Income
W2 Wages, Cost Basis, and the Asymmetry the Tax Code Won't Explain
The claim that wages aren't 'income' has been rejected by every federal court that's heard it. But buried inside the losing argument is a genuine observation: labor is the only factor of production denied a cost basis. That asymmetry is real, indefensible, and worth understanding on its own terms.
What "Income" Means — and Why a Century of Case Law Hasn't Settled It
The Sixteenth Amendment uses 'income' without defining it. Eisner v. Macomber tried. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass tried again. Neither fully succeeded. The resulting ambiguity is not a conspiracy — it's a real doctrinal gap with real consequences.
The IRC distinguishes "wages" from "income" in specific statutory contexts
The Code uses 'wages' and 'income' as distinct terms in some provisions. The distinction is real — but it does not do the work that wages-aren't-income theorists need it to do.
Whether Glenshaw Glass expanded "income" beyond the original constitutional meaning
A live academic question: did the 1955 Glenshaw Glass formulation broaden 'income' past what the Sixteenth Amendment originally authorized?
Cracking the Code
Claims wages are not 'income' under the IRC. Core thesis rests on a specific reading of 26 U.S.C. §3401(a).
Income
What 'income' means — and doesn't mean — in the Internal Revenue Code, the Sixteenth Amendment, and a century of Supreme Court precedent.