Taxable Income
Larken Rose
that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent it to the
newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it here, I
will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to say about it
(which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see what any CPA's
and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible, in where you
think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
Larken
TAXABLE INCOME
The legal system of the United States is a system of written law, in
which the law means what the law says. Therefore, to accurately
determine what the law requires can be accomplished only by an objective
examination of the law itself, without giving any weight to preconceived
assumptions about what the law says. The following is just such an
examination of the federal "income tax."
To enact federal laws, Congress first passes statutes through the
legislative process, which are contained in the 50 "titles" of the
United States Code. A federal agency then has the duty (assigned by
Congress) of implementing or enforcing the statutes by writing and
publishing regulations, which explain or interpret the statutes, as well
as setting the rules which govern how the agency will enforce the
statutes. For federal taxes (contained in Title 26), the Secretary of
the Treasury is authorized to implement the statutes.
"Sec. 7805. Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - Except where such authority is expressly given by
this title to any person other than an officer or employee of the
Treasury Department, the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all
needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title…" - 26
USC 7805
(The citation "26 USC 7805" refers to Section 7805 of the statutes of
Title 26, with "USC" meaning United States Code. The citations of
regulations contain "CFR" instead, meaning Code of Federal Regulations.)
Section 1 of the statutes of Title 26 imposes the "income tax" in five
different categories (unmarried people, married people who file jointly,
married people who file separately, heads of households, and estates and
trusts). The wording of the imposition of the tax is identical for all
five categories: "there is hereby imposed on the TAXABLE INCOME of…"
The law specifically defines "taxable income" in the following section
of the statutes:
"Sec. 63. Taxable income defined
(a) In general - Except as provided in subsection (b) [see note below],
for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means GROSS
INCOME minus the deductions allowed by this chapter…" (emphasis added) -
26 USC 63
(Note: Subsection (b) refers to those who do not itemize their
deductions, but the meaning of "taxable income" still depends entirely
on the meaning of "gross income.")
In other words, when someone determines his "gross income," and then
subtracts all legal deductions, the remainder is "taxable income." The
law specifically defines "gross income" in the following section of the
Code:
"Sec. 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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 61
The section then lists "items" such as compensation for services,
interest, royalties, etc. This is the point at which most tax "experts"
err by assuming that "from whatever source derived" is synonymous with
"no matter where it comes from," and err by assuming that the "items" of
income listed are the same as "sources" of income.
In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
meaning. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever SOURCE
derived." If there were no section of law explaining what constitutes
"sources of income," then it would be reasonable to use common English
to try to understand the law. However, when there is a definition in
the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
There are many examples of legal definitions not matching common English
usage, and in these cases the definition is the meaning to be used. For
example, the term "head of household" only refers to unmarried people
(26 USC 2(b)). The term "person" includes companies and corporations
(26 USC 7701(a)(1)). The term "taxpayer" means anyone subject to any
Title 26 tax, whether they ever pay it or not (26 USC 7701(a)(14)).
(There has been much debate about what the word "income" by itself means
in the tax code, since nowhere is it defined, and since the word may
have had a different meaning when the law was written. However, there
is no need to define "income" by itself, since the tax is imposed on
"income from whatever SOURCE derived," and "sources of income" are
defined in the tax code.)
Since most of the tax "experts" assume that "income from sources" is an
unrestricted term, including all "income" no matter who receives it and
where it comes from, it is necessary to thoroughly document the fact
that the term is specifically limited in the law itself. The following
is the section of Subtitle A ("Income Taxes") that defines what
constitutes "income from sources":
"Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
United States
Part I -- Source rules and other general rules relating to FOREIGN
income*
Sec. 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES within the United States
(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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 861
(* - The significance of this line is explained further below.)
Obviously Subchapter N is relevant to the "income tax," since it
concerns taxes based on "income from sources" inside and outside of the
United States. Section 861 is clearly the beginning of the definition
of "income from sources," as its title and text state. While this may
already be obvious, this needs to be reinforced repeatedly, since this
is the point at which the tax "experts" refuse to believe the law
itself, and instead choose to follow "common knowledge" and the
misinformation from the Internal Revenue Service. The next series of
citations of law remove all doubt that Sections 861 and following do
determine the meaning of "income from sources."
(The problem for the "experts" here is that even they usually concede
that Sections 861 and following apply only to income earned by someone
outside of the United States. Thus, they either must admit that the
"income tax" does not apply to the vast majority of Americans, or
continue to defend an obvious legal blunder on their part.)
Not only is there no other section of the tax code which defines "income
from sources," but sections 861 and following are referred to elsewhere
in the Code as the sections "relating to determination of SOURCES OF
INCOME."
As marked above, Part I of Subchapter N is now entitled "Source rules
and other general rules relating to FOREIGN income." The first section
of this part concerns income from sources within the United States.
This may at first seem like a contradiction, since income from within
the United States and "foreign income" may seem to be opposites. One
possible explanation of this apparent contradiction is that "income from
sources WITHIN the United States" is "FOREIGN income" if the recipient
is OUTSIDE of the United States. (It will be shown later that there are
no legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone residing within the
United States.)
(It should be mentioned that 26 USC 7806 states that descriptive titles
of sections have no legal effect ("…nor shall any… descriptive matter
relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect." - 26
USC 7806(b)), with only the actual body of text of the sections having
any legal relevance. Therefore, the question of the meaning of the
title of Part I really has no legal impact, but for the sake of clarity
it is worthwhile.)
Up until 1988, the title for Part I was "determination of SOURCES OF
INCOME," which made it quite clear that the meaning of "gross income"
depended entirely on this part. As shown above, when the title of Part
I was changed, it had no effect at all on the actual law.
As mentioned before, the statutes passed by Congress are interpreted and
implemented by regulations "promulgated" (written and published) by the
Secretary of the Treasury. The following is how the regulations which
implement Section 861 of the statutes begin:
"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." (emphasis added) - 26
CFR 1.861-1
The meaning of this is unmistakable. The "income tax" is imposed on
"income from whatever SOURCE derived," and Section 861 and following
determine what these "sources" are. Notice that Section 861 (and the
following sections) and the related regulations determine "THE" sources
of income which are subject to the income tax. Any assumption that the
"income tax" applies to anything other than what is described in
sections 861 and following, and the related regulations, is clearly
incorrect.
In implementing Section 863 (which deals with allocating deductions
related to income from sources within and without the United States),
the regulations again state that sections 861 and following are "THE"
sections which determine what qualifies as "taxable income," which must
come from "specific sources."
"(ii) Relationship of sections 861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b). Sections
861, 862, 863(a), and 863(b) are THE four provisions applicable in
determining TAXABLE INCOME from SPECIFIC SOURCES." (emphasis added) - 26
CFR 1.861-8(f)(3)(ii)
In 26 CFR 1.861-8 (entitled "Computation of TAXABLE INCOME from SOURCES
within the United States and from other sources and activities") it is
made clear that the "items" of income listed (such as compensation and
interest) are not "gross income" unless they come from "specific
sources." The regulations mention in three different places that
"taxable income" can come only from the "specific sources" listed in
paragraph (f)(1) of 26 CFR 1.861-8.
"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." (emphasis added) - 26 CFR
1.861-8(a)(1)
"…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 under an OPERATIVE SECTION. (SEE PARAGRAPH (f)(1) of
this section.)" (emphasis added) - 26 CFR 1.861-8(a)(4)
The groups of statutes (which are all in Subchapter N) which describe
taxable sources are referred to as "operative sections." The previous
two cites make it clear that "taxable income" only includes "items" of
income when they come from one of the "sources" listed in the "operative
sections" of the tax code. The third place this is mentioned is in
paragraph (f)(1) itself, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
"The OPERATIVE SECTIONS of the Code which require the determination of
TAXABLE INCOME of the taxpayer from SPECIFIC SOURCES or activities...
include the sections described below.
"(i) Overall limitation to the FOREIGN tax credit…
(ii) [Reserved]
(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income… [international and foreign sales
corporations]
(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. NONRESIDENT ALIEN individuals
and FOREIGN corporations engaged in trade or business within the United
States…
(v) FOREIGN base company income…
(vi) Other operative sections. The rules provided in this section also
apply in determining..." (emphasis added) - 26 CFR 1.861-8(f)(1)
Note that none of the legal "sources of income" listed (as described in
various "operative sections" of the statutes) apply to anyone working in
the United States. The next paragraph of the regulations (26 CFR
1.861-8(g)) gives more than a dozen examples of the various rules
concerning deduction allocation, determining taxable income, and other
matters related to the income tax. It begins as follows:
"(g) General examples. The following examples illustrate the principles
of this section. In each example, unless otherwise specified, the
OPERATIVE SECTION which is applied and gives rise to the statutory
grouping of GROSS INCOME is the overall limitation to the FOREIGN tax
credit under section 904(a)." (emphasis added)
Note that this is item (i) on the list of "sources" of gross income in
paragraph (f)(1). This is not only proof that any "taxable income" must
come from one of the "sources" listed, but also shows that the examples
given are about foreign taxes.
Incidentally, the same "sources" also determine which types of income
from "without" the United States (dealt with in Section 862 and related
regulations) are "taxable income," as shown below.
"(b) Taxable income. The taxable income from sources without the United
States… shall be determined on the same basis as that used in Sec.
1.861-8 for determining the taxable income from sources within the
United States." - 26 CFR 1.862-1
The limited nature of the "income tax" is stated again, though in a
different way, in another part of the regulations in 26 CFR 1.861:
"(ii) Exempt income and exempt asset defined--(A) In general. For
purposes of this section, the term EXEMPT INCOME means any income that
is, in whole or in part, EXEMPT, excluded, or eliminated for FEDERAL
INCOME TAX PURPOSES. The term exempt asset means any asset the income
from which is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for
federal tax purposes."
"(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:…" (emphasis added) - 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(ii) and (iii)
This part should be read carefully, since it starts with what amounts to
a double negative. If a certain kind of income is NOT exempt, it means
it IS subject to the federal income tax. Therefore, the following (a
continuation of subsection (iii)) is a list of the types of income which
ARE subject to the federal income tax:
"(A) In the case of a FOREIGN taxpayer…
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC…
(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code… the gross income of
a POSSESSIONS corporation… ["possessions" means federal possessions]
(D) FOREIGN EARNED INCOME as defined in section 911 and the regulations
thereunder…" (emphasis added) - 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(iii)
Note that the types of income listed are subject to the tax, and
therefore can have deductions allocated to them. As described in
Section 63 of the statutes, "taxable income" means "gross income" minus
allowable deductions. Deductions are specifically allowed only for the
types of income listed in (iii), because these are the only types of
income which are subject to the federal "income tax." Note also that
the only source of "taxable income" for United States citizens is
FOREIGN earned income (the rest of the "sources" applying only to
foreign corporations and individuals).
There are several other legal documents which also demonstrate the
restricted nature of the "income tax." The Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980 requires that every form used by the federal government to collect
information from the public must be approved by the Office of Management
and Budget ("OMB") for each specific use. The regulations at 26 CFR
1.1-1 are entitled "Income tax on individuals," and correspond to
Section 1 of the Title 26 statutes.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, a form was approved by the
Office of Management and Budget for use with 26 CFR 1.1-1, and up until
1994 was listed in the table found in 26 CFR 602.101, which lists the
OMB-approved forms for various sections of the tax code. The form
approved for use with the "Income tax on individuals" (26 CFR 1.1-1) is
Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income." This makes perfect sense,
since the only legal taxable "source" of income for United States
citizens is "FOREIGN earned income," which is defined in Section 911,
entitled "Citizens or residents of the United States LIVING ABROAD."
(Some time since 1994, the line in the table listing this as the proper
form was "deleted" to "avoid confusion," according to the Department of
the Treasury. Currently there is no form listed as being approved for
use with the "Income tax on individuals." However, deleting the text
does not alter the law, or the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 2555
("Foreign Earned Income") is still the form approved for use with 26 CFR
1.1-1.)
Related to the erroneous common opinion of what "gross income" means is
the erroneous belief that Form 1040 must be filed to report any and all
compensation, interest, etc. paid to any individual in the United
States. Treasury Decision 2313 explains the proper use of the Form
1040, which reads in part:
"Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21,
1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to NONRESIDENT ALIENS in
the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of
domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of
October 3, 1913." (emphasis added)
Note how in this case an "item" of income (interest) is subject to the
income tax when paid to nonresident aliens, because that is one of the
legal "sources" of taxable income. Treasury Decision 2313 continues as
follows:
"The responsible heads, agents, or representatives of NONRESIDENT
ALIENS, who are in charge of the property owned or business carried on
within the United States, shall make a full and complete return of the
income therefrom on Form 1040, revised, and shall pay any and all tax,
normal and additional, assessed upon the income received by them in
behalf of their NONRESIDENT ALIEN principals." (emphasis added)
Form 2555, "Foreign Earned Income" is the form approved by the OMB for
use with 26 CFR 1.1-1 ("Income tax on individuals"), and Form 1040 is
simply a worksheet to be attached to Form 2555. While this form is used
to report income from within the United States, it is only to be used
when the recipient is outside of the United States. This clarifies how
income from within the United States can constitute foreign income.
Another legal resource which demonstrates the true applicability of the
"income tax" is the United States Code Annotated Index. This is a
comprehensive index for all 50 "titles" (categories of statutory law) of
the United States Code. The Index lists statute sections by subject.
Under "Income tax, citizens" there are only two listings, "about to
depart from U.S." and "living abroad." Again, this makes perfect sense,
since the only taxable source of income for United States citizens is
foreign earned income, which applies only to citizens "living abroad"
(pursuant to Section 911 of the statutes).
Under "Income tax, aliens," however, page after page of sections are
listed in the Annotated Index, including the sections usually
incorrectly assumed to apply to resident citizens, such as the sections
relating to gross income, withholding, deductions, exemptions, etc. The
income tax applies to certain United States citizens living abroad, and
certain nonresident aliens (also residing outside of the United States)
but does NOT apply to individuals (whether United States citizens or
not) who reside and work within the United States.
The statutes, regulations, Treasury decisions, OMB-approved forms, and
US Code Annotated Index all show the correct, limited application of the
"income tax" imposed by Section 1 of Title 26, despite what the public
and the "experts" believe. And while there are other similar taxes
imposed by the tax code which are often confused with the individual
income tax, such as the self-employment tax imposed in Section 1401 of
the Code, they all rely on the same definition of "gross income," which
is limited to the taxable "sources" of income described in 26 CFR 1.861.
In summary,
1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income." (26 USC 1)
2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus deductions. (26
USC 63)
3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
4) The only taxable "source" of income for United States citizens is
foreign earned income (with other "sources" applying to nonresident
aliens). (26 CFR 1.861)
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>The legal system of the United States is a system of written law, in
>which the law means what the law says. Therefore, to accurately
>determine what the law requires can be accomplished only by an objective
>examination of the law itself, without giving any weight to preconceived
>assumptions about what the law says.
I am not a big student of jurisprudence (the study of how law is
created and applied, rather than the law itself), but I don't think
that this is correct. When a statute is ambiguous or the application
of the statute is unclear, courts frequently look to legislative
history to determine what the legislators meant (i.e., subjective
intent), rather than just taking a flier at an abstract analysis of
the words on the page (i.e., objective intent).
This is certainly the case in tax law, where courts frequently look at
committee reports and Congressional staff explanations of the Internal
Revenue Code for guidance in the application of the law.
> The following is just such an
>examination of the federal "income tax."
No. The following is your misguided attempt to twist the plain
meaning of words to reach your goal of exempting yourself from income
tax.
>"Sec. 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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 61
>
>The section then lists "items" such as compensation for services,
>interest, royalties, etc. This is the point at which most tax "experts"
>err by assuming that "from whatever source derived" is synonymous with
>"no matter where it comes from,"
That is the plain, ordinary meaning of the words. If you look up
"whatever" in the dictionary, you will find definitions like "of any
number or kind; any" and "of any kind at all." If you substitute the
last definition for "whatever," you will find that the phrase "from
whatever source derived" becomes "from any kind of source at all
derived," which is what Congress meant.
The phrase "from whatever source derived" was included in both the
16th Amendment of the Constitution and Section 61 to reverse the
decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pollock v. Farmers Bank and
Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), in which the court held that income
derived from property (income such as rents, interest, and dividends)
could not be taxed by Congress unless the tax was apportioned among
the states. The 16th Amendment states that Congress can tax incomes
"from whatever source derived, without apportionment."
This was expressly recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a later
decision:
"[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which
the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes
of the rule applied in the Pollock Case...." Brushaber v. Union
Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
It is typical of tax protesters, and highly ironic, that they would
focus on the language intended to eliminate any consideration of the
sources of income in order to make the tax protester claim that income
cannot be taxed until the source is identified.
>and err by assuming that the "items" of
>income listed are the same as "sources" of income.
No, that's your error. The items lists are examples of "income," not
"sources of income."
>In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
>essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
>meaning. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever SOURCE
>derived." If there were no section of law explaining what constitutes
>"sources of income," then it would be reasonable to use common English
>to try to understand the law. However, when there is a definition in
>the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
Then you admit that the definition of "includes" in Section 7701(c)
supersedes any other possible meaning of "includes"? I'll have to
remember that, the next time you start some spouting some crap about
the states of the United States not being part of the United States.
>Since most of the tax "experts" assume that "income from sources" is an
>unrestricted term, including all "income" no matter who receives it and
>where it comes from, it is necessary to thoroughly document the fact
>that the term is specifically limited in the law itself. The following
>is the section of Subtitle A ("Income Taxes") that defines what
>constitutes "income from sources":
>
>"Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
>United States
Two problems: According to the title of Subchapter N, the subchapter
deals with income from sources "within or without the United States."
There is nothing in Section 61 (which you quoted above) that
distinquishes between sources within the United States and sources
without the United States. In fact, as explained above, the word
"whatever" means that the source is not relevant.
So, Subchapter N does not define "from whatever source derived" but
only "sources within or without the United States." Both phrases use
the word "sources," but where is "sources" derived"? And why isn't it
significant that the second phrase does not use the word "whatever"?
And you still haven't shown why it is necessary to identify the source
of any income. Section 61 says that gross income includes gross
income from ANY source. It is not necessary to identify the source of
the income if the statute itself says that the source is irrelevant.
>Part I -- Source rules and other general rules relating to FOREIGN
>income*
>Sec. 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES within the United States
>(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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 861
>
>(* - The significance of this line is explained further below.)
>
>Obviously Subchapter N is relevant to the "income tax," since it
>concerns taxes based on "income from sources" inside and outside of the
>United States. Section 861 is clearly the beginning of the definition
>of "income from sources," as its title and text state. While this may
>already be obvious, this needs to be reinforced repeatedly, since this
>is the point at which the tax "experts" refuse to believe the law
>itself, and instead choose to follow "common knowledge" and the
>misinformation from the Internal Revenue Service. The next series of
>citations of law remove all doubt that Sections 861 and following do
>determine the meaning of "income from sources."
>
>(The problem for the "experts" here is that even they usually concede
>that Sections 861 and following apply only to income earned by someone
>outside of the United States. Thus, they either must admit that the
>"income tax" does not apply to the vast majority of Americans, or
>continue to defend an obvious legal blunder on their part.)
Section 61 applies to everyone. Section 861 applies only to those
outside of the United States. Why is that so difficult to understand?
And yet you mistake it.
>The "income tax" is imposed on
>"income from whatever SOURCE derived," and Section 861 and following
>determine what these "sources" are.
That not what it says. The regulation refers to "income from sources
within the United States." There is no evidence of any intention to
define ALL "sources," just "sources" within the United States.
>Notice that Section 861 (and the
>following sections) and the related regulations determine "THE" sources
>of income which are subject to the income tax. Any assumption that the
>"income tax" applies to anything other than what is described in
>sections 861 and following, and the related regulations, is clearly
>incorrect.
Where does Section 861 say that it "determines 'THE' sources of income
which are subject to the income tax"? You must have forgotten to post
that part.
Also, please note that, under the definitions in the regulations under
Section 861, compensation for services within the United States is
considered to be a source of income within the United States.
"SECTION 1.861-4. COMPENSATION FOR LABOR OR PERSONAL SERVICES.
"(a) IN GENERAL.
"(1) Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
United States irrespective of the residence of the payer, ..."
So, if the regulations under Section 861 are used to define "sources
of income" for purposes of Section 861, then compensation for services
within the United States would be included in gross income.
That's right. Section 861 does not apply to anyone working in the
United States. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.
Glad you finally agree.
Of course, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Your entire
arguement is based on the conflicting conclusions that (1) Section 861
applies to Section 61, AND (2) Section 861 does NOT apply to Section
61.
This is known charitably as circular logic. It is known uncharitably
as pure bullshit.
>The next paragraph of the regulations (26 CFR
>1.861-8(g)) gives more than a dozen examples of the various rules
>concerning deduction allocation, determining taxable income, and other
>matters related to the income tax.
I thought you just concluded that Section 861 didn't apply?
Clearly, the key to most tax protester arguements is the ability to
proceed from "point" to "point" with no recollection whatsoever of the
preceding point. That is why tax protester arguments are so
convoluted. You need to stretch it out long enough for the reader to
forget what you said before in order for it to appear to make any
sense at all. It's all a kind of a shell game, in which you move the
shells around long enough to confuse the reader into losing track of
the pea.
[More trash about section 861 deleted.]
>There are several other legal documents which also demonstrate the
>restricted nature of the "income tax." The Paperwork Reduction Act of
>1980 requires that every form used by the federal government to collect
>information from the public must be approved by the Office of Management
>and Budget ("OMB") for each specific use. The regulations at 26 CFR
>1.1-1 are entitled "Income tax on individuals," and correspond to
>Section 1 of the Title 26 statutes.
>
>As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, a form was approved by the
>Office of Management and Budget for use with 26 CFR 1.1-1, and up until
>1994 was listed in the table found in 26 CFR 602.101, which lists the
>OMB-approved forms for various sections of the tax code. The form
>approved for use with the "Income tax on individuals" (26 CFR 1.1-1) is
>Form 2555, entitled "Foreign Earned Income." This makes perfect sense,
>since the only legal taxable "source" of income for United States
>citizens is "FOREIGN earned income," which is defined in Section 911,
>entitled "Citizens or residents of the United States LIVING ABROAD."
>
>(Some time since 1994, the line in the table listing this as the proper
>form was "deleted" to "avoid confusion," according to the Department of
>the Treasury.
Well, that is true, because it certainly confused you.
>Currently there is no form listed as being approved for
>use with the "Income tax on individuals."
Wrong. Form 1040, "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return," is listed as
the form approved for 26 CFR 6012-1, "Individuals required to make
returns of income."
You are assuming that the form must be approved for the tax tables
under section 1, and not the definition of taxable income in section
63, or the definition of gross income in section 61, or the
requirement that a return be filed under section 6012. Where in the
Paperwork Reduction Act does it say that 26 CFR 1.1-1 is the "specific
use" for which a form must be approved, and not 26 CFR 1.6012-1?
>However, deleting the text
>does not alter the law, or the Paperwork Reduction Act. Form 2555
>("Foreign Earned Income") is still the form approved for use with 26 CFR
>1.1-1.)
Come again? Where in Internal Revenue Code, or in the Paperwork
Reduction Act, does it say that Form 2555 is the form approved for use
with 26 CFR 1.1-1?
>Related to the erroneous common opinion of what "gross income" means is
>the erroneous belief that Form 1040 must be filed to report any and all
>compensation, interest, etc. paid to any individual in the United
>States. Treasury Decision 2313 explains the proper use of the Form
>1040, which reads in part:
>
>"Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the
>case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railway Co., decided January 21,
>1916, it is hereby held that income accruing to NONRESIDENT ALIENS in
>the form of interest from the bonds and dividends on the stock of
>domestic corporations is subject to the income tax imposed by the act of
>October 3, 1913." (emphasis added)
What you have quoted does not refer to Form 1040, and Treasury
Decision 2313 was actually issued before Form 1040 was ever created.
And the fact that nonresident aliens are required to pay income tax on
dividends and interest earned in the United States does not mean that
residents of the United States are not required to pay income tax.
>Another legal resource which demonstrates the true applicability of the
>"income tax" is the United States Code Annotated Index. This is a
>comprehensive index for all 50 "titles" (categories of statutory law) of
>the United States Code. The Index lists statute sections by subject.
>Under "Income tax, citizens" there are only two listings, "about to
>depart from U.S." and "living abroad." Again, this makes perfect sense,
>since the only taxable source of income for United States citizens is
>foreign earned income, which applies only to citizens "living abroad"
>(pursuant to Section 911 of the statutes).
>
>Under "Income tax, aliens," however, page after page of sections are
>listed in the Annotated Index, including the sections usually
>incorrectly assumed to apply to resident citizens, such as the sections
>relating to gross income, withholding, deductions, exemptions, etc. The
>income tax applies to certain United States citizens living abroad, and
>certain nonresident aliens (also residing outside of the United States)
>but does NOT apply to individuals (whether United States citizens or
>not) who reside and work within the United States.
Indexes are formed using the words in the statutes. There are very
few references to "citizens" in the Internal Revenue Code, because the
entire code applies to them and there is no reason so say that over
and over and over again. However, the application of the Internal
Revenue Code to nonresident aliens is more complicated, so there are
more sections of the code that refer to them specifically.
>The statutes, regulations, Treasury decisions, OMB-approved forms, and
>US Code Annotated Index all show the correct, limited application of the
>"income tax" imposed by Section 1 of Title 26, despite what the public
>and the "experts" believe.
What you have "shown" is absurd. Congressional debates frequently
refer to the impact of the income tax on typical, wage-earning
Americans. Congressional budgets project hundreds of billions of
dollars of income tax revenues, more than could possibly be collected
from dividends and interest paid to nonresident aliens. And, if the
Internal Revenue Code only applied to nonresident aliens, large
sections of it would become irrelevant or nonsensical.
So, what happened? Did Congress make an enourmous and almost
unimaginable mistake, intending to tax American citizens but instead
accidentally enacting a tax that applies only to nonresident aliens?
Or did Congress never intend to tax Americans, and the entire income
tax is an enourmously large conspiracy, in which Congress, IRS
officials, and the courts secretly know that the income tax does not
apply to American citizens and yet continue to enforce it as though it
did. (This is my favorite conspiracy theory, it is similar to the
fear that space aliens have secretly come into your house and replaced
everything you own with an exact duplicate. It is impossible to
prove, because everything is an exact duplicate, and also impossible
to disprove, because how can you prove that they are *not* exact
duplicates? Similarly, how do you prove whether or not the tax laws
are *supposed* to apply to you and me if there is a perfect conspiracy
among all lawyers and judges? If the tax laws "really" apply, then
tax protesters will go to jail, and if there is a conspiracy, then tax
protesters will go to jail. In fact, I have seen tax protesters use
the number of court rulings that go against them as evidence that
there *must* be a conspiracy!)
>In summary,
>
>1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income." (26 USC 1)
>2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus deductions. (26
>USC 63)
>3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
No, as income from "whatever source". I know you want to leave out
that word, but there it is, and you have to deal with it.
>4) The only taxable "source" of income for United States citizens is
>foreign earned income (with other "sources" applying to nonresident
>aliens). (26 CFR 1.861)
That's not in section 861, or the regulations under section 861. As I
have shown above, section 861 specifically states that compensation
for services within the United States is a source of income within the
United States. And you have shown that section 861 does not apply to
American citizens living and working in the United States. So, if
section 861 applies, then compensation for services within the United
States is taxable and, if section 861 does not apply, then
compensation paid to citizens or residents of the United States is
taxable. Take your pick.
And, finally, chew on this:
"According to Buras, income must be derived from some source. Wages
cannot be taxed because the wage earner enjoys no gain from that
source. Since the wage earner exchanges his labor and personal time
for its equivalent in money, he derives no gain and therefore cannot
be taxed. ... Appellant's argument is refuted by one of the cases he
cites. In Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415,
34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285 (1913), the Court did define income as
gain derived from labor. The Court went on to explain, however, that
'the earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital' are
commonly treated as income." ... [T]he Sixteenth Amendment is broad
enough to grant Congress the power to collect an income tax regardless
of the source of the taxpayer's income." United States v. Buras, 633
F.2d 1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980).
You seem to have trouble with the meaning of the word "whatever,"
perhaps you can figure out the meaning of the word "regardless."
*Dan Evans
*The above general information is provided
*"as is" and carries no warranty of fitness
*for any particular factual situation.
Larken Rose
>
> Larken Rose wrote:
>
> (For those who didn't notice, I mentioned this report in a
> mail message
> that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent
> it to the
> newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it
> here, I
> will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to
> say about it
> (which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see
> what any CPA's
> and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible,
> in where you
> think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
>
> Larken
>
> TAXABLE INCOME
>
>
>
>
> In summary,
>
> 1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income."
> (26 USC 1)
> 2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus
> deductions. (26
> USC 63)
> 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26
> USC 61)
>
> income is is an issue of fact.
>
>
> 4) The only taxable "source" of income for United States
> citizens is
> foreign earned income (with other "sources" applying to
> nonresident
> aliens). (26 CFR 1.861)
>
>
> .Please read subchapter E of chapter 64 of the Code.
>
> A tax is "lawfully" due if you are a taxpayer:
So? One is not a taxpayer if one is not subject to a Title 26 tax (26
USC 7701). One is not subject to the "income tax" if one does not
receive "gross income."
> "We must remember... that the revenues of the United States
> must be obtained in the same territory, from the same
> people, and excise taxes must be collected from the same
> activities, as are also reached by the states in order to
> support their local government." Flint v Stone Tracy Co.,
> Inc. 220 US 107,154
>
> If a tax is lawfully due and unpaid, then the IRS may seize your
> assets:
>
> "A tax is an exaction by the sovereign, and necessarily the sovereign
> has an enforceable claim against every one within the taxable class
> for
> the amount LAWFULLY due from him. The statute prescribes the rule of
> taxation. Some machinery must be provided for applying the rule to the
>
> facts in each taxpayer's case, in order to ascertain the amount due.
> The
> chosen instrumentality for the purpose is an administrative agency
> whose action
> is called an assessment. The assessment may be a valuation of property
>
> subject to taxation, which valuation is to be multiplied by the
> statutory rate to ascertain the amount of tax. Or it may include the
> calculation and fix the amount of tax payable, and assessments of
> federal estate and income taxes are of this type. Once the tax is
> assessed, the taxpayer will owe the sovereign the amount when the date
>
> fixed by law for payment arrives. Default in meeting the obligation
> calls for some procedure whereby payment can be enforced. The statute
> might remit the government to an action at law wherein the taxpayer
> could offer such defense as he had. A judgment against him might be
> collected by the levy of an execution. But taxes are the lifeblood of
> government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious
> need.
> Time out of mind, therefore, the sovereign has resorted to more
> drastic
> means of collection. The assessment is given the force of a judgment,
> and if the amount assessed is not paid when due, administrative
> officials may seize the debtor's property to satisfy the debt.
>
> "In recognition of the fact that erroneous determinations and
> assessments will inevitably occur, the statutes, in a spirit of
> fairness, invariably afford the taxpayer an opportunity at some stage
> to
> have mistakes rectified. Often an administrative hearing is afforded
> before the assessment becomes final; or administrative machinery is
> provided whereby an erroneous collection may be refunded; in some
> instances both administrative relief and redress by an action against
> the sovereign in one of its courts are permitted methods of
> restitution
> of excessive or illegal exaction. Thus, the usual procedure for the
> recovery of debts is reversed in the field of taxation. Payment
> precedes
> defense, and the burden of proof, normally on the claimant, is shifted
>
> to the taxpayer. The assessment supersedes the pleading, proof, and
> judgment necessary in an action at law, and has the force of such a
> judgment. The ordinary defendant stands in judgment only after a
> hearing. The taxpayer often is afforded his hearing after judgment and
>
> after payment, and his only redress for unjust administrative action
> is
> the right to claim restitution. But these reversals of the normal
> process of collecting a claim cannot obscure the fact that after all
> what is being accomplished is the recovery of a just debt owed the
> sovereign. If that which the sovereign retains was unjustly taken in
> violation of its own statute, the withholding is wrongful. Restitution
>
> is owed the taxpayer." Bull v. US, 295 U.S. 247, 259-260 [uppercase =
>
> my emphasis]
>
> Larken, go to the law library and ask the librarian to show you where
> to find this book:
>
> Volume 3, US Code Congressional and Administrative News 1954
>
> The USCCAN contains the House, Senate, and Committee reports regarding
> the '54 Code. You will find in there (although it's not explicit)
> that the '54 Code (the '39 Code also to some extent) was written to
> conform to the Bull decision quoted above. Thus, if you are a
> taxpayer, and the IRS assesses you, then there is a judgment lien
> against you even though you never set foot in court! And it's all
> perfectly legal(!)--at least prior to 1972 and subsequent to 1990.
>
> While you're at the law library, read Treasury Decision 7577 to find
> out if you are considered to be a taxpayer or not.
>
> Chuck Morton
A fine threat of extortion. However, this post says NOTHING about the
legal limitation on what "gross income" is. You could have saved space
by saying "pay up, or else!" in response, and it would have been just as
relevant as what you posted.
Larken
Jim Anderson
>
> It is typical of tax protesters, and highly ironic, that they would
> focus on the language intended to eliminate any consideration of the
> sources of income in order to make the tax protester claim that income
> cannot be taxed until the source is identified.
> >In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
> >essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
> >meaning. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever SOURCE
> >derived." If there were no section of law explaining what constitutes
> >"sources of income," then it would be reasonable to use common English
> >to try to understand the law. However, when there is a definition in
> >the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
>
> >The meaning of this is unmistakable.
>
> And yet you mistake it.
>
> >The "income tax" is imposed on
> >"income from whatever SOURCE derived," and Section 861 and following
> >determine what these "sources" are.
>
> That not what it says. The regulation refers to "income from sources
> within the United States." There is no evidence of any intention to
> define ALL "sources," just "sources" within the United States.
>
> >Notice that Section 861 (and the
> >following sections) and the related regulations determine "THE" sources
> >of income which are subject to the income tax. Any assumption that the
> >"income tax" applies to anything other than what is described in
> >sections 861 and following, and the related regulations, is clearly
> >incorrect.
>
> Where does Section 861 say that it "determines 'THE' sources of income
> which are subject to the income tax"? You must have forgotten to post
> that part.
>
> Also, please note that, under the definitions in the regulations under
> Section 861, compensation for services within the United States is
> considered to be a source of income within the United States.
>
> What you have "shown" is absurd. Congressional debates frequently
> You seem to have trouble with the meaning of the word "whatever,"
Agent91
However, it also points out 2 things wrong with the IRC.
1. It is very confusing, and the avarage man cannot fully comprehend it.
2. It fails to recognize the lawfull status of the Non-tax payer.
--
"It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a
greater evil than this: The conversion of the law into an instrument of
plunder.... it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between
justice and injustice" THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris 1850.
See also: Unconstitutional Seizure laws, and the IRS.
Larken Rose
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:52:49 -0500, Larken Rose
> <GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >The legal system of the United States is a system of written law, in
>
> I am not a big student of jurisprudence (the study of how law is
> created and applied, rather than the law itself), but I don't think
> that this is correct.
What a way to start. The law doesn’t mean what it SAYS, it means what
Dan says it says. Swell. How convenient.
> When a statute is ambiguous or the application
> of the statute is unclear, courts…
Ambiguity of language is the ONLY time in which court rulings decide the
"law," and ambiguity is not an issue here. The law is clear. There is
no "void for vagueness" argument coming from me.
> > …The following is just such an
> >examination of the federal "income tax."
>
> No. The following is your misguided attempt to twist the plain
> meaning of words to reach your goal of exempting yourself from income
> tax.
Twist? I quote the law. If you have some section of law which you
believes contradicts anything I said, PLEASE POST IT HERE IMMEDIATELY.
> >"Sec. 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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 61
> >
> >The section then lists "items" such as compensation for services,
> >interest, royalties, etc. This is the point at which most tax "experts"
> >err by assuming that "from whatever source derived" is synonymous with
> >"no matter where it comes from,"
>
> That is the plain, ordinary meaning of the words. If you look up
> "whatever" in the dictionary, you will find definitions like "of any
> number or kind; any" and "of any kind at all." If you substitute the
> last definition for "whatever," you will find that the phrase "from
> whatever source derived" becomes "from any kind of source at all
> derived," which is what Congress meant.
See below concerning your belief that the word "whatever" NEGATES the
word "source."
> "[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
> subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which
> the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes
> of the rule applied in the Pollock Case...." Brushaber v. Union
> Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
What have I said that you think that contradicts? By the way, I don’t
suppose you’d like to mention that the Brushaber case (which the IRS
loves to quote so often) was about the taxable income of a NONRESIDENT
ALIEN, would you?
> >and err by assuming that the "items" of
> >income listed are the same as "sources" of income.
>
> No, that's your error. The items lists are examples of "income," not
> "sources of income."
Then we agree. Good. I’m not sure why you and Agent keep AGREEING with
me and calling it a rebuttal.
> >In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
> >essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
> >meaning…
> >…when there is a definition in
> >the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
>
> Then you admit that the definition of "includes" in Section 7701(c)
> supersedes any other possible meaning of "includes"? I'll have to
> remember that, the next time you start some spouting some crap about
> the states of the United States not being part of the United States.
Must you start arguing about something that has no relevance to the
report I posted? Let’s argue about football teams. Maybe THAT will
distract people from your inability to refute a thing in the report.
> >Since most of the tax "experts" assume that "income from sources" is an
> >unrestricted term, including all "income" no matter who receives it and
> >where it comes from, it is necessary to thoroughly document the fact
> >that the term is specifically limited in the law itself. The following
> >is the section of Subtitle A ("Income Taxes") that defines what
> >constitutes "income from sources":
> >
> >"Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
> >United States
>
> Two problems: According to the title of Subchapter N, the subchapter
> deals with income from sources "within or without the United States."
> There is nothing in Section 61 (which you quoted above) that
> distinquishes between sources within the United States and sources
> without the United States. In fact, as explained above, the word
> "whatever" means that the source is not relevant.
>
> So, Subchapter N does not define "from whatever source derived" but
> only "sources within or without the United States." Both phrases use
> the word "sources," but where is "sources" derived"? And why isn't it
> significant that the second phrase does not use the word "whatever"?
So you think that I’m receiving income that is NOT income from sources
WITHIN the United States, OR income from sources WITHOUT the United
States? What am I receiving? Income from sources balanced right on the
border? Also, see below concerning your silly "whatever" fetish.
> And you still haven't shown why it is necessary to identify the source
> of any income. Section 61 says that gross income includes gross
> income from ANY source. It is not necessary to identify the source of
> the income if the statute itself says that the source is irrelevant.
WHICH "source of income" it comes from does not effect 26 USC 61.
WHETHER it comes from a "source of income" AS DEFINED BY LAW, does
effect 26 USC 61.
> >(The problem for the "experts" here is that even they usually concede
> >that Sections 861 and following apply only to income earned by someone
> >outside of the United States. Thus, they either must admit that the
> >"income tax" does not apply to the vast majority of Americans, or
> >continue to defend an obvious legal blunder on their part.)
>
> Section 61 applies to everyone. Section 861 applies only to those
> outside of the United States. Why is that so difficult to understand?
"SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE
SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
Why is that so difficult to understand?
> >The following is how the regulations which
> >implement Section 861 of the statutes begin:
> >
> >"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." (emphasis added) - 26
> >CFR 1.861-1
> >
> >The meaning of this is unmistakable.
>
> And yet you mistake it.
I’m dying to know what you think the quote means, since you DON’T seem
to think it means that "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
TAX."
> >Notice that Section 861 (and the
> >following sections) and the related regulations determine "THE" sources
> >of income which are subject to the income tax. Any assumption that the
> >"income tax" applies to anything other than what is described in
> >sections 861 and following, and the related regulations, is clearly
> >incorrect.
>
> Where does Section 861 say that it "determines 'THE' sources of income
> which are subject to the income tax"? You must have forgotten to post
> that part.
"Section 861 and following… and the regulations thereunder determine THE
sources of income for purposes of the income tax." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
How many times must I quote this before you READ it?
> Also, please note that, under the definitions in the regulations under
> Section 861, compensation for services within the United States is
> considered to be a source of income within the United States.
>
> So, if the regulations under Section 861 are used to define "sources
> of income" for purposes of Section 861, then compensation for services
> within the United States would be included in gross income.
Try to keep your argument straight, okay? You already ADMITTED that
Subchapter N ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of the United States
receiving taxable income. For example, the Brushaber case was about a
NONRESIDENT ALIEN, receiving taxable income from WITHIN the United
States.
> Section 861 does not apply to anyone working in the
> United States. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.
> Glad you finally agree.
This is getting pathetic. I don’t "finally" agree. The whole POINT is
that Subchapter N (861 and following) ONLY applies to those OUTSIDE of
the United States, and "Section 861 and following… and the regulations
thereunder determine THE sources of income for purposes of the income
tax." How can you NOT understand this yet?
> Of course, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Your entire
> arguement is based on the conflicting conclusions that (1) Section 861
> applies to Section 61, AND (2) Section 861 does NOT apply to Section
> 61.
Nice attempt at obfuscation, but that bears no resemblance to my
conclusion. Section 861 and following ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of
the United States, and "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1. Got it yet?
> >The next paragraph of the regulations (26 CFR
> >1.861-8(g)) gives more than a dozen examples of the various rules
> >concerning deduction allocation, determining taxable income, and other
> >matters related to the income tax.
>
> I thought you just concluded that Section 861 didn't apply?
Why did you think that? Read this REAL slowly: Section 861 and its
regulations DO determine the legal "sources of income," and there are NO
legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone inside the United States.
> Clearly, the key to most tax protester arguements is the ability to
> proceed from "point" to "point" with no recollection whatsoever of the
> preceding point. That is why tax protester arguments are so
> convoluted. You need to stretch it out long enough for the reader to
> forget what you said before in order for it to appear to make any
> sense at all. It's all a kind of a shell game, in which you move the
> shells around long enough to confuse the reader into losing track of
> the pea.
Can you stick to a point? What do "most tax protestors" have to do with
the report? I "stretch it out long enough" to fully document the report
with citations of LAW. The report is very clear. Which part confuses
you? And what would be the point of me trying to confuse the reader?
The "reader" most likely agrees with YOU.
> [More trash about section 861 deleted.]
I guess citations of law are now "trash about section 861," and Dan’s
unsubstantiated claims are the law. By the way, I like how you left out
26 CFR 1.861-8T(d) entirely.
> What you have quoted does not refer to Form 1040, and Treasury
> Decision 2313 was actually issued before Form 1040 was ever created.
That’s odd, since the part of Treasury Decision 2313 you left out
MENTIONS Form 1040 specifically.
> And the fact that nonresident aliens are required to pay income tax on
> dividends and interest earned in the United States does not mean that
> residents of the United States are not required to pay income tax.
Who said it did?
> What you have "shown" is absurd. Congressional debates frequently
> refer to the impact of the income tax on typical, wage-earning
> Americans. Congressional budgets project hundreds of billions of
> dollars of income tax revenues, more than could possibly be collected
> from dividends and interest paid to nonresident aliens. And, if the
> Internal Revenue Code only applied to nonresident aliens, large
> sections of it would become irrelevant or nonsensical.
Wow, you’re quick. I don’t suppose you could comprehend the possibility
that your government intentionally misleads you, huh? They wouldn’t do
THAT, would they?
> So, what happened? Did Congress make an enourmous and almost
> unimaginable mistake, intending to tax American citizens but instead
> accidentally enacting a tax that applies only to nonresident aliens?
> Or did Congress never intend to tax Americans, and the entire income
> tax is an enourmously large conspiracy, in which Congress, IRS
> officials, and the courts secretly know that the income tax does not
> apply to American citizens and yet continue to enforce it as though it
> did.
The latter, only most of those involved in the illegal enforcement do
not even KNOW the truth, including just about everyone below District
Director in the IRS, and probably the U.S. Attorneys.
<Odd rambling about aliens deleted>
> Similarly, how do you prove whether or not the tax laws
> are *supposed* to apply to you and me if there is a perfect conspiracy
> among all lawyers and judges?
How about looking at the LAW itself? Works for me.
> >In summary,
> >
> >1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income." (26 USC 1)
> >2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus deductions. (26
> >USC 63)
> >3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
>
> No, as income from "whatever source". I know you want to leave out
> that word, but there it is, and you have to deal with it.
For something to be included in the meaning of "whatever source" it has
to BE a "source." Understand? If I say "Whatever hat I wear today will
be blue," does that have anything to do with my SHOES? No. Why not?
Because putting "whatever" before a noun doesn’t make the noun
disappear. There are legal limitations on what qualify as "SOURCES of
income." WHICH "source of income" doesn’t effect 26 USC 61, but WHETHER
it is a "source of income" does.
> >4) The only taxable "source" of income for United States citizens is
> >foreign earned income (with other "sources" applying to nonresident
> >aliens). (26 CFR 1.861)
>
> That's not in section 861, or the regulations under section 861.
Wow. Just plain go into denial. Did I make up the citations in the
report, or what?
I’m glad to see this was the best you could do. Don’t worry, most
people won’t dare believe the truth anyway.
Larken
Larken Rose
>
> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:52:49 -0500, Larken Rose
> <GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> >that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent it to the
> >newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it here, I
> >will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to say about it
> >(which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see what any CPA's
> >and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible, in where you
> >think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
>
> unnecessarily, especially since I refuted this same text a month ago
> only to be pretty much ignored by Rosie. So to anyone new to the
> group or anyone who would like a review, let's just go over some high
> points of Rosie's recent arguments.
>
> Rosie doesn't seem to know the difference between the words "includes"
> and "means". On September 27, 1998, Rosie said:
>
> " 'United States' as used in Section 4612...
What does that have to do with what I just posted?
> Then on October 7, 1998, he said:
>
> "The "United States" in 4612 means...
What does that have to do with what I just posted?
> Also on October 7, 1998, in answer to this question:
>
> Are the two following statements synonymous?
>
> (a) The term State means the District of Columbia.
>
> (b) The term State includes the District of Columbia.
What does that have to do with what I just posted?
> Yet in his repost of his great treatise on "Taxable Income", he says:
>
> "However, when there is a definition in the law itself, common usage
> is irrelevant."
Wow, he mentioned the report. I'm shocked. He didn't refute it, but at
least he MENTIONED it.
> Now most readers of this newsgroup will know that there is a
> definition of the word "includes" in Title 26. Why can't Rosie
> understand it?
>
> Secondly, Rosie also is having trouble with the definition of
> "whatever".
Right, so the term "whatever hat" includes shoes, right? The word
"whatever" NEGATES the word "source" right after it, huh? Nice job of
parroting Dan's screw-up. At least have some original stupid comments.
> Thirdly, Rosie quotes one sentence or phrase from the code to prove
> his point, then objects when you quote the rest of that particular
> section which DISPROVES his point. He calls you all sorts of names,
> kind of like a third grader who has been backed into a corner and has
> no other recourse. Why is that not surprising?
I didn't object to you posting statutes and regulations. I'm STILL
waiting to hear WHY you think they contradict what I said. Your
"rebuttal" consisted of posting pages of regulations, and then saying
"See?". No, I don't. Tell me why MORE regulations saying the SAME
thing that I've been saying is considered a refutation.
> I can't wait to see his response (if there is any - tax evaders tend
> to ignore rebuttal arguments) to Dan's post in this thread.
Wait no more.
Larken
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>(For those who didn't notice, I mentioned this report in a mail message
>that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent it to the
>newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it here, I
>will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to say about it
>(which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see what any CPA's
>and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible, in where you
>think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
Dan Evans made a clear response to Rosie, so I won't repeat things
unnecessarily, especially since I refuted this same text a month ago
only to be pretty much ignored by Rosie. So to anyone new to the
group or anyone who would like a review, let's just go over some high
points of Rosie's recent arguments.
Rosie doesn't seem to know the difference between the words "includes"
and "means". On September 27, 1998, Rosie said:
" 'United States' as used in Section 4612 refers to various federal
territories and possessions, AND the 50 states."
Then on October 7, 1998, he said:
"The "United States" in 4612 means continental shelf areas, any
foreign trade zone of the United States, and possibly other stuff."
The reader can figure out the significance.
Also on October 7, 1998, in answer to this question:
Are the two following statements synonymous?
(a) The term State means the District of Columbia.
(b) The term State includes the District of Columbia.
Rosie answered:
"In common English, they are not the same. In legalese, I'm not
sure."
Yet in his repost of his great treatise on "Taxable Income", he says:
"However, when there is a definition in the law itself, common usage
is irrelevant."
Now most readers of this newsgroup will know that there is a
definition of the word "includes" in Title 26. Why can't Rosie
understand it?
Secondly, Rosie also is having trouble with the definition of
"whatever".
Thirdly, Rosie quotes one sentence or phrase from the code to prove
his point, then objects when you quote the rest of that particular
section which DISPROVES his point. He calls you all sorts of names,
kind of like a third grader who has been backed into a corner and has
no other recourse. Why is that not surprising?
I can't wait to see his response (if there is any - tax evaders tend
agen...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>Your report is quite accuracte, as far as my own research shows.
>However, it also points out 2 things wrong with the IRC.
>1. It is very confusing, and the avarage man cannot fully comprehend it.
So how did you understand it, Greggo?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:52:49 -0500, Larken Rose
>> <GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The legal system of the United States is a system of written law, in
>> >which the law means what the law says…
>>
>> I am not a big student of jurisprudence (the study of how law is
>> created and applied, rather than the law itself), but I don't think
>> that this is correct.
>
>What a way to start. The law doesn’t mean what it SAYS, it means what
>Dan says it says. Swell. How convenient.
>
>> When a statute is ambiguous or the application
>> of the statute is unclear, courts…
>
>Ambiguity of language is the ONLY time in which court rulings decide the
>"law," and ambiguity is not an issue here. The law is clear. There is
>no "void for vagueness" argument coming from me.
>
>> > …The following is just such an
>> >examination of the federal "income tax."
>>
>> No. The following is your misguided attempt to twist the plain
>> meaning of words to reach your goal of exempting yourself from income
>> tax.
>
>Twist? I quote the law. If you have some section of law which you
>believes contradicts anything I said, PLEASE POST IT HERE IMMEDIATELY.
Sure Rosie:
"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. These
sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to
the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case
may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that
derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the
United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine
the income derived from sources within the United States, either by
rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general
apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories
of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within
the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified
in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or
apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See
Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable
income from sources within the United States, in the case of such
income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with
sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions
properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any
other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be
allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8
and 1.863-1."
What part of "taxable income from sources within the United States"
don't you understand?
But what is "taxable income from sources within the United States"?
"26 USC § 861. Income from sources within the United States
(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:
(1) Interest
(2) Dividends
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
United States; ...
(4) Rentals and royalties
(5) Disposition of United States real property interest
(6) Sale or exchange of inventory property
(7) Amounts received as underwriting income (as defined in
section 832(b)(3)) derived from the issuing (or reinsuring) of any
insurance or annuity contract -
(8) Social security benefits
(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 there shall be
deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly
apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses,
losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to
some item or class of gross income. The remainder, if any, shall be
included in full as taxable income from sources within the United
States. In the case of an individual who does not itemize deductions,
an amount equal to the standard deduction shall be considered a
deduction which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class
of gross income."
<snip>
>> "[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
>> subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which
>> the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes
>> of the rule applied in the Pollock Case...." Brushaber v. Union
>> Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
>
>What have I said that you think that contradicts? By the way, I don’t
>suppose you’d like to mention that the Brushaber case (which the IRS
>loves to quote so often) was about the taxable income of a NONRESIDENT
>ALIEN, would you?
Except for the fact that Frank Brushaber was a resident and citizen of
the United States.
>> >and err by assuming that the "items" of
>> >income listed are the same as "sources" of income.
>>
>> No, that's your error. The items lists are examples of "income," not
>> "sources of income."
>
>Then we agree. Good. I’m not sure why you and Agent keep AGREEING with
>me and calling it a rebuttal.
And income is what is taxed, Rosie.....
>> >In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
>> >essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
>> >meaning…
>> >…when there is a definition in
>> >the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
>>
>> Then you admit that the definition of "includes" in Section 7701(c)
>> supersedes any other possible meaning of "includes"? I'll have to
>> remember that, the next time you start some spouting some crap about
>> the states of the United States not being part of the United States.
>
>Must you start arguing about something that has no relevance to the
>report I posted? Let’s argue about football teams. Maybe THAT will
>distract people from your inability to refute a thing in the report.
Let's argue about your intelligence, Rosie, though it would be a short
argument....
>> >Since most of the tax "experts" assume that "income from sources" is an
>> >unrestricted term, including all "income" no matter who receives it and
>> >where it comes from, it is necessary to thoroughly document the fact
>> >that the term is specifically limited in the law itself. The following
>> >is the section of Subtitle A ("Income Taxes") that defines what
>> >constitutes "income from sources":
>> >
>> >"Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
>> >United States
>>
>> Two problems: According to the title of Subchapter N, the subchapter
>> deals with income from sources "within or without the United States."
>> There is nothing in Section 61 (which you quoted above) that
>> distinquishes between sources within the United States and sources
>> without the United States. In fact, as explained above, the word
>> "whatever" means that the source is not relevant.
>>
>> So, Subchapter N does not define "from whatever source derived" but
>> only "sources within or without the United States." Both phrases use
>> the word "sources," but where is "sources" derived"? And why isn't it
>> significant that the second phrase does not use the word "whatever"?
>
>So you think that I’m receiving income that is NOT income from sources
>WITHIN the United States, OR income from sources WITHOUT the United
>States? What am I receiving? Income from sources balanced right on the
>border? Also, see below concerning your silly "whatever" fetish.
You tell us, Rosie.
>> And you still haven't shown why it is necessary to identify the source
>> of any income. Section 61 says that gross income includes gross
>> income from ANY source. It is not necessary to identify the source of
>> the income if the statute itself says that the source is irrelevant.
>
>WHICH "source of income" it comes from does not effect 26 USC 61.
>WHETHER it comes from a "source of income" AS DEFINED BY LAW, does
>effect 26 USC 61.
>
>> >(The problem for the "experts" here is that even they usually concede
>> >that Sections 861 and following apply only to income earned by someone
>> >outside of the United States. Thus, they either must admit that the
>> >"income tax" does not apply to the vast majority of Americans, or
>> >continue to defend an obvious legal blunder on their part.)
>>
>> Section 61 applies to everyone. Section 861 applies only to those
>> outside of the United States. Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
>"SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE
>SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
>Why is that so difficult to understand?
Probably because the correct quote is:
"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."
Which is followed then by the sentence:
"These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of
income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as
the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income
(particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from
sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his
delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the
United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes
or formulas of general apportionment."
So you see Rosie, 861 isn't about defining "sources", it's about
defining whether those sources are within or without the United
States.
>> >The following is how the regulations which
How many times do the rest of the regulations and code have to be
quoted to you before you read it and, more importantly, comprehend it?
The first sentence of 26 CFR 1.861-1 isn't the entire regulation,
Rosie. And the rest of the regulations contradict your position.
>> Also, please note that, under the definitions in the regulations under
>> Section 861, compensation for services within the United States is
>> considered to be a source of income within the United States.
>>
>> So, if the regulations under Section 861 are used to define "sources
>> of income" for purposes of Section 861, then compensation for services
>> within the United States would be included in gross income.
>
>Try to keep your argument straight, okay? You already ADMITTED that
>Subchapter N ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of the United States
>receiving taxable income. For example, the Brushaber case was about a
>NONRESIDENT ALIEN, receiving taxable income from WITHIN the United
>States.
Keep repeating it, Rosie, maybe by the end of time it will become
true.
>> Section 861 does not apply to anyone working in the
>> United States. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.
>> Glad you finally agree.
>
>This is getting pathetic. I don’t "finally" agree. The whole POINT is
>that Subchapter N (861 and following) ONLY applies to those OUTSIDE of
>the United States, and "Section 861 and following… and the regulations
>thereunder determine THE sources of income for purposes of the income
>tax." How can you NOT understand this yet?
Rosie, if subchapter N only applies to those outside the United
States, then how can anything that appears therein apply to anyone
living IN the United States? HOW CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THE
CONTRADICTORY POSITION YOU ARE TAKING?
>> Of course, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Your entire
>> arguement is based on the conflicting conclusions that (1) Section 861
>> applies to Section 61, AND (2) Section 861 does NOT apply to Section
>> 61.
>
>Nice attempt at obfuscation, but that bears no resemblance to my
>conclusion. Section 861 and following ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of
>the United States, and "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1. Got it yet?
>
>> >The next paragraph of the regulations (26 CFR
>> >1.861-8(g)) gives more than a dozen examples of the various rules
>> >concerning deduction allocation, determining taxable income, and other
>> >matters related to the income tax.
>>
>> I thought you just concluded that Section 861 didn't apply?
>
>Why did you think that? Read this REAL slowly: Section 861 and its
>regulations DO determine the legal "sources of income," and there are NO
>legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone inside the United States.
OK, Rosie, the section does determine the legal sources of income, BUT
you just said it only applies to people outside the United States. So
what has that got to do with anyone inside the United States?
>> Clearly, the key to most tax protester arguements is the ability to
>> proceed from "point" to "point" with no recollection whatsoever of the
>> preceding point. That is why tax protester arguments are so
>> convoluted. You need to stretch it out long enough for the reader to
>> forget what you said before in order for it to appear to make any
>> sense at all. It's all a kind of a shell game, in which you move the
>> shells around long enough to confuse the reader into losing track of
>> the pea.
>
>Can you stick to a point? What do "most tax protestors" have to do with
>the report? I "stretch it out long enough" to fully document the report
>with citations of LAW.
Misquoted and misapplied citations of law.
>The report is very clear.
The report is BS, Rosie.
>I guess citations of law are now "trash about section 861," and Dan’s
>unsubstantiated claims are the law. By the way, I like how you left out
>26 CFR 1.861-8T(d) entirely.
I guess you'll have to explain that one again, Rosie.
>> What you have quoted does not refer to Form 1040, and Treasury
>> Decision 2313 was actually issued before Form 1040 was ever created.
>
>That’s odd, since the part of Treasury Decision 2313 you left out
>MENTIONS Form 1040 specifically.
>
>> And the fact that nonresident aliens are required to pay income tax on
>> dividends and interest earned in the United States does not mean that
>> residents of the United States are not required to pay income tax.
>
>Who said it did?
You did Rosie, as in:
>Related to the erroneous common opinion of what "gross income" means is
>the erroneous belief that Form 1040 must be filed to report any and all
>compensation, interest, etc. paid to any individual in the United
>States. Treasury Decision 2313 explains the proper use of the Form
>1040, which reads in part:
<snip>
>> So, what happened? Did Congress make an enourmous and almost
>> unimaginable mistake, intending to tax American citizens but instead
>> accidentally enacting a tax that applies only to nonresident aliens?
>> Or did Congress never intend to tax Americans, and the entire income
>> tax is an enourmously large conspiracy, in which Congress, IRS
>> officials, and the courts secretly know that the income tax does not
>> apply to American citizens and yet continue to enforce it as though it
>> did.
>
>The latter, only most of those involved in the illegal enforcement do
>not even KNOW the truth, including just about everyone below District
>Director in the IRS, and probably the U.S. Attorneys.
Ah, yes, the great conspiracy raises its ugly head.
<snip>
>Wow. Just plain go into denial. Did I make up the citations in the
>report, or what?
No, you didn't make them up, you just misquoted them, misinterpreted
them, and misinterpreted them, but you didn't make them up.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:52:49 -0500, Larken Rose
>> <GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >(For those who didn't notice, I mentioned this report in a mail message
>> >that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent it to the
>> >newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it here, I
>> >will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to say about it
>> >(which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see what any CPA's
>> >and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible, in where you
>> >think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
>>
>> Dan Evans made a clear response to Rosie, so I won't repeat things
>> unnecessarily, especially since I refuted this same text a month ago
>> only to be pretty much ignored by Rosie. So to anyone new to the
>> group or anyone who would like a review, let's just go over some high
>> points of Rosie's recent arguments.
>>
>> Rosie doesn't seem to know the difference between the words "includes"
>> and "means". On September 27, 1998, Rosie said:
>>
>> " 'United States' as used in Section 4612...
>
>What does that have to do with what I just posted?
It is an example of your comprehension of the English language and
your reasoning ability.
>> Then on October 7, 1998, he said:
>>
>> "The "United States" in 4612 means...
>
>What does that have to do with what I just posted?
It is an example of your comprehension of the English language and
your reasoning ability.
>> Also on October 7, 1998, in answer to this question:
>>
>> Are the two following statements synonymous?
>>
>> (a) The term State means the District of Columbia.
>>
>> (b) The term State includes the District of Columbia.
>
>What does that have to do with what I just posted?
It is an example of your comprehension of the English language and
your reasoning ability.
What's a matter, Rosie, don't like to be reminded of when you made a
fool of yourself?
>> Yet in his repost of his great treatise on "Taxable Income", he says:
>>
>> "However, when there is a definition in the law itself, common usage
>> is irrelevant."
>
>Wow, he mentioned the report. I'm shocked. He didn't refute it, but at
>least he MENTIONED it.
It was intended to refute anything, Rosie, it was intended to
demonstrate what an idiot you are.
>> Now most readers of this newsgroup will know that there is a
>> definition of the word "includes" in Title 26. Why can't Rosie
>> understand it?
>>
>> Secondly, Rosie also is having trouble with the definition of
>> "whatever".
>
>Right, so the term "whatever hat" includes shoes, right?
Gee, Rosie, I don't know. How do you define "includes"?
> The word
>"whatever" NEGATES the word "source" right after it, huh? Nice job of
>parroting Dan's screw-up. At least have some original stupid comments.
At least I understand that the word "whatever" means "any".
>> Thirdly, Rosie quotes one sentence or phrase from the code to prove
>> his point, then objects when you quote the rest of that particular
>> section which DISPROVES his point. He calls you all sorts of names,
>> kind of like a third grader who has been backed into a corner and has
>> no other recourse. Why is that not surprising?
>
>I didn't object to you posting statutes and regulations. I'm STILL
>waiting to hear WHY you think they contradict what I said. Your
>"rebuttal" consisted of posting pages of regulations, and then saying
>"See?". No, I don't. Tell me why MORE regulations saying the SAME
>thing that I've been saying is considered a refutation.
Because they don't say the same thing, you dolt. A complete reading
of the regulations and code contradicts what you claim the regulations
say.
Look this up in your Black's:
"Incivile est, nisi tota lege perspecta, una aliqua particula ejus
proposita, judicare, vel respondere."
>> I can't wait to see his response (if there is any - tax evaders tend
>> to ignore rebuttal arguments) to Dan's post in this thread.
>
>Wait no more.
I was right. You did post, but you ignored the arguments.
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 1998 22:52:49 -0500, Larken Rose
>> <GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>> >"Sec. 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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 61
>> >
>> >The section then lists "items" such as compensation for services,
>> >interest, royalties, etc. This is the point at which most tax "experts"
>> >err by assuming that "from whatever source derived" is synonymous with
>> >"no matter where it comes from,"
>>
>> That is the plain, ordinary meaning of the words. If you look up
>> "whatever" in the dictionary, you will find definitions like "of any
>> number or kind; any" and "of any kind at all." If you substitute the
>> last definition for "whatever," you will find that the phrase "from
>> whatever source derived" becomes "from any kind of source at all
>> derived," which is what Congress meant.
>
>See below concerning your belief that the word "whatever" NEGATES the
>word "source."
"See below" what? Can you prove that the word "whatever" does not
appear in Section 61? Can you prove that "whatever" does not mean
what I have suggested?
No, "the law means what it says" unless Larken Rose doesn't like what
it says, and then the law means what Larken Rose says it means.
>> "[T]he command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be
>> subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which
>> the taxed income may be derived forbids the application to such taxes
>> of the rule applied in the Pollock Case...." Brushaber v. Union
>> Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916).
>
>What have I said that you think that contradicts? By the way, I don’t
>suppose you’d like to mention that the Brushaber case (which the IRS
>loves to quote so often) was about the taxable income of a NONRESIDENT
>ALIEN, would you?
The Union Pacific Railroad Co. was a nonresident alien?
No, it wasn't. Next lie?
>> >"Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
>> >United States
>>
>> Two problems: According to the title of Subchapter N, the subchapter
>> deals with income from sources "within or without the United States."
>> There is nothing in Section 61 (which you quoted above) that
>> distinquishes between sources within the United States and sources
>> without the United States. In fact, as explained above, the word
>> "whatever" means that the source is not relevant.
>>
>> So, Subchapter N does not define "from whatever source derived" but
>> only "sources within or without the United States." Both phrases use
>> the word "sources," but where is "sources" derived"? And why isn't it
>> significant that the second phrase does not use the word "whatever"?
>
>So you think that I’m receiving income that is NOT income from sources
>WITHIN the United States, OR income from sources WITHOUT the United
>States? What am I receiving? Income from sources balanced right on the
>border? Also, see below concerning your silly "whatever" fetish.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> And you still haven't shown why it is necessary to identify the source
>> of any income. Section 61 says that gross income includes gross
>> income from ANY source. It is not necessary to identify the source of
>> the income if the statute itself says that the source is irrelevant.
>
>WHICH "source of income" it comes from does not effect 26 USC 61.
>WHETHER it comes from a "source of income" AS DEFINED BY LAW, does
>effect 26 USC 61.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >(The problem for the "experts" here is that even they usually concede
>> >that Sections 861 and following apply only to income earned by someone
>> >outside of the United States. Thus, they either must admit that the
>> >"income tax" does not apply to the vast majority of Americans, or
>> >continue to defend an obvious legal blunder on their part.)
>>
>> Section 61 applies to everyone. Section 861 applies only to those
>> outside of the United States. Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
>"SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE
>SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
>Why is that so difficult to understand?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >The following is how the regulations which
>> >implement Section 861 of the statutes begin:
>> >
>> >"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." (emphasis added) - 26
>> >CFR 1.861-1
>> >
>> >The meaning of this is unmistakable.
>>
>> And yet you mistake it.
>
>I’m dying to know what you think the quote means, since you DON’T seem
>to think it means that "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>TAX."
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >Notice that Section 861 (and the
>> >following sections) and the related regulations determine "THE" sources
>> >of income which are subject to the income tax. Any assumption that the
>> >"income tax" applies to anything other than what is described in
>> >sections 861 and following, and the related regulations, is clearly
>> >incorrect.
>>
>> Where does Section 861 say that it "determines 'THE' sources of income
>> which are subject to the income tax"? You must have forgotten to post
>> that part.
>
>"Section 861 and following… and the regulations thereunder determine THE
>sources of income for purposes of the income tax." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
>How many times must I quote this before you READ it?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> Also, please note that, under the definitions in the regulations under
>> Section 861, compensation for services within the United States is
>> considered to be a source of income within the United States.
>>
>> So, if the regulations under Section 861 are used to define "sources
>> of income" for purposes of Section 861, then compensation for services
>> within the United States would be included in gross income.
>
>Try to keep your argument straight, okay? You already ADMITTED that
>Subchapter N ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of the United States
>receiving taxable income. For example, the Brushaber case was about a
>NONRESIDENT ALIEN, receiving taxable income from WITHIN the United
>States.
That's a lie. Brushaber was a citizen of the United States and a
resident of New York. Read the decision.
>> Section 861 does not apply to anyone working in the
>> United States. That's what we've been trying to tell you all along.
>> Glad you finally agree.
>
>This is getting pathetic. I don’t "finally" agree. The whole POINT is
>that Subchapter N (861 and following) ONLY applies to those OUTSIDE of
>the United States, and "Section 861 and following… and the regulations
>thereunder determine THE sources of income for purposes of the income
>tax." How can you NOT understand this yet?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> Of course, you want to have your cake and eat it too. Your entire
>> arguement is based on the conflicting conclusions that (1) Section 861
>> applies to Section 61, AND (2) Section 861 does NOT apply to Section
>> 61.
>
>Nice attempt at obfuscation, but that bears no resemblance to my
>conclusion. Section 861 and following ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of
>the United States, and "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1. Got it yet?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >The next paragraph of the regulations (26 CFR
>> >1.861-8(g)) gives more than a dozen examples of the various rules
>> >concerning deduction allocation, determining taxable income, and other
>> >matters related to the income tax.
>>
>> I thought you just concluded that Section 861 didn't apply?
>
>Why did you think that? Read this REAL slowly: Section 861 and its
>regulations DO determine the legal "sources of income," and there are NO
>legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone inside the United States.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> Clearly, the key to most tax protester arguements is the ability to
>> proceed from "point" to "point" with no recollection whatsoever of the
>> preceding point. That is why tax protester arguments are so
>> convoluted. You need to stretch it out long enough for the reader to
>> forget what you said before in order for it to appear to make any
>> sense at all. It's all a kind of a shell game, in which you move the
>> shells around long enough to confuse the reader into losing track of
>> the pea.
>
>Can you stick to a point? What do "most tax protestors" have to do with
>the report? I "stretch it out long enough" to fully document the report
>with citations of LAW. The report is very clear. Which part confuses
>you? And what would be the point of me trying to confuse the reader?
>The "reader" most likely agrees with YOU.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> [More trash about section 861 deleted.]
>
>I guess citations of law are now "trash about section 861," and Dan’s
>unsubstantiated claims are the law. By the way, I like how you left out
>26 CFR 1.861-8T(d) entirely.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>How about looking at the LAW itself? Works for me.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >In summary,
>> >
>> >1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income." (26 USC 1)
>> >2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus deductions. (26
>> >USC 63)
>> >3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
>>
>> No, as income from "whatever source". I know you want to leave out
>> that word, but there it is, and you have to deal with it.
>
>For something to be included in the meaning of "whatever source" it has
>to BE a "source." Understand? If I say "Whatever hat I wear today will
>be blue," does that have anything to do with my SHOES? No. Why not?
>Because putting "whatever" before a noun doesn’t make the noun
>disappear. There are legal limitations on what qualify as "SOURCES of
>income." WHICH "source of income" doesn’t effect 26 USC 61, but WHETHER
>it is a "source of income" does.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >4) The only taxable "source" of income for United States citizens is
>> >foreign earned income (with other "sources" applying to nonresident
>> >aliens). (26 CFR 1.861)
>>
>> That's not in section 861, or the regulations under section 861.
>
>Wow. Just plain go into denial. Did I make up the citations in the
>report, or what?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>I’m glad to see this was the best you could do. Don’t worry, most
>people won’t dare believe the truth anyway.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Larken Rose
>
> >See below concerning your belief that the word "whatever" NEGATES the
> >word "source."
>
> "See below" what? Can you prove that the word "whatever" does not
> appear in Section 61? Can you prove that "whatever" does not mean
> what I have suggested?
The phrase "whatever hat" refers ONLY to hats. Got it? The phrase
"whatever source" refers ONLY to sources. Got it? And what defines
"sources of income"? "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
> >So you think that I’m receiving income that is NOT income from sources
> >WITHIN the United States, OR income from sources WITHOUT the United
> >States? What am I receiving? Income from sources balanced right on the
> >border? Also, see below concerning your silly "whatever" fetish.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Yeah, and? What does the residence of the payer have to do with
anything?
> >"SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE
> >SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
> >Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Wow, nice rebuttal. Why on earth do you think the residence of the
payer has anything to do with what is a "source of income"?
> >I’m dying to know what you think the quote means, since you DON’T seem
> >to think it means that "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
> >THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
> >TAX."
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Just keep repeating it. Maybe eventually it will be relevant.
> >"Section 861 and following… and the regulations thereunder determine THE
> >sources of income for purposes of the income tax." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
> >How many times must I quote this before you READ it?
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Nope, not relevant yet. Try again.
> >This is getting pathetic. I don’t "finally" agree. The whole POINT is
> >that Subchapter N (861 and following) ONLY applies to those OUTSIDE of
> >the United States, and "Section 861 and following… and the regulations
> >thereunder determine THE sources of income for purposes of the income
> >tax." How can you NOT understand this yet?
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Do you have a fetish for residences of payers, or what? Do you see
where it says Gross income FROM SOURCES? By now I hope you can remember
the sections of law that DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF
THE INCOME TAX.
> >Nice attempt at obfuscation, but that bears no resemblance to my
> >conclusion. Section 861 and following ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of
> >the United States, and "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
> >THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
> >TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1. Got it yet?
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Please explain to me why you think the residence of the payer has
anything to do with this.
> >Why did you think that? Read this REAL slowly: Section 861 and its
> >regulations DO determine the legal "sources of income," and there are NO
> >legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone inside the United States.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Awesome rebuttal. Do you know what a "payer" is, by any chance?
> >Can you stick to a point? What do "most tax protestors" have to do with
> >the report? I "stretch it out long enough" to fully document the report
> >with citations of LAW. The report is very clear. Which part confuses
> >you? And what would be the point of me trying to confuse the reader?
> >The "reader" most likely agrees with YOU.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
If a nonresident alien (covered in the "source of income" in 26 CFR
1.861-8(f)(1)) receives income from WITHIN the United States, the
residence of the payer doesn't matter. You done quoting this irrelevant
citation or not?
> >> [More trash about section 861 deleted.]
> >
> >I guess citations of law are now "trash about section 861," and Dan’s
> >unsubstantiated claims are the law. By the way, I like how you left out
> >26 CFR 1.861-8T(d) entirely.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Guess not.
> >How about looking at the LAW itself? Works for me.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Are you thinking that "payer" means "taxpayer"? It doesn't. It means
the PAYER of the compensation, interest, etc.
> >For something to be included in the meaning of "whatever source" it has
> >to BE a "source." Understand? If I say "Whatever hat I wear today will
> >be blue," does that have anything to do with my SHOES? No. Why not?
> >Because putting "whatever" before a noun doesn’t make the noun
> >disappear. There are legal limitations on what qualify as "SOURCES of
> >income." WHICH "source of income" doesn’t effect 26 USC 61, but WHETHER
> >it is a "source of income" does.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Nice extensive refutation. Quote one irrelevant sentence lots of
times. I'm impressed. How many years of training did you need to be
able to do this?
> >Wow. Just plain go into denial. Did I make up the citations in the
> >report, or what?
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Done making an ass of yourself?
> >I’m glad to see this was the best you could do. Don’t worry, most
> >people won’t dare believe the truth anyway.
>
> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
I'm dying to hear your explanation of the significance of that.
Larken
CountVoo
actual laws (AS WRITTEN) .... boy! are the duped tax attorney's and CPA's gonna
be AFTER YOU NOW...ha
Though, everything you say is true, untill the people have enough back-bone to
pull their heads otta the camode, the illegal and unlawful IRS is going to
remain dominate. The "in house" judges and attorneys are going to continue to
say "guilty, go to jail ..you tax protester".
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> >See below concerning your belief that the word "whatever" NEGATES the
>> >word "source."
>>
>> "See below" what? Can you prove that the word "whatever" does not
>> appear in Section 61? Can you prove that "whatever" does not mean
>> what I have suggested?
>
>The phrase "whatever hat" refers ONLY to hats. Got it? The phrase
>"whatever source" refers ONLY to sources. Got it? And what defines
>"sources of income"? "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >So you think that I’m receiving income that is NOT income from sources
>> >WITHIN the United States, OR income from sources WITHOUT the United
>> >States? What am I receiving? Income from sources balanced right on the
>> >border? Also, see below concerning your silly "whatever" fetish.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Yeah, and? What does the residence of the payer have to do with
>anything?
>
>> >"SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE
>> >SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
>> >Why is that so difficult to understand?
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Wow, nice rebuttal. Why on earth do you think the residence of the
>payer has anything to do with what is a "source of income"?
Because the regulation says so. You wanted a definition of "sources
of income" for purposes of "gross income," and the regulation provides
it, as follows:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >I’m dying to know what you think the quote means, since you DON’T seem
>> >to think it means that "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>> >THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>> >TAX."
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Just keep repeating it. Maybe eventually it will be relevant.
Just keep reading it. Maybe eventually it will sink in.
>> >"Section 861 and following… and the regulations thereunder determine THE
>> >sources of income for purposes of the income tax." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
>> >How many times must I quote this before you READ it?
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Nope, not relevant yet. Try again.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >This is getting pathetic. I don’t "finally" agree. The whole POINT is
>> >that Subchapter N (861 and following) ONLY applies to those OUTSIDE of
>> >the United States, and "Section 861 and following… and the regulations
>> >thereunder determine THE sources of income for purposes of the income
>> >tax." How can you NOT understand this yet?
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Do you have a fetish for residences of payers, or what? Do you see
>where it says Gross income FROM SOURCES? By now I hope you can remember
>the sections of law that DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF
>THE INCOME TAX.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >Nice attempt at obfuscation, but that bears no resemblance to my
>> >conclusion. Section 861 and following ONLY applies to people OUTSIDE of
>> >the United States, and "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING… AND THE REGULATIONS
>> >THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
>> >TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1. Got it yet?
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Please explain to me why you think the residence of the payer has
>anything to do with this.
I don't. That's the point.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >Why did you think that? Read this REAL slowly: Section 861 and its
>> >regulations DO determine the legal "sources of income," and there are NO
>> >legal "sources of income" that apply to anyone inside the United States.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Awesome rebuttal. Do you know what a "payer" is, by any chance?
Yes, the person who pays.
>> >Can you stick to a point? What do "most tax protestors" have to do with
>> >the report? I "stretch it out long enough" to fully document the report
>> >with citations of LAW. The report is very clear. Which part confuses
>> >you? And what would be the point of me trying to confuse the reader?
>> >The "reader" most likely agrees with YOU.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>If a nonresident alien (covered in the "source of income" in 26 CFR
>1.861-8(f)(1)) receives income from WITHIN the United States, the
>residence of the payer doesn't matter. You done quoting this irrelevant
>citation or not?
Where in the regulations does it say that the "source of income" is
determined based on the residence or citizenship of the payee?
You wanted a definition of "source of income," and the regulation
provides it:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >> [More trash about section 861 deleted.]
>> >
>> >I guess citations of law are now "trash about section 861," and Dan’s
>> >unsubstantiated claims are the law. By the way, I like how you left out
>> >26 CFR 1.861-8T(d) entirely.
Not relevant.
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Guess not.
>
>> >How about looking at the LAW itself? Works for me.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Are you thinking that "payer" means "taxpayer"? It doesn't. It means
>the PAYER of the compensation, interest, etc.
Exactly. And the residence of the payer is irrelevant. What does
that tell you about "source of income"?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >For something to be included in the meaning of "whatever source" it has
>> >to BE a "source." Understand? If I say "Whatever hat I wear today will
>> >be blue," does that have anything to do with my SHOES? No. Why not?
>> >Because putting "whatever" before a noun doesn’t make the noun
>> >disappear. There are legal limitations on what qualify as "SOURCES of
>> >income." WHICH "source of income" doesn’t effect 26 USC 61, but WHETHER
>> >it is a "source of income" does.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Nice extensive refutation. Quote one irrelevant sentence lots of
>times. I'm impressed. How many years of training did you need to be
>able to do this?
How many years of training will it take you to understand it?
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> >Wow. Just plain go into denial. Did I make up the citations in the
>> >report, or what?
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>Done making an ass of yourself?
>
>> >I’m glad to see this was the best you could do. Don’t worry, most
>> >people won’t dare believe the truth anyway.
>>
>> "Gross income from sources within the United States includes
>> compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
>> States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
>> Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>
>I'm dying to hear your explanation of the significance of that.
I'm dying to hear your explanation of why you think that compensation
for services performed in the United States is not a source of income
within the United States.
In case you've forgotten, the regulations say that:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer...." Treas. Reg.
Section 1.861-4(a)(1).
Roger Horton
> WOW...Larken Rose ...a great in-depth article on explaining the tax codes and
> actual laws (AS WRITTEN) .... boy! are the duped tax attorney's and CPA's gonna
> say "guilty, go to jail ..you tax protester".
sounds like another great in-depth nutty ranter.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
> Dan Evans wrote:
> >
> > >See below concerning your belief that the word "whatever" NEGATES the
> > >word "source."
> >
> > "See below" what? Can you prove that the word "whatever" does not
> > appear in Section 61? Can you prove that "whatever" does not mean
> > what I have suggested?
>
> The phrase "whatever hat" refers ONLY to hats. Got it? The phrase
> "whatever source" refers ONLY to sources. Got it? And what defines
> "sources of income"? "SECTION 861 AND FOLLOWING· AND THE REGULATIONS
> THEREUNDER DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF THE INCOME
> TAX." - 26 CFR 1.861-1.
Here Rosie, we'll go over it one more time real slowly just for you
(with annotation):
26 USC ¤ 861. Income from sources within the United States
(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:
(1) Interest
Interest from the United States or the District of
Columbia, and interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing
obligations of noncorporate residents or domestic corporations not
including - ...
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you get any interest from you bank? From
any other investment that you have from a "domestic corporation"?
Let's review:
SOURCES of interest income:
The United States
The District of Columbia
Noncorporate residents
Domestic Corporations
(2) Dividends
The amount received as dividends -
(A) from a domestic corporation other than a corporation
which has an election in effect under section 936, or
(B) from a foreign corporation unless ... or
(C) from a foreign corporation to the extent ... or
(D) from a DISC or former DISC
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive any dividends from any
investment? Let's review:
SOURCES of dividend income:
Domestic Corporation
Foreign Corporation
A DISC or former DISC
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
United States; except that compensation for labor or services
performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from
sources within the United States if - ... (exceptions deal with
nonresident aliens and persons living abroad)
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive compensation for any services
performed in the United States? Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Compensation for services performed in the United States
(4) Rentals and royalties
Rentals or royalties from property located in the United
States or from any interest in such property, including rentals or
royalties for the use of or for the privilege of using in the United
States patents, copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will,
trade-marks, trade brands, franchises, and other like property.
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive any rental income from
property located in the United States? From any "intellectual
property" (ROTFLMAO)? Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Rental property located in the United States
Royalty from property located in the United States
Patents, copyrights, etc. in the United States
(5) Disposition of United States real property interest
Gains, profits, and income from the disposition of a United
States real property interest (as defined in section 897(c)).
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive a gain or profit from the sale
of any real property located in the United States? Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Gain or profit from the sale of real property in the United States
(6) Sale or exchange of inventory property
Gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of
inventory property (within the meaning of section 865(i)(1)) without
the United States (other than within a possession of the United
States) and its sale or exchange within the United States.
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive a gain or profit from the sale
of any inventory property located in the United States? Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Gain or profit from the sale of inventory property in the United
States
(7) Amounts received as underwriting income (as defined in
section 832(b)(3)) derived from the issuing (or reinsuring) of any
insurance or annuity contract -
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive any "underwriting income" from
the sale of insurance in the United States? Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Underwriting income (as defined in section 832(b)(3)) derived from the
issuing (or reinsuring) of any insurance or annuity contract
(8) Social security benefits
Any social security benefit (as defined in section 86(d)).
#Annotation: Now Rosie, do you receive any Social Security benefits
that are taxable as noted in section 86(d) in the United States?
Let's review:
SOURCES of income:
Social Security benefits
So let's summarize:
Sources of income as defined in the United States Code from WITHIN the
United States:
SOURCES of interest income:
The United States
The District of Columbia
Noncorporate residents
Domestic Corporations
SOURCES of dividend income:
Domestic Corporation
Foreign Corporation
A DISC or former DISC
Other SOURCES of income:
Compensation for services performed in the United States
Rental property located in the United States
Royalty from property located in the United States
Patents, copyrights, etc. in the United States
Gain or profit from the sale of real property in the United States
Gain or profit from the sale of inventory property in the United
States
Underwriting income (as defined in section 832(b)(3)) derived from the
issuing (or reinsuring) of any insurance or annuity contract
Social Security benefits
Clear enough, Rosie? Probably not.
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> (For those who didn't notice, I mentioned this report in a mail message
> that was intended for an individual, by I accidentally sent it to the
> newsgroup. Since agent86x asked so nicely for me to post it here, I
> will. I've already seen what the IRS Defense League has to say about it
> (which was quite pathetic), but I'd be interested to see what any CPA's
> and EA's think about it. Please be specific, if possible, in where you
> think an error was made, if you think one was made.)
I'm not a CPA, but I am an attorney. I am quite familiar with the rules of
statutory construction (i.e., interpretation) used to determine the meaning
of legislative acts. The subject matter of the internal revenue code is
money, but interpretation of the code is a matter of legal analysis, not a
matter of accounting; you can't input Title 26 into an adding machine and
get an answer.
I believe your analysis of the internal revenue code fails at the point
where you identify "source" as the operative word in the definition of
"gross income."
> The law specifically defines "taxable income" in the following section
> of the statutes:
>
> "Sec. 63. Taxable income defined
> (a) In general - Except as provided in subsection (b) [see note below],
> for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means GROSS
> INCOME minus the deductions allowed by this chapter." (emphasis added) -
> 26 USC 63
As you correctly point out, this is a definitive provision. It reads
"the term 'taxable income' MEANS . . ." (emphasis added). The word
"means" indicates that the provision is definitive. Note that this
provision defines the term exactly as it is used in other provisions of
the statute.
> "Sec. 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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 61
Here's where your analysis starts to go awry. The phrase "from whatever
source derived" is not the definition of "gross income"; it serves only
to expand the scope of the phrase "all income."
> The section then lists "items" such as compensation for services,
> interest, royalties, etc. This is the point at which most tax "experts"
> err by assuming that "from whatever source derived" is synonymous with
> "no matter where it comes from," and err by assuming that the "items" of
> income listed are the same as "sources" of income.
>
> In our system of written law, Congress may use a term to mean
> essentially anything, provided that the law itself defines that
> meaning. The "income tax" is imposed on "income from whatever SOURCE
> derived." If there were no section of law explaining what constitutes
> "sources of income," then it would be reasonable to use common English
> to try to understand the law. However, when there is a definition in
> the law itself, common usage is irrelevant.
Correct. But "source" is not the definition of "gross income." And
neither "source" nor "all income" is defined in the internal revenue code,
so common usage controls.
> Since most of the tax "experts" assume that "income from sources" is an
> unrestricted term, including all "income" no matter who receives it and
> where it comes from, it is necessary to thoroughly document the fact
> that the term is specifically limited in the law itself. The following
> is the section of Subtitle A ("Income Taxes") that defines what
> constitutes "income from sources":
>
> "Subchapter N - Tax based on INCOME FROM SOURCES within or without the
> United States
> Part I -- Source rules and other general rules relating to FOREIGN
> income*
> Sec. 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES within the United States
> (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:" (emphasis added) - 26 USC 861
Section 861(a) is not a definition. It contains no words of definition.
Calling it a definition does not change its operation at all. Calling a
turtle a cow does not enable the turtle to give milk.
> Obviously Subchapter N is relevant to the "income tax," since it
> concerns taxes based on "income from sources" inside and outside of the
> United States. Section 861 is clearly the beginning of the definition
> of "income from sources," as its title and text state. While this may
> already be obvious, this needs to be reinforced repeatedly, since this
> is the point at which the tax "experts" refuse to believe the law
> itself, and instead choose to follow "common knowledge" and the
> misinformation from the Internal Revenue Service. The next series of
> citations of law remove all doubt that Sections 861 and following do
> determine the meaning of "income from sources."
A statutory provision may be relevant to income tax, but that does not
make it a definition of an income tax related word or phrase. A
definition is the linguistic equivalent of a mathematical equation, e.g.,
A=B. Section 861(a) does not equate anything with the phrase "all income"
or the word "source", either explicitly or by implication.
> In summary,
>
> 1) The "income tax" is a tax imposed on "taxable income." (26 USC 1)
Correct.
> 2) "Taxable income" is defined as "gross income" minus deductions. (26
> USC 63)
Correct.
> 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61. "Gross
income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not defined
in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
Jaime
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larken Rose
On what do you base that assumption? First, how does one EXPAND a
phrase "ALL" of something? If you are a lawyer, you know that the words
in the law are not there for decoration. Why did it not read gross
"income means all income, including..."? If it meant ALL of something,
why (and how) would you want to EXPAND that, and why would you put
anything there at all?
> But "source" is not the definition of "gross income." And
> neither "source" nor "all income" is defined in the internal revenue code,
> so common usage controls.
"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
Please tell me what that means.
> > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
>
> Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61. "Gross
> income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not defined
> in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
>
> Jaime
Part I of Subchapter N had been called "determination of sources of
income" (until 1988) and the regulations START by saying "section 861
and following... and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of
income for purposes of the income tax." Yet you insist that "whatever
source derived" was intended, not as having any legal significance, but
to try to EXPAND the phrase "ALL income."
I won't bother reposting all of the original post which you left out,
that demonstrates over and over again that "sources of income" ARE
legally determined by Subchapter N and its regulations, since the post
is still there for anyone to see. Perhaps if I had enough legal
training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
what people WISH it said.
Larken
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>On what do you base that assumption? First, how does one EXPAND a
>phrase "ALL" of something? If you are a lawyer, you know that the words
>in the law are not there for decoration.
They are to you Rosie, since you don't understand them.
> Why did it not read gross
>"income means all income, including..."?
Because you would then argue what the word "including" meant?
>If it meant ALL of something,
>why (and how) would you want to EXPAND that, and why would you put
>anything there at all?
As a note of explanation? Especially since in the history of tax
cases it made a difference what the source of the income (interest vs.
wages for example) was. For most people, you excluded of course
Rosie, this makes it clear that all income is included in the income
tax laws.
>> But "source" is not the definition of "gross income." And
>> neither "source" nor "all income" is defined in the internal revenue code,
>> so common usage controls.
>
>"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
>
>Please tell me what that means.
Please tell us why you leave out the rest of the text:
26 CFR 1.861-1 continues:
These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income
to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the
case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly
that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources
without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to
determine the income derived from sources within the United States,
either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of
general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three
categories of income:
(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within
the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified
in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or
apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See
Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable
income from sources within the United States, in the case of such
income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with
sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions
properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any
other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be
allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8
and 1.863-1."
What part of "taxable income from sources within the United States"
don't you understand?
But this has been explained to you time and again Rosie and you have
conveniently ignored it. Haven't you read 26 USC 861 for example?
Here it is again (with annotation):
So let's summarize:
Clear enough, Rosie? Obviously not, since you didn't understand it
the first time it was posted.
>> > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
>>
>> Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61. "Gross
>> income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not defined
>> in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
>>
>> Jaime
>
>Part I of Subchapter N had been called "determination of sources of
>income" (until 1988) and the regulations START by saying "section 861
>and following... and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of
>income for purposes of the income tax." Yet you insist that "whatever
>source derived" was intended, not as having any legal significance, but
>to try to EXPAND the phrase "ALL income."
>
>I won't bother reposting all of the original post which you left out,
>that demonstrates over and over again that "sources of income" ARE
>legally determined by Subchapter N and its regulations, since the post
>is still there for anyone to see. Perhaps if I had enough legal
>training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
>what people WISH it said.
Perhaps if you could comprehend the English language Rosie, you could
understand the written word. Need I post your explanation of
"including" and "means" again?
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> On what do you base that assumption?
It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on accepted principles of
English grammar. An assumption is a logical premise neither requiring nor
capable of proof. BTW, I'm not going to explain the rules of English grammar
to you.
Also BTW, the burden of persuasion here is *yours*, not mine. So persuade
all the readers that you're right.
> First, how does one EXPAND a
> phrase "ALL" of something?
One way is by expressly stating the absence of a latent limitation. The mere
fact that you and various tax protestors have made an issue of the meaning of
the Internal Revenue Code and the taxation provisions of the US Constitution
makes it clear that simple words are too susceptible to bad faith
interpretation. If the code were simpler, tax protestors would only use
its simplicity as ammunition to attack the intent of Congress.
> If you are a lawyer, you know that the words
> in the law are not there for decoration. Why did it not read gross
> "income means all income, including..."?
I don't know. Read the Congressional record. Perhaps Congress phrased
the law that way to dovetail with the language of the 16th Amendment. If
you want my professional opinion, supported by research, it'll cost you.
See below.
> If it meant ALL of something,
> why (and how) would you want to EXPAND that, and why would you put
> anything there at all?
Why would *I* do it? Assuming that I would ever write a tax code, I might do
it to make clear the absence of limitation. Otherwise tax protestors could
argue that I didn't really mean "all" when I wrote "all." Tax protestors are
a goofy lot. You can never tell what kind of frivilous manure they'll come
up with.
> > But "source" is not the definition of "gross income." And
> > neither "source" nor "all income" is defined in the internal revenue code,
> > so common usage controls.
>
> "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
>
> Please tell me what that means.
Post your mailing address and I will send you a retainer agreement, provided
that you are in a state in which I am licensed to practice law. Once you
sign and return it to me with the requested retainer, I will begin
researching an answer to your question.
If you do not live in a state in which I am licensed, I suggest that you
contact your state's bar association for a referral to an attorney who can
answer your question.
> > > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
> >
> > Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61. "Gross
> > income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not defined
> > in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
> >
> > Jaime
> I won't bother reposting all of the original post which you left out,
> that demonstrates over and over again that "sources of income" ARE
> legally determined by Subchapter N and its regulations, since the post
> is still there for anyone to see.
The remainder of your post was irrelevant. As I pointed out before, the word
"source" is not definitive. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Reposting the rest of your message would have been an utter waste of internet
resources.
> Perhaps if I had enough legal
> training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
> what people WISH it said.
I think that you and tax protestors are the ones doing the wishing. As far
as I know, no one has ever prevailed in court on the argument that you are
presenting. Do you know of any cases to the contrary?
Larken Rose
>
> In article <364D02...@erols.com>,
> GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's where your analysis starts to go awry. The phrase "from whatever
> > > source derived" is not the definition of "gross income"; it serves only
> > > to expand the scope of the phrase "all income."
> >
> > On what do you base that assumption?
>
> It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on accepted principles of
> English grammar. An assumption is a logical premise neither requiring nor
> capable of proof. BTW, I'm not going to explain the rules of English grammar
> to you.
Legal definitions supercede English grammar. Do you call Microsoft a
"person"? Neither do I. The IRC does. If no section of law explained
what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
meaning might be valid. However, "Section 861 and following, and the
regulations thereunder, DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES
OF THE INCOME TAX." 26 CFR 1.861-1
> Also BTW, the burden of persuasion here is *yours*, not mine. So persuade
> all the readers that you're right.
Nah. I can't possibly outdo the propaganda machine of the feds. I just
thought I'd put it out there for anyone who doesn't like being robbed,
and would prefer a "legal" remedy over having a shootout.
> > First, how does one EXPAND a
> > phrase "ALL" of something?
>
> One way is by expressly stating the absence of a latent limitation. The mere
> fact that you and various tax protestors have made an issue of the meaning of
> the Internal Revenue Code and the taxation provisions of the US Constitution
> makes it clear that simple words are too susceptible to bad faith
> interpretation. If the code were simpler, tax protestors would only use
> its simplicity as ammunition to attack the intent of Congress.
An odd answer, to say the least. The tax code is complicated because if
it was clear "tax protestors" would argue about it? Makes sense to... a
lawyer, apparently.
> > If you are a lawyer, you know that the words
> > in the law are not there for decoration. Why did it not read gross
> > "income means all income, including..."?
>
> I don't know. Read the Congressional record. Perhaps Congress phrased
> the law that way to dovetail with the language of the 16th Amendment.
That's actually correct. So why did the 16th use the word?
> If you want my professional opinion, supported by research, it'll cost you.
> See below.
I'll pay you for the privilege of your opinion exactly what I paid the
IRS last year for the state-granted privilege of receiving foreign
earned income.
> > If it meant ALL of something,
> > why (and how) would you want to EXPAND that, and why would you put
> > anything there at all?
>
> Why would *I* do it? Assuming that I would ever write a tax code, I might do
> it to make clear the absence of limitation. Otherwise tax protestors could
> argue that I didn't really mean "all" when I wrote "all."
Again, a very lame response. I didn't expect you to actually try to
make the case that "all" would need expanding.
> Tax protestors are
> a goofy lot. You can never tell what kind of frivilous manure they'll come
> up with.
You sound a tad bitter.
> > > But "source" is not the definition of "gross income." And
> > > neither "source" nor "all income" is defined in the internal revenue code,
> > > so common usage controls.
> >
> > "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
> >
> > Please tell me what that means.
>
> Post your mailing address and I will send you a retainer agreement, provided
> that you are in a state in which I am licensed to practice law. Once you
> sign and return it to me with the requested retainer, I will begin
> researching an answer to your question.
LOL! Oh, that was priceless. "I'm not telling, unless you pay me."
Pardon me if I don't lunge for my checkbook.
> If you do not live in a state in which I am licensed, I suggest that you
> contact your state's bar association for a referral to an attorney who can
> answer your question.
Thanks, but no thanks.
> > > > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
> > >
> > > Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61. "Gross
> > > income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not defined
> > > in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
Well, since we can leave out whatever words we want, "[g]ross income
means all..." Your spleen just became gross income. Please mail half
of it to your local IRS office immediately.
> > I won't bother reposting all of the original post which you left out,
> > that demonstrates over and over again that "sources of income" ARE
> > legally determined by Subchapter N and its regulations, since the post
> > is still there for anyone to see.
>
> The remainder of your post was irrelevant. As I pointed out before, the word
> "source" is not definitive. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
> Reposting the rest of your message would have been an utter waste of internet
> resources.
No problem. It's still available in the group.
> > Perhaps if I had enough legal
> > training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
> > what people WISH it said.
>
> I think that you and tax protestors are the ones doing the wishing. As far
> as I know, no one has ever prevailed in court on the argument that you are
> presenting. Do you know of any cases to the contrary?
Nope. And even YOU should be able to figure out why. Hint: the IRS
doesn't like losing in court. You can figure it out from there. I'm
still waiting for them to lock up Thurston Bell. Why do you suppose
they haven't? Hmmmmmmmm? Don't you think if they COULD, they WOULD?
He's not exactly QUIET about the truth. Here, I'll help out:
I highly suggest everyone check out taxgate.com.
Larken
(P.S. In case I do screw up somewhere, I'd better add that I'm not
affiliated with Taxgate, so if I screw something up, don't blame them.)
rmacd...@microd.com
james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<<< big snip >>>
> The remainder of your post was irrelevant. As I pointed out before, the word
> "source" is not definitive. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
> Reposting the rest of your message would have been an utter waste of internet
> resources.
Here it is right out of Title 26.
SECTION 3402. INCOME TAX COLLECTED AT SOURCE
(a) REQUIREMENT OF WITHHOLDING
(1) IN GENERAL
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making
payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax
determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures
prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under
this paragraph shall--
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such
periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and. . .
SECTION 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;
You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
individual or entity generated the payment.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, E.A.
SSG (Ret), USA, ADA (16P34)
Dedicated follower of Fra. Luca Pacioli, Master Juggler
"Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!!
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>If no section of law explained
>what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
>meaning might be valid. However, "Section 861 and following, and the
>regulations thereunder, DETERMINE THE SOURCES OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES
>OF THE INCOME TAX." 26 CFR 1.861-1
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
David Goldman
>following items:
> (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
> benefits, and similar items;
Why not limited to? Let's get all the sources down pat, so there is no
room for misunderstanding? Who determines the rest of the list?
What is the definition of "similar items"? Either there are legal
standards or there are not.
The sentence simply tells us that the examples of compensation for
services include fees, commissions, fringe benefits (whatever those
are) and similar items. I guess they ran out of ink and couldn't
include Christmas bonuses, etc. So when company X does a service for
company Y, they receive payment from company X for that service, and
pay company tax on it. Likewise, a salesman who gets a commission is
taxable under 6104A.
How many people pay tax on their health benefits?
David Goldman
>individual or entity generated the payment.
>--
Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why. The normal meaning
of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
are thus income. Hmmm.......
rmacd...@microd.com
Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
> >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;
>
> Why not limited to? Let's get all the sources down pat, so there is no
> room for misunderstanding? Who determines the rest of the list?
> What is the definition of "similar items"? Either there are legal
> standards or there are not.
>
> The sentence simply tells us that the examples of compensation for
> services include fees, commissions, fringe benefits (whatever those
> are) and similar items. I guess they ran out of ink and couldn't
> include Christmas bonuses, etc. So when company X does a service for
> company Y, they receive payment from company X for that service, and
> pay company tax on it. Likewise, a salesman who gets a commission is
> taxable under 6104A.
>
> How many people pay tax on their health benefits?
Very few, since most of the health benefits are specifically exempted from
taxation.
As to the arguments over sources of income, they are moot since the source is
irrelevant under "from whatever source derived". BTW employers ARE sources, as
are banks, companies, etc. Sources are the entities that originate a payment.
All payments from whatever source, unless specifically exempted are taxable. If
the payments are the result of an exchange within the ordinary course of
business, the amount received, less the basis given, is ordinary income. For
transfers not in the ordinary course of business for assets held over 1 year,
the amount received, less the basis given, results in a net capital gain or
loss. In barter transactions, the FMV received, less the basis given is the
income from profit. All of these different transactions are taxable to all
individuals and entities unless specifically exempted.
rmacd...@microd.com
Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
Check 861(c):
SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
(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:
(1) INTEREST
Interest from the United States or the District of Columbia, and
interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing obligations of
noncorporate residents or domestic corporations not including--
(A) interest from a resident alien individual or domestic
corporation, if such individual or corporation meets the
80-percent foreign business requirements of subsection (c)(1),
and
(B) interest--
(i) on deposits with a foreign branch of a domestic
corporation or a domestic partnership if such branch is
engaged in the commercial banking business, and
(ii) on amounts satisfying the requirements of subparagraph
(B) of section 871(i)(3) which are paid by a foreign branch
of a domestic corporation or a domestic partnership.
(2) DIVIDENDS
The amount received as dividends--
(A) from a domestic corporation other than a corporation which
has an election in effect under section 936, or
(B) from a foreign corporation unless less than 25 percent of the
gross income from all sources of such foreign corporation for the
3-year period ending with the close of its taxable year preceding
the declaration of such dividends (or for such part of such
period as the corporation has been in existence) was effectively
connected (or treated as effectively connected other than income
described in section 884(d)(2)) with the conduct of a trade or
business within the United States; but only in an amount which
bears the same ratio to such dividends as the gross income of the
corporation for such period which was effectively connected (or
treated as effectively connected other than income described in
section 884(d)(2)) with the conduct of a trade or business within
the United States bears to its gross income from all sources; but
dividends (other than dividends for which a deduction is
allowable under section 245(b)) from a foreign corporation shall,
for purposes of subpart A of part III (relating to foreign tax
credit), be treated as income from sources without the United
States to the extent (and only to the extent) exceeding the
amount which is 100/70th of the amount of the deduction allowable
under section 245 in respect of such dividends, or
(C) from a foreign corporation to the extent that such amount is
required by section 243(e) (relating to certain dividends from
foreign corporations) to be treated as dividends from a domestic
corporation which is subject to taxation under this chapter, and
to such extent subparagraph (B) shall not apply to such amount,
or
(D) from a DISC or former DISC (as defined in section 992(a))
except to the extent attributable (as determined under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary) to qualified export
receipts described in section 993(a)(1) (other than interest and
gains described in section 995(b)(1)).
In the case of any dividend from a 20-percent owned corporation (as
defined in section 243(c)(2)), subparagraph (B) shall be applied by
substituting "100/80th" for "100/70th".
(3) PERSONAL SERVICES
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States; except that compensation for labor or services performed in
the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within
the United States if--
(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien
individual temporarily present in the United States for a period
or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable
year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate,
and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an
employee of or under a contract with--
(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign
corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the
United States, or
(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the
United States, a domestic partnership, or a domestic
corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an
office or place of business maintained in a foreign country
or in a possession of the United States by such individual,
partnership, or corporation.
In addition, except for purposes of sections 79 and 105 and subchapter
D, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States
shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States
if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien
individual in connection with the individual's temporary presence in
the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel
engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign
country or a possession of the United States.
(4) RENTALS AND ROYALTIES
Rentals or royalties from property located in the United States or
from any interest in such property, including rentals or royalties for
the use of or for the privilege of using in the United States patents,
copyrights, secret processes and formulas, good will, trade-marks,
trade brands, franchises, and other like property.
(5) DISPOSITION OF UNITED STATES REAL PROPERTY INTEREST
Gains, profits, and income from the disposition of a United States
real property interest (as defined in section 897(c)).
(6) SALE OR EXCHANGE OF INVENTORY PROPERTY
Gains, profits, and income derived from the purchase of inventory
property (within the meaning of section 865(i)(1)) without the United
States (other than within a possession of the United States) and its
sale or exchange within the United States.
(7) Amounts received as underwriting income (as defined in section
832(b)(3)) derived from the issuing (or reinsuring) of any insurance
or annuity contract--
(A) in connection with property in, liability arising out of an
activity in, or in connection with the lives or health of
residents of, the United States, or
(B) in connection with risks not described in subparagraph (A) as
a result of any arrangement whereby another corporation receives
a substantially equal amount of premiums or other consideration
in respect to issuing (or reinsuring) any insurance or annuity
contract in connection with property in, liability arising out of
activity in, or in connection with the lives or health of
residents of, the United States.
(8) SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
Any social security benefit (as defined in section 86(d)).
(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 there shall be deducted the expenses,
losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and
a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot
definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. The
remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources
within the United States. In the case of an individual who does not itemize
deductions, an amount equal to the standard deduction shall be considered a
deduction which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of
gross income.
Larken Rose
>
> On 11/26/98 8:04AM, in message <365d77a0....@news.erols.com>, David
> Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> > >You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
> > >individual or entity generated the payment.
> > >--
> >
> > Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
> > obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
> > the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why. The normal meaning
> > of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
> > shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
> > are thus income. Hmmm.......
>
> Check 861(c):
>
> SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
>
Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
working WITHIN the United States.
Larken
David Goldman
>>
>Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
>working WITHIN the United States.
Do you believe he is going to admit that for some mysterious reasons
there are *differences* between domestic *income* and foreign *income*
that to Club Fed are inexplicable??! Income is income, tax is tax.
Why all these irrelevancies based on whether the income is homegrown
or not? Why this prejudice against income made abroad? Unless.......
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>rmacd...@microd.com wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/98 8:04AM, in message <365d77a0....@news.erols.com>, David
>> Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
>> > >individual or entity generated the payment.
>> > >--
>> >
>> > Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
>> > obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
>> > the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why. The normal meaning
>> > of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
>> > shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
>> > are thus income. Hmmm.......
>>
>> Check 861(c):
>>
>> SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
>>
>> (a) GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES...
>
>
>Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
>working WITHIN the United States.
Why don't you tell us why 26 CFR 1.1-1(b) doesn't apply to YOU?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
wrote:
>>> SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
>>>
>>> (a) GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES...
>
>
>>Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
>>working WITHIN the United States.
>
>Do you believe he is going to admit that for some mysterious reasons
>there are *differences* between domestic *income* and foreign *income*
>that to Club Fed are inexplicable??!
They are not inexplicable to me. Or Dan.
>Income is income, tax is tax.
>Why all these irrelevancies based on whether the income is homegrown
>or not?
Because the U.S. tax code allows foreign deductions against foreign
income, and domestic deductions against domestic income, but not
foreign deductions against domestic income. If you have no foreign
income subchapter N doesn't apply.
> Why this prejudice against income made abroad? Unless.......
There isn't. The IRS will collect taxes on it according to the laws
and regulations just like domestic income, only the laws are different
for foreign income.
Dan Evans
wrote:
>>You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
>>individual or entity generated the payment.
>>--
>
>Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
>obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
>the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why.
Because it's not relevant, that's why. "From whatever source derived"
means from any and sources. The income is always taxable regardless
of the source. All income is taxable. Income from all sources is
taxable. Income from any source is taxable. You don't need to
determine the source of income to know that it is taxable.
Is any of this sinking in?
> The normal meaning
>of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
>shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
>are thus income.
What you think is "normal" is very, very, very unimportant.
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>rmacd...@microd.com wrote:
>>
>> On 11/26/98 8:04AM, in message <365d77a0....@news.erols.com>, David
>> Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
>> > >individual or entity generated the payment.
>> > >--
>> >
>> > Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
>> > obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
>> > the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why. The normal meaning
>> > of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
>> > shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
>> > are thus income. Hmmm.......
>>
>> Check 861(c):
>>
>> SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
>>
>> (a) GROSS INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES...
>
>
>Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
>working WITHIN the United States.
I never said that. Section 861 would be relevant to a nonresident
alien earning income from sources within the United States, including
compensation for services performed within the United States. What I
said was that Section 861 is not relevant to citizens or residents of
the United States.
"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
without the United States." Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1.
One constant, guiding, and reliable principle is that 99% of
everything that Larken Rose and David Goldman say is absolute
nonsense. If their arguments require 10 logical steps, all ten are
usually wrong. I sometimes don't bother to argue with eight or nine
of the ten, in order to focus on the one or two that are most easily
and simply disproved, but that doesn't mean that all ten aren't wrong.
Larken Rose
>
> "From whatever source derived" means from any and sources.
Yes, and Subchapter N defines the "sources of income."
> The income is always taxable regardless of the source.
Yes, and Subchapter N defines the "sources of income."
> All income is taxable.
Wrong.
> Income from all sources is taxable.
Yes, and Subchpater N defines the "sources of income."
> Income from any source is taxable.
Yes, and Subchpater N defines the "sources of income."
> You don't need to determine the source of income to know that it is taxable.
Correct. You DO, however, need to determine whether it IS a "source of
income," which is defined by Subchapter N. It doesn't matter WHICH
"source" (defined by Subchapter N) it comes from, but it has to come
from a "source of income" (defined by Subchapter N).
Is any of this sinking in?
Larken
Steve
>>>
> >> On 11/26/98 8:04AM, in message <365d77a0....@news.erols.com>, David
> >> Goldman <da...@erols.com> wrote:
> >> > >You want a Source, the Employer is the Source. The source is whatever
> >> > >individual or entity generated the payment.
> >> > >--
> >> > Since they are listing samples "including", which you would assume are
> >> > obvious, why don't they do us a favor to give us a few "includings" of
> >> > the word Source. They are reluctant to, that's why. The normal meaning
> >> > of source would be things like dividends, savings accounts, stock
> >> > shares, bonds, etc. where the income is the GAIN on those sources, and
> >> > are thus income. Hmmm.......
> >>
> >> Check 861(c):
> >>
> >> SECTION 861. INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
> >>
> >
> >
> >Please ask Dan Evans to explain why Section 861 doesn't apply to anyone
> >working WITHIN the United States.
>
> I never said that. Section 861 would be relevant to a nonresident
> alien earning income from sources within the United States, including
> compensation for services performed within the United States. What I
> said was that Section 861 is not relevant to citizens or residents of
> the United States.
>
> "In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
> all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
> by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
> without the United States." Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1.
>
> One constant, guiding, and reliable principle is that 99% of
> everything that Larken Rose and David Goldman say is absolute
> nonsense. If their arguments require 10 logical steps, all ten are
> usually wrong. I sometimes don't bother to argue with eight or nine
> of the ten, in order to focus on the one or two that are most easily
> and simply disproved, but that doesn't mean that all ten aren't wrong.
>
> *Dan Evans
but why do they persist? is it some kind of dementia or obsessive
ignorance or what?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
>Dan Evans wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> "In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and
>> all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed
>> by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or
>> without the United States." Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1.
>>
>> One constant, guiding, and reliable principle is that 99% of
>> everything that Larken Rose and David Goldman say is absolute
>> nonsense. If their arguments require 10 logical steps, all ten are
>> usually wrong. I sometimes don't bother to argue with eight or nine
>> of the ten, in order to focus on the one or two that are most easily
>> and simply disproved, but that doesn't mean that all ten aren't wrong.
>>
>> *Dan Evans
>
>but why do they persist? is it some kind of dementia or obsessive
>ignorance or what?
And to top it all, David Goldman PAYS income taxes.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> "From whatever source derived" means from any and sources.
>
>Yes, and Subchapter N defines the "sources of income."
For non-resident aliens. Are you a non-resident alien, Rosie?
<snip>
>> You don't need to determine the source of income to know that it is taxable.
>
>Correct. You DO, however, need to determine whether it IS a "source of
>income," which is defined by Subchapter N. It doesn't matter WHICH
>"source" (defined by Subchapter N) it comes from, but it has to come
>from a "source of income" (defined by Subchapter N).
What part of "from whatever source derived" don't you understand,
Rosie?
>Is any of this sinking in?
Obviously not for you.
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>Dan Evans wrote:
>>
>> "From whatever source derived" means from any and sources.
>
>Yes, and Subchapter N defines the "sources of income."
Okay, then:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer, the place in which
the contract for service was made, or the place or time of
payment...." Treas. Reg. section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> The income is always taxable regardless of the source.
>
>Yes, and Subchapter N defines the "sources of income."
Okay, then:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer, the place in which
the contract for service was made, or the place or time of
payment...." Treas. Reg. section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> All income is taxable.
>
>Wrong.
Cite?
How about:
"In general, all citizens of the United States, and all resident alien
individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether
the income is received from sources within or without the United
States." Treas. Reg. section 1.1-1(b).
>> Income from all sources is taxable.
>
>Yes, and Subchpater N defines the "sources of income."
Okay, then:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer, the place in which
the contract for service was made, or the place or time of
payment...." Treas. Reg. section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> Income from any source is taxable.
>
>Yes, and Subchpater N defines the "sources of income."
Okay, then:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer, the place in which
the contract for service was made, or the place or time of
payment...." Treas. Reg. section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>> You don't need to determine the source of income to know that it is taxable.
>
>Correct. You DO, however, need to determine whether it IS a "source of
>income," which is defined by Subchapter N. It doesn't matter WHICH
>"source" (defined by Subchapter N) it comes from, but it has to come
>from a "source of income" (defined by Subchapter N).
Okay, then:
"Gross income from sources within the United States includes
compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United
States irrespective of the residence of the payer, the place in which
the contract for service was made, or the place or time of
payment...." Treas. Reg. section 1.861-4(a)(1).
>Is any of this sinking in?
Apparently not. You keep making the same mistake over and over and
over and over and over and over and over again, with not consciousness
whatsoever.
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > Here's where your analysis starts to go awry. The phrase "from whatever
> > > > source derived" is not the definition of "gross income"; it serves only
> > > > to expand the scope of the phrase "all income."
> > >
> > > On what do you base that assumption?
> >
> > It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on accepted principles of
> > English grammar. An assumption is a logical premise neither requiring nor
> > capable of proof. BTW, I'm not going to explain the rules of English
grammar
> > to you.
>
> Legal definitions supercede English grammar.
Can you cite some legal authority for that proposition?
> Do you call Microsoft a
> "person"? Neither do I. The IRC does.
What section of the IRC says that Microsoft is a person?
> If no section of law explained
> what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
> meaning might be valid.
An explanation is not a definition. You are trying to compare apples to
oranges.
> > > First, how does one EXPAND a
> > > phrase "ALL" of something?
> >
> > One way is by expressly stating the absence of a latent limitation. The
mere
> > fact that you and various tax protestors have made an issue of the meaning
of
> > the Internal Revenue Code and the taxation provisions of the US Constitution
> > makes it clear that simple words are too susceptible to bad faith
> > interpretation. If the code were simpler, tax protestors would only use
> > its simplicity as ammunition to attack the intent of Congress.
>
> An odd answer, to say the least. The tax code is complicated because if
> it was clear "tax protestors" would argue about it? Makes sense to... a
> lawyer, apparently.
I think you misread my words. I did not write "clear words"; I wrote "simple
words". "John picked Jane up" is a simple sentence, but not a clear one. Did
he lift her off the ground? Did he introduce himself to her at a bar and take
her to a motel for a sexual encounter? Did he meet her at the airport to take
her home in his car? That "simple" sentence is not "clear".
> > > If you are a lawyer, you know that the words
> > > in the law are not there for decoration. Why did it not read gross
> > > "income means all income, including..."?
> >
> > I don't know. Read the Congressional record. Perhaps Congress phrased
> > the law that way to dovetail with the language of the 16th Amendment.
>
> That's actually correct. So why did the 16th use the word?
Which word?
> > > If it meant ALL of something,
> > > why (and how) would you want to EXPAND that, and why would you put
> > > anything there at all?
> >
> > Why would *I* do it? Assuming that I would ever write a tax code, I might
do
> > it to make clear the absence of limitation. Otherwise tax protestors could
> > argue that I didn't really mean "all" when I wrote "all."
>
> Again, a very lame response. I didn't expect you to actually try to
> make the case that "all" would need expanding.
How can my response be "very lame" when you didn't expect any response at all?
> > Tax protestors are
> > a goofy lot. You can never tell what kind of frivilous manure they'll come
> > up with.
>
> You sound a tad bitter.
No, just skeptical. After reading thousands of pages of tax protestor
arguments,
I have yet to find any that have any legal substance.
> > > "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
> > >
> > > Please tell me what that means.
> >
> > Post your mailing address and I will send you a retainer agreement, provided
> > that you are in a state in which I am licensed to practice law. Once you
> > sign and return it to me with the requested retainer, I will begin
> > researching an answer to your question.
>
> LOL! Oh, that was priceless. "I'm not telling, unless you pay me."
> Pardon me if I don't lunge for my checkbook.
Actually, it means "I'm not going to research the question and provide you
with an answer that I deem legally accurate unless you pay me." My services
are valuable, and I normally expect compensation for them.
> > > > > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61.
"Gross
> > > > income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not
defined
> > > > in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
>
> Well, since we can leave out whatever words we want, "[g]ross income
> means all..." Your spleen just became gross income. Please mail half
> of it to your local IRS office immediately.
Does that mean you can't respond to the merits of my statement?
> > > Perhaps if I had enough legal
> > > training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
> > > what people WISH it said.
> >
> > I think that you and tax protestors are the ones doing the wishing. As far
> > as I know, no one has ever prevailed in court on the argument that you are
> > presenting. Do you know of any cases to the contrary?
>
> Nope. And even YOU should be able to figure out why. Hint: the IRS
> doesn't like losing in court.
Let me see if I have this right: The fact that no one has ever prevailed by
using your argument is conclusive proof that it is correct? Are you telling
us that the IRS will never seek judicial redress if confronted with your
argument? Can you offer any actual evidence of that, or is your "proof"
limited to the absence of contradictory evidence?
> You can figure it out from there. I'm
> still waiting for them to lock up Thurston Bell.
Who is Thurston Bell?
Larken Rose
>
> In article <365C8A...@erols.com>,
> GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > > > Here's where your analysis starts to go awry. The phrase "from whatever
> > > > > source derived" is not the definition of "gross income"; it serves only
> > > > > to expand the scope of the phrase "all income."
> > > >
> > > > On what do you base that assumption?
> > >
> > > It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on accepted principles of
> > > English grammar. An assumption is a logical premise neither requiring nor
> > > capable of proof. BTW, I'm not going to explain the rules of English
> grammar
> > > to you.
> >
> > Legal definitions supercede English grammar.
>
> Can you cite some legal authority for that proposition?
Didn't you say you were a lawyer? Do you think all of the definitions
in the law mean nothing?
> > Do you call Microsoft a
> > "person"? Neither do I. The IRC does.
>
> What section of the IRC says that Microsoft is a person?
Sec. 7701. Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed
or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--
(1) Person
The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an
individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, COMPANY OR
CORPORATION. - 26 USC 7701
Apparently you don't think this means what it says, since you think
English supercedes legal definitions.
> > If no section of law explained
> > what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
> > meaning might be valid.
>
> An explanation is not a definition. You are trying to compare apples to
> oranges.
The law says that Section 861 and following, and the regulations
thereunder, determine "the sources of income for purposes of the income
tax." (26 CFR 1.861-1) I guess if you can ignore legal definitions, you
can ignore this too.
> > Again, a very lame response. I didn't expect you to actually try to
> > make the case that "all" would need expanding.
>
> How can my response be "very lame" when you didn't expect any response at all?
Not real big on logic, are you? Any attempt to explain that the earth
is flat would be lame, and I would not expect you to try to make such an
attempt.
> > > Tax protestors are
> > > a goofy lot. You can never tell what kind of frivilous manure they'll come
> > > up with.
> >
> > You sound a tad bitter.
>
> No, just skeptical. After reading thousands of pages of tax protestor
> arguments,
> I have yet to find any that have any legal substance.
I'm not interested in defending other people's arguments, but if you
think that the post entitled "Taxable Income" had no legal substance,
you need your head examined.
> > > > "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
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me what that means.
> > >
> > > Post your mailing address and I will send you a retainer agreement, provided
> > > that you are in a state in which I am licensed to practice law. Once you
> > > sign and return it to me with the requested retainer, I will begin
> > > researching an answer to your question.
> >
> > LOL! Oh, that was priceless. "I'm not telling, unless you pay me."
> > Pardon me if I don't lunge for my checkbook.
>
> Actually, it means "I'm not going to research the question and provide you
> with an answer that I deem legally accurate unless you pay me." My services
> are valuable, and I normally expect compensation for them.
Let me get this straight. You don't think the "tax protestor" arguments
have any legal substances. Meanwhile, you don't even LOOK INTO them
unless someone pays you. Got it.
> > > > > > 3) "Gross income" is defined as income from "sources." (26 USC 61)
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61.
> "Gross
> > > > > income" does not mean income from "sources." And "sources" is not
> defined
> > > > > in the sections of the internal revenue code that you have posted.
> >
> > Well, since we can leave out whatever words we want, "[g]ross income
> > means all..." Your spleen just became gross income. Please mail half
> > of it to your local IRS office immediately.
>
> Does that mean you can't respond to the merits of my statement?
It means your statement is absurd. The implication is that you can take
out any words you wish out of a statute, and pretend it's still the
same.
> > > > Perhaps if I had enough legal
> > > > training, I too could learn that the law doesn't mean what it says, but
> > > > what people WISH it said.
> > >
> > > I think that you and tax protestors are the ones doing the wishing. As far
> > > as I know, no one has ever prevailed in court on the argument that you are
> > > presenting. Do you know of any cases to the contrary?
> >
> > Nope. And even YOU should be able to figure out why. Hint: the IRS
> > doesn't like losing in court.
>
> Let me see if I have this right: The fact that no one has ever prevailed by
> using your argument is conclusive proof that it is correct?
Nope. Try to work on your logic a bit. A converse and a contrapositive
are not the same thing.
> Are you telling
> us that the IRS will never seek judicial redress if confronted with your
> argument?
So far it sure looks that way.
> Can you offer any actual evidence of that, or is your "proof"
> limited to the absence of contradictory evidence?
My "proof" is limited to THE WRITTEN LAW. Imagine that. How extreme of
me.
> > You can figure it out from there. I'm
> > still waiting for them to lock up Thurston Bell.
>
> Who is Thurston Bell?
Taxgate.com Look it up.
Larken
Larken Rose
<snip>
> >The law says that Section 861 and following, and the regulations
> >thereunder, determine "the sources of income for purposes of the income
> >tax." (26 CFR 1.861-1) I guess if you can ignore legal definitions, you
> >can ignore this too.
>
> We've already concluded that this section only applies to foreign
> persons; i.e., non-resident aliens, so what is your point of
> continuing to argue it?
"WE" have?? When did this happen? I've been saying it for ages, and
you've been saying I was wrong, and that it DID apply to me. With your
revisionist memory, you should be working for the Clinton
administration. Then again, maybe you are.
Since you are now enlightened, will you please enlighten rmacdonald?
How interesting it is that you, Dan and rmacdonald didn't argue about it
in here. Instead, you inexplicably suddenly agree with Dan, and pretend
you always have. Yeah, that's not suspicious or anything.
Larken
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <365C8A...@erols.com>,
>> GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> > james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
<snip>
>> > Legal definitions supercede English grammar.
>>
>> Can you cite some legal authority for that proposition?
>
>Didn't you say you were a lawyer? Do you think all of the definitions
>in the law mean nothing?
>
>> > Do you call Microsoft a
>> > "person"? Neither do I. The IRC does.
>>
>> What section of the IRC says that Microsoft is a person?
>
>Sec. 7701. Definitions
> (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed
>or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--
> (1) Person
> The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an
>individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, COMPANY OR
>CORPORATION. - 26 USC 7701
>
>Apparently you don't think this means what it says, since you think
>English supercedes legal definitions.
So why don't you believe the definition of "includes" that also
appears in 7701?
>> > If no section of law explained
>> > what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
>> > meaning might be valid.
>>
>> An explanation is not a definition. You are trying to compare apples to
>> oranges.
>
>The law says that Section 861 and following, and the regulations
>thereunder, determine "the sources of income for purposes of the income
>tax." (26 CFR 1.861-1) I guess if you can ignore legal definitions, you
>can ignore this too.
We've already concluded that this section only applies to foreign
persons; i.e., non-resident aliens, so what is your point of
continuing to argue it? You, Rosie, are covered by 26 CFR 1.1-1(b).
<snip>
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> > > Legal definitions supercede English grammar.
> >
> > Can you cite some legal authority for that proposition?
>
> Didn't you say you were a lawyer? Do you think all of the definitions
> in the law mean nothing?
They do not supercede the rules of grammar. Post legal authority to
support your assertion, if you can.
> > > Do you call Microsoft a
> > > "person"? Neither do I. The IRC does.
> >
> > What section of the IRC says that Microsoft is a person?
>
> Sec. 7701. Definitions
> (a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed
> or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof--
> (1) Person
> The term "person" shall be construed to mean and include an
> individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, COMPANY OR
> CORPORATION. - 26 USC 7701
>
> Apparently you don't think this means what it says, since you think
> English supercedes legal definitions.
The word "Microsoft" does not appear anywhere in the section you
posted, does it? Therefore you have not shown that the IRC calls
Microsoft a person. If you want to get snippy about my logic (see below),
you had better make sure yours is in order first.
> > > If no section of law explained
> > > what is meant by "sources of income," then your ASSUMPTION of the
> > > meaning might be valid.
> >
> > An explanation is not a definition. You are trying to compare apples to
> > oranges.
>
> The law says that Section 861 and following, and the regulations
> thereunder, determine "the sources of income for purposes of the income
> tax." (26 CFR 1.861-1) I guess if you can ignore legal definitions, you
> can ignore this too.
Section 681 is still not a definition, no matter how many times you say that
it is. Want to prove me wrong? Post some legal authority to the contrary.
> > > Again, a very lame response. I didn't expect you to actually try to
> > > make the case that "all" would need expanding.
> >
> > How can my response be "very lame" when you didn't expect any response at
all?
>
> Not real big on logic, are you?
I seem to be "bigger" on logic than you are on statutory construction or
legal authority.
> Any attempt to explain that the earth
> is flat would be lame, and I would not expect you to try to make such an
> attempt.
Ah, I see. You have assumed your conclusion, so any evidence or argument to
the contrary is ipso facto "lame". Am I trying to teach the proverbial pig to
sing here, or are you willing to consider the possibility that you might be
wrong?
> > No, just skeptical. After reading thousands of pages of tax protestor
> > arguments,
> > I have yet to find any that have any legal substance.
>
> I'm not interested in defending other people's arguments,
Then why are you doing it? This "sources" argument you are advocating
apparently comes from the taxgate.com site you keep plugging – which appears
to be a scam to part the foolish from their money, by the way.
> but if you
> think that the post entitled "Taxable Income" had no legal substance,
> you need your head examined.
What makes you think I read that post?
> > > LOL! Oh, that was priceless. "I'm not telling, unless you pay me."
> > > Pardon me if I don't lunge for my checkbook.
> >
> > Actually, it means "I'm not going to research the question and provide you
> > with an answer that I deem legally accurate unless you pay me." My services
> > are valuable, and I normally expect compensation for them.
>
> Let me get this straight. You don't think the "tax protestor" arguments
> have any legal substances.
I’m beginning to think that your misperception of the tax code stems from
haphazard reading. You certainly don’t seem to be reading my posts very
carefully. I didn’t say that tax protestor arguments have no legal substance.
I said that "I have yet to find any that have any legal substance."
> Meanwhile, you don't even LOOK INTO them
> unless someone pays you. Got it.
You are in no position to be accusing someone of inadequate research. So far
you haven’t posted a single citation to legal authority that supports your
argument. Oh, but wait - you said don’t know of any cases, didn’t you? And
then you insinuated that there aren’t any cases because the IRS is afraid to
challenge the argument in court, right?
So tell me, how much research have you personally done to find case law to
support your argument? How many hours? What sources did you use? CJS? Am
Jur? West’s Reporter Digests? Westlaw? Lexis?
Or did you get your information from an internet or fidonet source?
> > > > > > Incorrect. "[G]ross income means all income . . . ." 26 USC 61.
> > > Well, since we can leave out whatever words we want, "[g]ross income
> > > means all..." Your spleen just became gross income. Please mail half
> > > of it to your local IRS office immediately.
> >
> > Does that mean you can't respond to the merits of my statement?
>
> It means your statement is absurd. The implication is that you can take
> out any words you wish out of a statute, and pretend it's still the
> same.
You are omitting the word "all" from your interpretation of the statute,
but pretending the meaning is "still the same." So, according to your
own logic, your argument is also absurd.
> > > > I think that you and tax protestors are the ones doing the wishing. As
far
> > > > as I know, no one has ever prevailed in court on the argument that you
are
> > > > presenting. Do you know of any cases to the contrary?
> > >
> > > Nope. And even YOU should be able to figure out why. Hint: the IRS
> > > doesn't like losing in court.
> >
> > Let me see if I have this right: The fact that no one has ever prevailed by
> > using your argument is conclusive proof that it is correct?
>
> Nope. Try to work on your logic a bit. A converse and a contrapositive
> are not the same thing.
Stop wasting internet resources. Just say why you don’t know of any "cases to
the contrary". I think it’s because nobody has yet been foolish enough to
actually try to escape tax liability using your argument.
> > Are you telling
> > us that the IRS will never seek judicial redress if confronted with your
> > argument?
>
> So far it sure looks that way.
Show me some evidence that someone has actually used your argument against the
IRS.
> > Can you offer any actual evidence of that, or is your "proof"
> > limited to the absence of contradictory evidence?
>
> My "proof" is limited to THE WRITTEN LAW. Imagine that. How extreme of
> me.
No, no. I meant "proof" that the IRS will not seek judicial redress if
confronted with your argument. I suspect that you knew what I meant, but
considering your repeated misunderstandings of my words, I’m not certain of
it.
> > > You can figure it out from there. I'm
> > > still waiting for them to lock up Thurston Bell.
> >
> > Who is Thurston Bell?
>
> Taxgate.com Look it up.
I did. How do you know he has used your argument against the IRS? For that
matter, how do you know he actually exists? How do you know "Thurston
Bell" is not a pseudonym for someone who is scamming the naïve?
Have you given any money to "Thurston Bell" or to "R. Bryan" (to whom checks
are to be made payable, according to the membership application at
taxgate.com)?
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
While browsing your beloved "taxgate.com" site, I noticed a glaring error. On
this page -- http://taxgate.com/articles/quick_study.htm -- it indicates that
the 16th Amendment gives Congress its authority to tax incomes. That is
completely wrong. Congress's authority to tax incomes comes from Article I,
Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution: "The Congress shall have the
Power to lay and collect Taxes . . . ."
Why do you suppose that fact is not disclosed at that site? Does Mr. Bell not
know this?
Larken Rose
>
> Larkin Rose --
>
> While browsing your beloved "taxgate.com" site, I noticed a glaring error. On
> this page -- http://taxgate.com/articles/quick_study.htm -- it indicates that
> the 16th Amendment gives Congress its authority to tax incomes.
Actually, it doesn't say that. It is pointing out that the 16th
amendment deals with income from "sources," the same phrasiology used in
26 USC 61. Perhaps it could have been worded differently so people like
you wouldn't have something to misinterpret and whine about, but it
would be sort of tough to do that for dozens of pages.
If you have any questions about taxgate, I'm sure someone there would be
happy to laugh in your face at your mindless attempts to discredit them.
Larken
Larken Rose
> This "sources" argument you are advocating
> apparently comes from the taxgate.com site you keep plugging – which appears
> to be a scam to part the foolish from their money, by the way.
It's not a very good scam, considering the fact that ALL of the research
into the true applicability of income and employment taxes is FREE.
> > ...but if you
> > think that the post entitled "Taxable Income" had no legal substance,
> > you need your head examined.
>
> What makes you think I read that post?
And then this supposed lawyer says:
> So far
> you haven’t posted a single citation to legal authority that supports your
> argument.
You didn't read it, therefore it doesn't exist? It is still on this
newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
> > Taxgate.com Look it up.
>
> I did. How do you know he has used your argument against the IRS? For that
> matter, how do you know he actually exists? How do you know "Thurston
> Bell" is not a pseudonym for someone who is scamming the naïve?
I learned of the Section 861 deal from Taxgate (WITHOUT paying a dime),
and then I did my OWN research and found it to be absolutely accurate.
What kind of scam is that?
Larken
Mason Leggett
> > the 16th Amendment gives Congress its authority to tax incomes.
>
> Actually, it doesn't say that. It is pointing out that the 16th
> amendment deals with income from "sources," the same phrasiology used in
> 26 USC 61. Perhaps it could have been worded differently so people like
> you wouldn't have something to misinterpret and whine about, but it
> would be sort of tough to do that for dozens of pages.
> If you have any questions about taxgate, I'm sure someone there would be
> happy to laugh in your face at your mindless attempts to discredit them.
> Larken
I'm laughing - you probably bought into the scam !!
agen...@my-dejanews.com
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> Larkin Rose --
>>
>> While browsing your beloved "taxgate.com" site, I noticed a glaring error. On
>> this page -- http://taxgate.com/articles/quick_study.htm -- it indicates that
>> the 16th Amendment gives Congress its authority to tax incomes.
>
>Actually, it doesn't say that. It is pointing out that the 16th
>amendment deals with income from "sources," the same phrasiology used in
>26 USC 61. Perhaps it could have been worded differently so people like
>you wouldn't have something to misinterpret and whine about, but it
>would be sort of tough to do that for dozens of pages.
>
>If you have any questions about taxgate, I'm sure someone there would be
>happy to laugh in your face at your mindless attempts to discredit them.
Just like the Secretary of the Treasury is laughing at your recent
letter. Maybe he'll recover his composure enough to have someone
answer it someday.
agen...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> agen...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > >The law says that Section 861 and following, and the regulations
> > >thereunder, determine "the sources of income for purposes of the income
> > >tax." (26 CFR 1.861-1) I guess if you can ignore legal definitions, you
> > >can ignore this too.
> >
> > persons; i.e., non-resident aliens, so what is your point of
> > continuing to argue it?
>
> you've been saying I was wrong, and that it DID apply to me. With your
> revisionist memory, you should be working for the Clinton
> administration. Then again, maybe you are.
So I will regret taking the easy way and agreeing with you, and go back to my
original statement. It is quite immaterial. 26 USC 861 doesn't apply to
you. It applies only to people who have foreign source income. You don't to
the best of my knowledge. It doesn't apply to you. So why do you continue
to argue it? You are covered by 26 CFR 1.1-1(b).
> Since you are now enlightened, will you please enlighten rmacdonald?
> How interesting it is that you, Dan and rmacdonald didn't argue about it
> in here. Instead, you inexplicably suddenly agree with Dan, and pretend
> you always have. Yeah, that's not suspicious or anything.
The things that Dan and I agree on are (1)that you are an idiot; (2) that you
can't comprehend the English language; (3) that 26 USC 861 doesn't apply to
you; and (4) that you are covered by 26 USC 1 and 26 CFR 1.1-1(b). Happy
now?
agen...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > This "sources" argument you are advocating
> > apparently comes from the taxgate.com site you keep plugging – which appears
> > to be a scam to part the foolish from their money, by the way.
>
> into the true applicability of income and employment taxes is FREE.
Then how come they want money for you to become a "member"?
> > > ...but if you
> > > think that the post entitled "Taxable Income" had no legal substance,
> > > you need your head examined.
> >
> > What makes you think I read that post?
>
> And then this supposed lawyer says:
>
> > So far
> > you haven’t posted a single citation to legal authority that supports your
> > argument.
>
> You didn't read it, therefore it doesn't exist? It is still on this
> newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
> in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
> happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
No, Rosie, that's not what he said. He said that nothing you have ever cited
supports your contention regarding income taxes.
> > > Taxgate.com Look it up.
> >
> > I did. How do you know he has used your argument against the IRS? For that
> > matter, how do you know he actually exists? How do you know "Thurston
> > Bell" is not a pseudonym for someone who is scamming the naïve?
>
> I learned of the Section 861 deal from Taxgate (WITHOUT paying a dime),
> and then I did my OWN research and found it to be absolutely accurate.
> What kind of scam is that?
Why didn't you answer the questions? And 26 USC 861 doesn't apply to you.
You owe withholding and income taxes under 26 USC 1 and 26 CFR 1.1-1(b)....
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > This "sources" argument you are advocating
> > apparently comes from the taxgate.com site you keep plugging – which appears
> > to be a scam to part the foolish from their money, by the way.
>
> It's not a very good scam, considering the fact that ALL of the research
> into the true applicability of income and employment taxes is FREE.
Ah, but the research is presented as the tip of the iceberg, and the truly
usefultactics and other information is withheld from non-members. Membership,
of course, costs a significant amount of money. And let’s not overlook the
fact that checks are to be made payable to "R. Bryan", whose identity and
function are not disclosed. Why not to "taxgate.com"? Why not to "Thurston
Bell"?
Oh, and one more thing. That site carries a disclaimers that the information
appearing therein should be confirmed as accurate with a ‘competent’ attorney.
In other words, the author doesn’t endorse the "research" or the conclusions
as being either accurate or correct.
Scam city. Avoid it.
> > So far
> > you haven’t posted a single citation to legal authority that supports your
> > argument.
>
> You didn't read it, therefore it doesn't exist? It is still on this
> newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
> in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
> happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
And you never will. I doubt that any reputable tax or legal periodical would
publish tax protestor rubbish as correct or accurate legal authority.
But my mind is open. Let me know if and where you find that "article"
published.
> > > Taxgate.com Look it up.
> >
> > I did. How do you know he has used your argument against the IRS? For that
> > matter, how do you know he actually exists? How do you know "Thurston
> > Bell" is not a pseudonym for someone who is scamming the naïve?
>
> I learned of the Section 861 deal from Taxgate (WITHOUT paying a dime),
> and then I did my OWN research and found it to be absolutely accurate.
> What kind of scam is that?
You may have found it to be "accurate" (i.e., a correct republication of
sections of statutes, regulations, and case law), but you certainly didn’t
find it to be correct (i.e., a legally persuasive analysis and statement of
the law).
Now how about answering my other questions about this "Thurston Bell"? Who
is he? How do you know he really exists? Have you met him? How do you
know that he is not paying the very taxes that he claims many people are not
legally required to pay? Have you seen any tax documents signed by him? Have
you seen any of his financial or accounting records?
james_a...@my-dejanews.com
GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > Larkin Rose --
> >
> > While browsing your beloved "taxgate.com" site, I noticed a glaring error.
On
> > this page -- http://taxgate.com/articles/quick_study.htm -- it indicates
that
> > the 16th Amendment gives Congress its authority to tax incomes.
>
> Actually, it doesn't say that. It is pointing out that the 16th
> amendment deals with income from "sources," the same phrasiology used in
> 26 USC 61.
Yes, and for an obvious reason: The frivilous "sources" argument depends on
it. Point out the fact that the 16th Amendment is not the source of
Congress’s authority to tax incomes, and the "sources" argument collapses
like a house of cards in an earthquake.
> Perhaps it could have been worded differently so people like
> you wouldn't have something to misinterpret and whine about, but it
> would be sort of tough to do that for dozens of pages.
You’re the one doing the whining. I have no problem with the way the
internal revenue code is written, or with paying my taxes.
> If you have any questions about taxgate, I'm sure someone there would be
> happy to laugh in your face at your mindless attempts to discredit them.
Well, of course they would. They’ve already bought the tripe they’re selling.
Advocacy 101: Don’t waste your time trying to convince your opponent that
he is wrong.
And just in case you’re wondering, I’m arguing with you not to persuade you,
but so that the uninitiated who read this thread are exposed to the fact that
your argument is preposterous. Hopefully they’ll not squander their money on
a scam, and will think twice about placing their property and freedom in
jeopardy before following the "advice" you are spouting.
Larken Rose
>
> In article <3668AF...@erols.com>,
> GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > It is still on this
> > newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
> > in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
> > happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
>
> And you never will. I doubt that any reputable tax or legal periodical would
> publish tax protestor rubbish as correct or accurate legal authority.
>
> But my mind is open. Let me know if and where you find that "article"
> published.
It isn't MY claim that it was published. Dan Evans said it was, and
posted part of it. If he would tell us BOTH where to find it, I'd be
happy.
> Now how about answering my other questions about this "Thurston Bell"? Who
> is he? How do you know he really exists? Have you met him?
I've talked to him over the internet. Whether it's his real name, I
don't know, and don't care.
> How do you
> know that he is not paying the very taxes that he claims many people are not
> legally required to pay?
I don't. I'm not taking his word for anything. The excellent research
by him and his associates showed me the relevant sections of law. They
didn't have to give any interpretation or spin. If someone points out
that your tire is flat, do you look into his backgroung to see if he is
qualified to point out a flat tire, or do you LOOK AT THE TIRE? I
personally find Mr. Bell to be very competent and honest, but I wouldn't
bet my future on ANYONE's word, and Mr. Bell specifically asks people to
look into it for themselves, which I did.
> Have you seen any tax documents signed by him? Have
> you seen any of his financial or accounting records?
No. Why would I? His argument stands based on the written law. I
don't care if Charles Manson wrote it.
Larken
Dan Evans
<GrandD...@erols.com> wrote:
>james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3668AF...@erols.com>,
>> GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> > It is still on this
>> > newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
>> > in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
>> > happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
>>
>> And you never will. I doubt that any reputable tax or legal periodical would
>> publish tax protestor rubbish as correct or accurate legal authority.
>>
>> But my mind is open. Let me know if and where you find that "article"
>> published.
>
>It isn't MY claim that it was published. Dan Evans said it was, and
>posted part of it. If he would tell us BOTH where to find it, I'd be
>happy.
It was published for what it is worth, which is a letter from someone
named Larken Rose to the Secretary of the Treasury. No one reviewed
it or endorsed or checked it or did anything else to it except copy
it.
I wouldn't have even bothered to mention it, except that I was amused
that the self-proclaimed Grand Delusion would come out of the closet
and expose his (unintentionally) humorous writings to the light of
day.
Paul Haynes
> james_a...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > In article <3668AF...@erols.com>,
> > GrandD...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > > It is still on this
> > > newsgroup, entitled "Taxable Income." According to Dan Evans, it's also
> > > in Tax Notes Today, published by Tax Analysts, (not sure how that
> > > happened) but I haven't been able to find it for myself yet.
> >
> > And you never will. I doubt that any reputable tax or legal periodical would
> > publish tax protestor rubbish as correct or accurate legal authority.
> >
> > But my mind is open. Let me know if and where you find that "article"
> > published.
>
> It isn't MY claim that it was published. Dan Evans said it was, and
> posted part of it. If he would tell us BOTH where to find it, I'd be
> happy.
>
> > is he? How do you know he really exists? Have you met him?
>
> I've talked to him over the internet. Whether it's his real name, I
> don't know, and don't care.
>
> > How do you
> > know that he is not paying the very taxes that he claims many people are not
> > legally required to pay?
>
> I don't. I'm not taking his word for anything. The excellent research
> by him and his associates showed me the relevant sections of law.
yeah, "research" if you're into crackpot scams !!
> that your tire is flat, do you look into his backgroung to see if he is
> qualified to point out a flat tire, or do you LOOK AT THE TIRE? I
> personally find Mr. Bell to be very competent and honest,
big mistake there !! Thurston Bell sounds like a semi-literate bogus
loony.
> bet my future on ANYONE's word, and Mr. Bell specifically asks people to
> look into it for themselves, which I did.
>
> > Have you seen any tax documents signed by him? Have
> > you seen any of his financial or accounting records?
>
> No. Why would I? His argument stands based on the written law.
the "law" as written on planet Nebulon.