The Geoff & Bill Show
OnryAnRkst
>Unless you can proide cites
>that actually, truly show that source does have an effect on the
>income tax liability of an American who earns wages from a U.S.
>employer, preferably in your own words and not cut-and-pasting from
>Larken Rose
To the extent that I cut and paste the citations that determine
taxable income from sources within the Uinted States directly
from Larken's website, you can always look them up in the code
and regulations to see if they match. <---those are my own words.
Here is where it says "source" matters for purposes of the
income tax:
“Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to
determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within
the United States after gross income from sources within the
United States has been determined.”
[26 CFR § 1.861-8]
Note (in my own words): there is nothing that exempts most
citizens and residents from the provisions of Section 861.
It has the same force of law that Section 61 has. It doesn't
say, "You can use these rules if you wanna." However, I
can understand why you might want to think that way.
“Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
(a) Categories of income. Part I (section 861 and following),
subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations
thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of
the income tax.”
[26 CFR § 1.861-1]
Notice it says "determine THE sources of income for purposes
of THE income tax." It doesn't say "some sources" or "for
purposes of figuring out where your income geographically
originates."
“The taxpayer's taxable income from sources within or
without the United States will be determined under the
rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining
taxable income from sources within the United States.”
[26 CFR § 1.863-1(c)]
It says the taxpayer's taxable income from sources
within OR without the Uniterd States . . . Within
OR
without . . .means EITHER one OR the other (or both,
as the case may be). It means if you have income from
sources SOLELY within the United States you are to use
those sections to determine your taxable income, and if
you have income SOLELY from sources without the United
States, you are LIKEWISE to use the SAME sections --
the sections it says are "for determining taxable income
from sources WITHIN the United States."
It says "WILL BE determined . . ." -- not "If you want to" --
under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for
determining TAXABLE INCOME from sources within the
United States.
“The rules contained in this section apply in determining
taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and
activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings to
which this section is applicable…”
[26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)]
“[T]he term ‘statutory grouping’ means the gross income
from a specific source or activity which must first be
determined in order to arrive at ‘taxable income’ from which
specific source or activity…”
[26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)]
“The rules contained in this section apply in determining
taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and
activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this
section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this
section for a list and description of operative sections.”
[26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)]
What does paragraph (f)(1) say? Look it up, so you won't
accuse me of "mangling" its meaning:
26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
--OnryAnRkst
Gray Shockley
> To the extent that I cut and paste the citations that determine
> taxable income from sources within the Uinted States directly
> from Larken's website, you can always look them up in the code
> and regulations to see if they match. <---those are my own words.
Why ever would anyone want to go to Rosie the Bliviter's website?
Rosie the Bliviter was on this newsgroup until he got tired of being shown up
as "strange", "loonylike" and althogether just another alien from the planet
Gibber.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Blivet
1. Something annoying, superfluous, or pointless.
2. Something difficult or impossible to name.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Everything is always the worst it's ever been.
esenter
OnryAnRkst wrote:
>>Geoffrey F. Green
>
>
>>Unless you can proide cites
>>that actually, truly show that source does have an effect on the
>>income tax liability of an American who earns wages from a U.S.
>>employer, preferably in your own words and not cut-and-pasting from
>>Larken Rose
>
>
> To the extent that I cut and paste the citations that determine
> taxable income from sources within the Uinted States directly
> from Larken's website, you can always look them up in the code
> and regulations to see if they match. <---those are my own words.
>
> Here is where it says "source" matters for purposes of the
> income tax:
>
Notice that none of these sections have anything to do with TAX
LIABILITY. The purpose of these sections is only for the allocation and
apportionment of deductions.
"This section provides specific
guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for
the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other
deductions (referred to collectively in this section as ``deductions'')
of the taxpayer." (1.861-8(a))
The only reason anyone would need to know the "source" of the income is
for the sole purpose of allocating and apportioning deductions.
Sorry, CobraPrick, you, Larken Rose and Dr. Tom are all wet...
To continue the section which you conveniently edited: "...under an
operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this
section.) Gross income from other sources or activities is referred to
as the ``residual grouping of gross income'' or ``residual grouping.''
So there are "statutory groupings" and "residual groupings". The
"operative sections" are all contained in the "statutory groupings", so
what is contained in the "residual groupings"? That would be the gross
income from sources and activities that the "operative sections" are
OTHER TO. That could possible be the income of the oridinary American.
Which shows that the "operative sections" are not the only location
for determining "taxable income".
I don't expect CobraPrick or any of his pals to understand this, of
course...
OnryAnRkst
>Notice that none of these sections have anything to do with TAX=20
>LIABILITY. The purpose of these sections is only for the allocation and =
>
>apportionment of deductions.
Wrong, ed. That's like saying "the purpose of the dictionary
is to show pronunciation." While ONE of the things the
regulations do is to apportion deductions, the primary function
is "determine THE sources of income for purposes of THE income tax."
Bad attempt at bullshit, ed.
--OnryAnRkst
Gray Shockley
(in message <20030927125833...@mb-m21.aol.com>):
>> esenter wrote,
>
>> Notice that none of these sections have anything to do with TAX=20
>> LIABILITY. The purpose of these sections is only for the allocation and =
>>
>> apportionment of deductions.
>
> Wrong, ed. That's like saying "the purpose of the dictionary
> is to show pronunciation." While ONE of the things the
> regulations do is to apportion deductions, the primary function
> is "determine THE sources of income for purposes of THE income tax."
The Constitution trumps your little regs,
you cute little constitutionist you.
XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from
whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and
without regard to any census or enumeration.
> Bad attempt at bull[malloy], ed.
>
> --OnryAnRkst
Rosie the Bliviter's special little invisible friend
Gray Shockley
--------------------------------------------------------
Malloy's fascination with excrement censored.
esenter
OnryAnRkst wrote:
>>esenter wrote,
>
>
>>Notice that none of these sections have anything to do with TAX=20
>>LIABILITY. The purpose of these sections is only for the allocation and =
>>
>>apportionment of deductions.
>
>
> Wrong, ed. That's like saying "the purpose of the dictionary
> is to show pronunciation." While ONE of the things the
> regulations do is to apportion deductions, the primary function
> is "determine THE sources of income for purposes of THE income tax."
>
The "sources of income" are placed into one of three categories: 1)
within, 2) without, or 3) partly within or without the United States.
(Section 1.861-1)
There is NOTHING about tax liability found in that section or anywhere
else dealing with "sources".
Sections 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T allocate and apportion deductions to
those categories of sources.
Again, there is NOTHING about tax liability found in these sections.
Larken, Dr. Tom and CobraPrick are the bullshit artists...
OnryAnRkst
>The "sources of income" are placed into one of three categories: 1)
>within, 2) without, or 3) partly within or without the United States.
>(Section 1.861-1)
Those sections determine THE sources of income (referred to in § 61) for
purposes of THE income tax, ed.
>Sections 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T allocate and apportion deductions to
>those categories of sources.
AND: "determine THE sources of income for purposes of
THE income tax."
Hey ed: if you read the regulations and determine from them that your
income is taxable, I suggest you whip out the ol' checkbook, write
a fat one to the IRS, and pay your "fair share." What's your problem
with that?
--OnryAnRkst
esenter
OnryAnRkst wrote:
>>esenter wrote,
>
>
>>The "sources of income" are placed into one of three categories: 1)
>>within, 2) without, or 3) partly within or without the United States.
>>(Section 1.861-1)
>
>
> Those sections determine THE sources of income (referred to in § 61) for
> purposes of THE income tax, ed.
>
You mean income "from whatever source"? Again, source has absolutely
NOTHING to do with tax liability.
>
>>Sections 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T allocate and apportion deductions to
>>those categories of sources.
>
>
> AND: "determine THE sources of income for purposes of
> THE income tax."
>
No, dimwit. Reread what I said.
> Hey ed: if you read the regulations and determine from them that your
> income is taxable, I suggest you whip out the ol' checkbook, write
> a fat one to the IRS, and pay your "fair share." What's your problem
> with that?
>
You know, when I first saw the "861 argument" 3 or so yrs. ago, I
thought it was the dumbest tax protester argument out there (and I have
seen just about all of them). CobraPrick, you prove me right by your
every post.
OnryAnRkst
>You know, when I first saw the "861 argument" 3 or so yrs. ago, I=20
>thought it was the dumbest tax protester argument out there (and I have=20
>seen just about all of them). CobraPrick, you prove me right by your=20
>every post.
I'm sure you feel that way.
--OnryAnArkst
Jeff Blatz
I feel that way too but "OnryAnArkst" is such a dumb tax protester he is
unintentionally funny!
Arthur L. Rubin
> >Geoffrey F. Green
>
> >Unless you can proide cites
> >that actually, truly show that source does have an effect on the
> >income tax liability of an American who earns wages from a U.S.
> >employer, preferably in your own words and not cut-and-pasting from
> >Larken Rose
>
> To the extent that I cut and paste the citations that determine
> taxable income from sources within the Uinted States directly
> from Larken's website, you can always look them up in the code
> and regulations to see if they match. <---those are my own words.
Fine. They don't match.
Game over.
Dale Eastman
Doesn't matter if they match or not.
"IF the words of the regulations mean what YOU THINK they say, they are
incompatible with the law, and CAN be ignored." -- A.L.R.
Pastes from posts in my sent file archive:
-----------------------
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
> I told you this before. IF they mean what YOU think they say,
> they're inconsistent with section 861.
-----------------------
And this gem:
> Your other 11 cites specify that those particular sections are for
> determining whether the INCOME has a SOURCE within or without the
> United States. They do _NOT_ say they are for determining SOURCES OF
> INCOME. No code section or regulation requires that INCOME HAVE a
> SOURCE.
So according to the esteemed Mr. Rubin, 'determining' a source from
within or without is not the same as 'determining' "sources of income".
-----------------------
And this one:
>> An item of income comes from a 'source' of income.
>
> No. An item of income is an item of income. I've snipped your
> multiple definition of 'source', even though it indicates that 861
> DEFINES 'source', thereby making this statement NOT true unless
> affirmed elsewhere in the code or regulations.
-----------------------
And this last one:
>> Refuted like Mr. Rubin trying to tell me that the words don't mean
>> what the words say and thus should be ignored.
>
>
> Now THAT is a lie. I stated at first, that IF the words of the
> regulations mean what YOU THINK they say, they are incompatible with
> the law, and CAN be ignored.
>
> I never said that the words of the regulations can be ignored if
> they're compatible with the law.
XCobraJock
--XCobraJock
"Arthur L. Rubin" <ronni...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F785990...@sprintmail.com...
Arthur L. Rubin
I've changed my position from time to time. So has Dale. My
present position on 861 is as follows:
If "Determining sources of income for the purposes of the income tax" is
considered to have been DEFINED as determining whether items of income have
a source from within the US or have a source from without the US, then
26 CFR 1.861-1 is consistent with 26 USC 861, and must be followed --
although, unless some of the operative sections apply, it has no
effect on gross income (as defined under section 61), taxable income
(as defined under section 63), or tax (as defined under section 1).
If it is considered to have any other meaning, then it is NOT consistent
with
26 USC 861, and the first paragraph of 26 CFR 1.861-1 is void. None of the
other section of 861 have an effect on gross income, taxable income,
or tax due, so we're still done.
I still have NEVER said that the regulations can be ignored if they
are consistent with the Code. They may have no effect on taxes,
but they must (technically) be considered, even if none of the
calculations are transferred to tax forms.
Dale Eastman
Arthur L. Rubin wrote:
>
>
> I've changed my position from time to time. So has Dale. My present
> position on 861 is as follows:
<chuckle> I'm laughing with you, not at you.
> If "Determining sources of income for the purposes of the income tax"
> is considered to have been DEFINED as determining whether items of
> income have a source from within the US or have a source from without
> the US, then 26 CFR 1.861-1 is consistent with 26 USC 861, and must
> be followed -- although, unless some of the operative sections apply,
> it has no effect on gross income (as defined under section 61),
> taxable income (as defined under section 63), or tax (as defined
> under section 1).
That's a conclusion I now disagree on. One that I was previously not
sure about.
Besides, Section 61 does not make everything taxable.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/Senter.html
Those familiar with the debate will recognize the following snippets of
statute and regulation. I will address them after the pasting of said
snippets.
Sec. 61. Gross income defined
-STATUTE-
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle,
(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).
Sec. 1.61-1 Gross income.
(a) General definition. Gross income means all income from whatever
source derived, unless excluded by law.
(b) Cross references. To the extent that another section of the Code or
of the regulations thereunder, provides specific treatment for any item
of income, such other provision shall apply notwithstanding section 61
and the regulations thereunder. The cross references do not cover all
possible items.
Please note: USC 61(a) is a "general definition" "EXCEPT as otherwise
provided."
Please note: CFR 61-1(a) "Gross income means... UNLESS excluded by law."
Please note: CFR 61-1(b) "To the extent... such other provision shall
apply notwithstanding section 61."
So, "gross income", the prerequisite and precursor to "taxable income"
does NOT AUTOMATICALLY mean "all income from whatever source derived."
Both the code and the regulation allow for 'abdication' of what the
definition of gross income really means. 61-1(b) specifically points out
that other sections apply "notwithstanding" statute or code 61 if
another section provides specific treatment for any item.
If other sections of statute or reg deal with exempt or not exempt
treatment of income from sources, then the result is a specific
treatment for [m]any item[s] of income.
> .... although, unless some of the operative sections apply,
> it
[it assumed to mean 1.861-1]
> has no effect on gross income (as defined under section 61),
section 61 which abdicates determining gross income to other sections as
shown above.
> taxable income (as defined under section 63),
Which changes based upon the description of gross income in 61, which
changes based upon any other section of statute or code providing
specific treatment to the items of gross income.
> or tax (as defined under section 1).
Which changes based upon the taxable income, which changes based upon
the description of gross income in 61, which changes based upon any
other section of statute or code providing specific treatment to the
items of gross income.
> If it is considered to have any other meaning, then it is NOT
> consistent with 26 USC 861,
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
-STATUTE-
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States
(b) Taxable income from sources within United States
From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as
being income from sources within the United States
Income from SOURCES does matter. Now note what the regulations, the part
of the law that I must follow, the part of the law that "DETAILS" the
requirements of the law, says about USC 861:
Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from SOURCES within the
United States and from other sources and activities.
Sec. 1.861-8(a)(1) Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how
to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from SOURCES within the United
States after gross income from SOURCES within the United States has been
determined.
USC 861(b) is a GENERAL TERM. Gross income SOURCES within the US must be
determined first. If certain items of gross income from sources that one
would expect to be from within the US are excluded, Then gross income in
section 61 changes, then taxable income in section 63 changes, then tax
based upon taxable income changes.
> If it is considered to have any other meaning, then it is NOT
> consistent with 26 USC 861, and the first paragraph of 26 CFR 1.861-1
> is void.
So the words still don't mean what the words say Mr. Rubin.
> None of the
> other section of 861 have an effect on gross income, taxable income,
> or tax due, so we're still done.
<chuckle> Now I'm laughing at you.
The rest of my reply is "canned".
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
You are so right about being done.
>
> I still have NEVER said that the regulations can be ignored if they
> are consistent with the Code.
No you haven't. Instead you have arbitrarily decided that the words
don't mean what the words say, because it leads to a conclusion that
conflicts with your world view.
I believe the correct adjective is hidebound.
> They may have no effect on taxes, but
> they must (technically) be considered, even if none of the
> calculations are transferred to tax forms.
Statement would be correct, it statement was correct.
If 861 truly had no effect upon the end result tax, you would be correct
in the conclusive statement about skipping the calculations.
You are not correct. I am sure of this now, after 6 months of debate and
argument on this group.
esenter
Dale Eastman wrote:
>
> >
> > I still have NEVER said that the regulations can be ignored if they
> > are consistent with the Code.
>
> No you haven't. Instead you have arbitrarily decided that the words
> don't mean what the words say, because it leads to a conclusion that
> conflicts with your world view.
>
No, the words may not mean what YOU want them to say.
The words mean what the lawmaker wants them to mean. That is why some
are defined to make the intent of the legislation clear.
"TAXABLE INCOME" does not mean "INCOME THAT IS TAXABLE".
"TAXABLE INCOME" means "gross income minus deductions" (SEC. 63).
So when the regs say "determine taxable income from within the U.S.", it
means to subtract the deductions from within the U.S. from the gross
income from within the U.S..
It does not mean that you are determining anything to be "taxable".
Imagine, if you could understand that, you would be able to understand
why the courts rule the way they do and why your other conclusions are
wrong. And it has nothing to do with anyone's "world view" other than
your obvious irrational hatred of government.
Dale Eastman
esenter wrote:
>
>
> Dale Eastman wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> > I still have NEVER said that the regulations can be ignored if they
>> > are consistent with the Code.
>>
>> No you haven't. Instead you have arbitrarily decided that the words
>> don't mean what the words say, because it leads to a conclusion that
>> conflicts with your world view.
>>
>
> No, the words may not mean what YOU want them to say.
This is called transference in psychology.
> The words mean what the lawmaker wants them to mean. That is why some
> are defined to make the intent of the legislation clear.
That is only when the lawmaker supplies the definition or meaning of a
term (phrase). Absent that perversion, the words mean what the words say.
Cows graze grass.
For the purposes of this post, the words in the left column shall mean
or be defined by the terms in the right column.
graze - eats
grass - dogshit
cows - Senter
Real clear meaning AFTER you take the time to understand it Eh, Mr. Senter.
> "TAXABLE INCOME" does not mean "INCOME THAT IS TAXABLE".
> "TAXABLE INCOME" means "gross income minus deductions" (SEC. 63).
1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)
Income that is not considered tax exempt.
The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or
excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other
deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
Exempt gross income is untaxable income.
Non exempt gross income is taxable income.
"Taxable" Adjective.
"Income" Noun.
NOT "taxable income" legal term defined.
Here, Let me draw you a picture.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/Get%20a%20clue%20Ed.GIF
> So when the regs say "determine taxable income from within the U.S.", it
> means to subtract the deductions from within the U.S. from the gross
> income from within the U.S..
>
> It does not mean that you are determining anything to be "taxable".
This one's got words, but you can just look at the pictures.
http://home.sprintmail.com/~dalereastman/tax/right.html
> Imagine, if you could understand that, you would be able to understand
> why the courts rule the way they do and why your other conclusions are
> wrong. And it has nothing to do with anyone's "world view" other than
> your obvious irrational hatred of government.
If you work for the government, you justify every "irrational hatred of
government" I might have.
Cows Graze Grass ed.