pieces out of context to try to argue that somehow income does not include income "from whatever source derived" (as the 16th amendment and section 61 state). Thanks for the removal. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Famspear (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Defining income
I have reverted a change I believe incorrect. 26 CFR 1.61 et seq. do NOT define income in detail; rather, the regs list 22 categories of income and provide some elaboration for those categories only. Further, many of these regulations have not been updated since the 1960s or earlier. Example: 1.861-6, Gains from Dealings in Property, was last updated in 1957. Property includes securities and derivitaves that did not exist in 1957, so obviously that regulation could not have defined income "in detail". Further, if the regulations provided such detail, why have there been so many court cases (hundreds) since the regulations came out? (There have nearly 40 citing this one section of the regulations.)

I have also removed the citation to Glenshaw Glass (GG), a case advocated as being significant by very few scholars, and almost completely ignored by most others. In GG, the Court rebutted arguments by the taxpayer that attempted to narrow the definition of income. The Court used the phrase "accession to wealth" only once, and only in passing reference to something that clearly fit within the definition of income. To argue that this chance phrase is somehow more important or significant than the body of the opinion that cites more than 15 other S.Ct. cases defining income is a real stretch. The GG case was on one specific point (punitive damages), and merely reaffirmed the other cases. The Court concluded with a citation to Midland Mutual Life (1937) that states, "we must not confine the legislation within narrower forms than the statutory language would indicate." This conclusion is the heart of the case. The taxpayer sought to exclude something from the definition of income and the Court said no, because the term should be interpreted broadly. It stated, "The terms "interest," "dividends," and "rents," employed in the statute simply and without qualification or elaboration, were plainly used by Congress in their generic meanings, as broadly descriptive of certain kinds of "income." " My view, supported by the citations given, is that the term "income" remains a plain language term without precise definition. As Justice Thurgood Marshall observed about pornography, he couldn't define it but could certainly recognize it when he saw it.

To state in the article that the term is well defined is simply to make a false assertion. Oldtaxguy (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Income vs. Applesauce
Gross income is all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) 1) Compensation for services etc.

What it says:

Gross applesauce is all applesauce from whatever apples derived, including (but not limited to) Pippen apples, Red Delicious apples, Granny Smith apples etc.

What the wiki article claims it says:

Gross applesauce is all applesauce from whatever applesauce derived, including (but not limited to) Napkins, Trees, Ants, Income, Patents, Television etc.

What the wiki article claims it means (and why isn't it defined thusly?):

Gross income is all property obtained during any activity.

71.218.212.217 (talk) 13:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear user at IP 71.218.212.217: No, the article does not claim that gross income is "all property obtained during any activity".


 * First of all, the word "activity" isn't even found in the article.


 * Second, gross income (for U.S. federal income tax purposes, which is what the article is about) is not limited to amounts received in connection with an "activity." Gross income is a much broader concept.


 * the word "activity" is a word that is found in other places in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. Its legal meaning is limited to some extent. For example, if a taxpayer receives interest income from a checking account, that receipt is not considered to be an "activity" in which the taxpayer is engaged. By contrast, if the taxpayer receives compensation for work he performs for an employer, the work he performs is considered an "activity."


 * You need to be careful about the terms you use, because U.S. federal income tax law is pretty technical. Famspear (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the exact wording of the statute (Internal Revenue Code section 61):


 * § 61 - Gross income defined


 * (a) General definition


 * 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;


 * (2) Gross income derived from business;


 * (3) Gains derived from dealings in property;


 * (4) Interest;


 * (5) Rents;


 * (6) Royalties;


 * (7) Dividends;


 * (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;


 * (9) Annuities;


 * (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;


 * (11) Pensions;


 * (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;


 * (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;


 * (14) Income in respect of a decedent; and


 * (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.


 * (b) Cross references


 * For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).

[end of text of Internal Revenue Code section 61] Famspear (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Gross income is not limited to the US - why does this article talk only about the US? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be international.
Gross income is not limited to the US - why does this article talk only about the US? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be international. 2001:268:C030:1FDC:D898:E0A7:C8F4:305C (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason is that Wikipedia is a work in progress -- not a finished product. This and many other articles are currently "U.S. centric." That situation changes as articles are expanded. Famspear (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Foreign" person versus "resident alien" versus "nonresident alien"
I cleaned up some of the language regarding "foreign persons" -- persons who are not U.S. citizens. In U.S. federal income tax law, both resident aliens and nonresident aliens can be considered "foreign" persons. However, the tax rules differ for those two groups. The article was incorrectly using the term "foreign person" to mean what the statute actually calls a "nonresident alien." By contrast, a resident alien is pretty much taxed (for U.S. Federal income tax purpose) in the same way as a U.S. citizen. So, you cannot use the term "foreign person" in the way it was being used in the article. Famspear (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've seen the term "US person" in US documents, I think meaning a person legally resident in the US (native or not), though I'm not entirely sure. It might make sense to define and use the term in the article. "Foreign" is quite the wrong word in an article which is about a general concept, not about the US. Pol098 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Is short dictionary definition plus discussion of US tax law
"Gross income" is just the dictionary word "gross", meaning "before deductions" (OED meaning 6 of the adjective), followed by "income". The term "gross income" is actually in dictionaries. I'd propose that the article "gross income" be reduced to a very few sentences explaining the concept, or dropped altogether as a dictionary term, and the bulk of the content of this article be moved or merged to an article about US tax law in particular. I don't think detailed discussion of the treatment of gross income in tax law and other cases belongs in the article about the concept, even if separated into sections for different jurisdictions; the details should be in the various articles about tax law in various places, etc., with "See also" or similar links to these articles here. Others have also made suggestions regarding the US-centric nature of this article about a general English-language term. Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)