Organize against the IRS, attention Lawyers and CPAs test your knowledge

Great Debates
21

** DeweyCheat’emandhow!** told Wick…Your statement presupposes a well-thought-out, pre-planned tax code crafted by legislators and regulators holding a singular vision of what the final product should be. ( Uh…legislators and regulators , by the way, who are regulators?, have a commom interest in matters that effect their well-being and Dewey, Dewey, Dewey, you know very well that most legislators are lawyers and no lawyers known to the least of any God-fearing man has voted for a law to lower his self considered meger stipend.) That is laughably at odds with reality. The reason the tax code is so complex is precisely because it isn’t a master-planned document, but rather a hodgepodge of ad-hoc provisions tacked on during each legislative session. ** Yeah, Dewey. That is so true but it is only incidental to the blatant raw greed of most lawyers who serve as legislators.**

You wanna know what I think** Dewey**? I think that you are too nice of a man to get in the buisness of tax robbing the public.

22

Federal agencies, like FEMA, the FDA, or the IRS, that are empowered by Congress to pass regulations, codified in the Code of Federal Regulations or “CFR”.

23

Depends on the specific instance of use. Even then, this is only a technical point of draftsmanship – sure, the Internal Revenue Code could be written better in some places; most complex documents could stand tighter drafting. That doesn’t mean the code is “intentionally” made complicated, it just means that Congressional staffers are fallible people like the rest of us. **

Yes. Section 61 determines income, not Section 861. Section 861 determines the geographic source of certain types of income, which, broadly speaking, is only relevant for certain exceptions relating to foriegn taxpayers.

This is clear from the very language of Section 61: it applies to income from whatever source derived – it doesn’t matter what Section 861 has to say about the source of income, because Section 61 renders all income taxable regardless of its source. **

Evans doesn’t backtrack. He presents an argument in the alternative. He basically says “you are wrong for reason A; not only that, but even if we assume for the sake of argument that you aren’t wrong on reason A, you are also wrong for reason B.” That isn’t a backtrack, it’s an additional argument demonstrating the utter fallacy of the tax protestor position on this matter. **

It’s a good thing that that isn’t the argument, then. The law is that Section 61 ropes in all forms of income from all sources, and unless you have an exception to Section 61, you are liable for tax on all such income.

Let me illustrate: Let’s say you’re an organization created exclusively to provide a qualified group legal services plan. Further say the plan your organization offers does not provide legal services to your client companies’ overseas employees. Here is how you analyze your tax liability:

  1. Section 61 of the code defines your gross income – the starting point for determining tax liability – as any income you may have had from any source during the year, unless you can find an exception.

  2. Fortunately, you have an exception to Section 61 available to you: Section 501 exempts you from taxation (and thus the computation beginning with Section 61), because you are an organization of a type listed in 501©(20).

  3. However, Section 505 imposes some additional requirements on you to keep your exemption, specifically certain nondiscrimination rules – the plan you offer can’t favor “highly compensated individuals,” i.e., it can’t provide more benefits to a client’s CEO than it does to his secretary.

  4. Uh-oh! #3 means you’ll lose your exemption; one of your clients has a small office in Indonesia, and sometimes the Indonesian employees work for short periods in the U.S. offices! Since you don’t provide benefits to the Indonesian employees, your plan might be discriminatory, and thus lose you your exemption.

  5. Fortunately, Section 505(b)(2)(E) might save your bacon: it allows you to exclude from the nondiscrimination rule any employees who are nonresident aliens and who don’t get any U.S.-source income as defined in Section 861(a)(3).

  6. NOW you look to Section 861, to find out if the Indonesian employees have U.S.-source income. If they do, you’re sunk; if they don’t, you’re fine. Let’s consider two alternatives:

6a. The Indonesian employees are only over here for less than three months a year, and their compensation for that time amounts to less than $3,000 bucks. Hooray! You’re fine. You have your exemption intact.

6b. The Indonesian employees are over here for over three months out of the year, or their comp exceeds $3,000 bucks. Oh no! You’re sunk – your plan will have to include these employees or you’ll lose your exemption.

And THAT, dear boy, is how you analyze a statute. You can’t just randomly grab a section, read a sentence out of context, and say you’ve got it – you have to trace each step carefully, looking to see how the different sections work together.

24

Regulators are executive agencies charged with implementing the acts of Congress. In this case, it’s the Treasury Department – specifically, the IRS – that is the regulatory department in question. Regulators can only act within the scope of the authority granted them by Congress – Treasury regulations are subserviant to the U.S. Code. **

“Most legislators” are not lawyers. Cite. While lawyers are certainly overrepresented in Congress relative to their numbers in the general population, they are not a majority, comprising around 35% of all legislators. And dare I say many of those legislators have long ago left the practice of law in favor of full-time politics. Trent Lott and Robert Byrd wouldn’t know how to initiate a lawsuit if their lives depended on it. To call them “lawyers” isn’t terribly accurate, even if technically they do have law degrees.

More to the point, though: it’s silly to say that Congress makes laws complicated to enrich their lawyer buddies. Congresscritters are consumed with one abiding passion: being reelected. To do that, they need to pander to a much larger group of people than just lawyers. And indeed, it is dangerous for them to be closely associated with the profession: being “in the pocket of the trial lawyers” is no road to electoral success. **

Care to explain how “raw greed” is responsible for the tax code? It isn’t like Congresscritters profit personally from its provisions (though they do, of course, attain electoral success in part by pandering to various interest groups).

25

Wick, most people who make a habit of dancing these clever little “tax protest” tarantellas generally wind up with tattered and bleeding anuses you could drive a freight train through compliments of the IRS and the judiciary, and, if they are foolish enough, a jail sentence.

It is obvious by your tax protest website that you have some sort of hero worship vibe going on with Larken Rose who is a mediocre, somewhat delusional con man who has ridden this 861 nonsense for all it’s worth, by selling his set of informational video tapes to earnest “true believers”, the credulous and easily guiled, and the financially desperate.

It is also evident by your musical career website that you are an earnest young man who wants to be taken seriously and has let your somewhat higher than usual paranoia about “the gummit” run a bit wild. Whether this is simply your natural inclination or you were raised in the wild by anti-trilateralists will remain a mystery.

Life is complicated and taxes are complicated as they are part and parcel of a complex law making, adminstrative and economic process. Hanging your hat on this legally, logically and judicially throughly discredited notion may appeal to your “against the machine” sensibilites but in the end you are simply being had by a standard issue, unoriginal, “tax protest” con.

Avoid These Tax Protest Scams Like You Would Avoid The Plague

26

Hey Astro, nice detective work. I just got back from another loud and smokey bar to see your insulting personal comments. I’d engage you but I think I’ll let you hang out as the lowest blower on the thread.

Hey, if I said let’s all fill out zero tax returns and send em in, maybe you’d have more to go on, but I am also preaching caution here.

The one thing you haven’t done is respond to points of law. Again, Dan Evens doesn’t back up the claim that we shouldn’t look to 861 and nobody here is coughing up any citations that say that make it clear that I’m not supposed to look there.
Section 61 lists a bunch of items, not sources. If you want to say sources and items are same then say it, but last I checked different words mean different things especially in the law. They call it legal e’s. I could say everything in the world is taxable, then proceed to define world a thousand sections later as the sunny side of a blade of grass. But on this forum I’m crazy for saying everything on the sunny side of a blade of grass is taxable.

“yes. Section 61 determines income, not Section 861. Section 861 determines the geographic source of certain types of income, which, broadly speaking, is only relevant for certain exceptions relating to foriegn taxpayers.”

Stating that 861 is used for allocation of certain important sources of income to U.S. ect is fine but using one sentance to erase the meaning of the previous sentance is questionable. X does A and B. You can’t say since it does B it doesn’t do A. The words are right there to read, why shouldn’t I believe them?

“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”

It is very true that it allocates certain important sources of income to geographic locations, it is also true that we use this section to determine our taxable income for the purposes of the income tax.

My little bungee jump analogy goes like this: a bungee chord stretches based on the amount of weight applied. A bungee chord specifically keep important body parts from smashing on the rocks. It is absurd to say that the bungee chord doesn’t streatch based on the amount of weight applied because it specifically does the other thing. And not just because reality, because the words say so. Same thing with 861, it does determine sources of income for purposes of the income tax.

Now who is going to cite the law that makes it clear that I’m not supposed to use that section to determine my taxable income?

27

Wick, the whole reason you and others engage in this pointless debate is that you think that your interpretation of the tax law is somehow more important or more meaningful to your tax liability than the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the tax law.

All of the courts that have looked at this argument or any version of it have said that you are wrong. It therefore doesn’t matter that you disagree with these courts because they have the power to decide what the law means and you don’t. It’s really as simple as that.

By the way, I am a tax lawyer, but I will not lower myself to responding to your BS assertions. The 861 argument has been around for a long time and it just gets stupider every time I hear it. Also, you followed the same pattern as every other proponent of this argument I’ve ever seen: you didn’t lay out the full argument yourself, you just linked to Larken Rose’s website. It’s really sad that you’re hitching your wagon to an argument you can’t even understand well enough to argue yourself.

28

I’m really surprised at the illogic behind most of these Sovereign Citizen/Tax Protestor arguments.

Congress says to the voters “We’re going to pass an income tax.” Congress says they want the income tax to apply to everybody’s wages. Congress drafts legislation that is supposed to apply the income tax to everybody’s wages. Congress votes “yes” on said legislation. The President signs said legislation.

Yet the Tax Protestor crowd would have us believe that this legislation was actually, intentionally, worded not to apply the income tax to everybody’s wages, and that Congress and the Courts have all been keeping this “fact” secret from us for decades?!

29

“Life is complicated and taxes are complicated as they are part and parcel of a complex law making, adminstrative and economic process.” said Astro

See Dewey, that’s what I mean by the blatant raw greed of lawyers cum legislators. The combination of legislators and lawyers purposely obfucate in order to protect their mutual professional interests. The all of law is wording. And the words of law should be made so they are cystral clear for the very least of those who are governed to understand. But the all of a shaman’s job is to interpret the complex mystic sayings of the gods. And hey! It’s a living!

30

So… tax laws are complicated, not because these laws have to parse out a myriad of contending interests, and not because they have to deal with the nature of the most complex group of economic interests that have ever existed on the face of the planet, and not because they have to be continually re-adjusted to deal with these changing real world requirements as DC&H aptly illustrated, but they are complicated because it’s a conspiracy of tax lawyers, legislators and accountants.

Hmmm… your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

31

Tax guy, I wouldn’t call this much of an argument. There are a lot of personal insults going on and not a lot of reading.

If you feel like it is to low to argue with somebody who is trying to stay on point and use citations of law, then I don’t know what you think a good argument is. Maybe you would like to argue with somebody who already agrees with you?

I do copy Larken’s stuff but I do understand the argument, it’s just the quickest way to cut and paste the citations. I’m trying to let the words in the law to the talking and not make baseless assertions.

Courts have barely addressed this position and the prosecutors sound like blithering idiots! Check this quote from Even J. Davis from the DOJ in the case against Thurston Bell.

“MR. Davis: Yes, Your Honor. Just a couple of short points. First, the government is not saying that this argument is frivolous because the Tax Court has ruled on it and because courts have enjoined three other people for promoting the same argument.  That’s further evidence of why Mr. Bell should stop and should know and does know that what he’s doing is wrong.  The argument is frivolous because it’s frivolous.  If you look at the regulation, it says in no – that he’s relying on, in no uncertain terms it says that this regulation is only applicable to a certain defined group of other sections of the Internal Revenue Code, calling them operative sections. There is no reasonable way of reading that regulation any other way, and yet Mr. Bell and Mr. Rose and whoever else he would like to submit to the as one of his friends will try to argue the other way, but it’s frivolous because it’s frivolous.  The tax court decisions are helpful to the court, but they also really show that Bell should know and knows that his argument is frivolous.” Page 50, 51 of Thurston Bell preliminary injunction meeting. (I’m not sure if this is posted at nite.org , but I’ll be glad to post it or send upon request.)

Even J. Davis, the attorney for the Department of Justice took a page right out of 1984 to win his case. Maybe I should test this genius line of argument against all of you on this thread. Here it goes YOUR ARE ALL WRONG BECAUSE YOUR WRONG AND I’M RIGHT BECAUSE I’M RIGHT.

Any takers? Do you all agree with me now? If I was defending the judge’s job I would have won!

Here are some supreme court quotes that suggest that the regulations really do matter. What they say really is important and a court can’t go against them.

“The Court has hitherto consistently held that a literal reading of a
provision of the Constitution which defeats a purpose evident when the
instrument is read as a whole, is not to be favored… [and one of the
examples they give is…] ‘From whatever source derived,’ as it is written
in the Sixteenth Amendment, does not mean from whatever source derived.”
[WRIGHT v. UNITED STATES, 302 U.S. 583 (1938)]

“[W]e do not sit as a committee of revision to perfect the
administration of the tax laws. Congress has delegated to the
Commissioner, not to the courts, the task of prescribing “all needful
rules and regulations for the enforcement” of the Internal Revenue Code.
26 U.S.C. 7805 (a). In this area of limitless factual variations, “it is
the province of Congress and the Commissioner, not the courts, to make
the appropriate adjustments.” Commissioner v. Stidger, 386 U.S. 287,
296. The role of the judiciary in cases of this sort begins and ends
with assuring that the Commissioner’s regulations fall within his
authority to implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable
manner.” [UNITED STATES v. CORRELL, 389 U.S. 299 (1967)]

U.S. Supreme Court in in Vlandis v. Kline 412 U.S. 441 (1973) judicially barred the legislatures from enacting any statutes that allow the government to make “irrefutable presumptions” against anyone. Since IRS’ powers are derived from the laws enacted by the Congress, this bar against Congressional authority subsequently bars the IRS from making “irrebuttable presumptions”
Taxguy there is a radio host named Peter McCandless that offers $2000 dollars for you to submit a written answer to a few questions that Larken poses and to go on the air and debate Larken. I’m sure you could negotiate fair parameters in advance. I think it is odd that there have been no takers. I suppose you could just cut and paste Dan Evens work into the questions and make a quick 2Gs.

Hey, folks have a good day, go outside look up into the sky, tell yourself that you’re a good person and that you don’t need to personally attack people for trying to further their understanding of an issue by discussing it with others. If you don’t want to debate then don’t, it is super passive aggressive to tune in, lay some credentials down and then claim that the discussion isn’t worth your time. But it’s funny in an insecure way.

Peace
Wick.The argument is frivolous because it’s frivolous

32

Wick, speaking of reading did you read what Taxguy wrote.

You can seek to get the current tax laws overturned or changed if you think they are unfair, but this tortured parsing of the tax code in order to stand it on it’s head and make it dance for you is a foolish enterprise, and these near absurdist “points” you are attempting to make (“argument” is too generous) have been ruled on and dismissed again and again by the oppressive machine of the judiciary.

You are an earnest and intelligent young man who has been had. Accept this and move on.

33

Geez, I didn’t check in on this thread since my last post because I thought that it would die a quite death. But here it is still flopping around. So my additional two cents.

IMO wick’s analysis of section 861 is wrong, as is his understanding of how law works. Both Dewey and Astro seem to have the some impression of why the tax code is how it is. But lets assume that there is an argument concerning section 861.

The problem with this argument is that it is now a non-argument. It has been made in court and it doesn’t work. It failed. It’s over. Done deal.

So I have two questions for Wick:

1 Is it code section 861 in particular that has got you all fired up, or is it federal taxation in general?

2 If you were to succeed in changing the interruption of the law and therefore the validity of federal taxation, what do you think the outcome of such an event would be?

Just for the record I have never plotted with other professionals to promote the tax code or make it more complex for our financial well being. Most if not all of the professional that I know think that the code is overly complex and cumbersome to deal with, and that our clients expend too much of there personal and business resources dealing with it.

On the other hand, there is huge disagreement of what to do about it. Such is life.

34

Guy blond those are great questions.

I think I have to address this whole court thing first. I’m not willing to concede that these tax court decisions settle the issue, as I have said time and time again tax court isn’t binding case law and the DOJ agrees. Also if Tom Dick and Harry load up on every theory since 1913 including the 861 stuff then looses it’s not fair to say that the court specifically addressed the 861-source argument. The same tax court judge that said some of these cases were frivolous is quoted as saying that 861 is used to determine sources of income. Then the next judge comes along as just cries frivolous and doesn’t have to make any assertions of law. Maybe that’s okay with a lot of you but I see some real problems with it.

It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. I don’t think our judicial system is impartial enough to rule on what would be the largest adjustment of power in the modern world. Does anybody on this thread think that an argument that would end federal taxation as we know it is going to get a fair shake?

Guy blond questions….Yes the 861 evidence has got me all fired up, the history the legal e’s , it gets really cloak and dagger when you trace the history of that section. Recently in all three major printings of the Code of Federal Regulations the indexes were changed to omit terms like ‘sources of income’ that pointed to 861. This is really scary stuff to me and I think a partial admission by the government that it would rather this quietly went away. The index is not the law but a law was passed that made the index required to be able to know the law.

Guy blond question two. My head spins just thinking about it. I have a hard time contemplating it because I don’t see it happening. I see our U.S. economy on thin stilts like the Salvador Dolly painting of the elephant. I see our dollar propped up by OPEC’s willingness to only accept U.S. dollars for oil. I see our trade deficit, our national debt, and social unrest among the increasing poor as factors that may sooner undercut our unsustainable advantage over the rest of the world before a break in the federal tax system.

I argue this stuff because it’s an underdog position with lots of factual support and it smells like the scene of a crime. Also the more sane reasonable debate I get the better I feel about the world in general. When I get comments saying don’t question the lowest most ridiculous court in the land (tax court), I loose a little faith in people’s ability to see through the bars that imprison them.

Wick.

35

Don’t be absurd. Life is complex. The law reflects this complexity. It isn’t a conspiracy.

I’m left wondering why it is in the “professional interest” of a legislator to draft intentionally byzantine legislation; one would think that simpler language would be more popular, and thus in his electoral best interest.

I agree that the law should be as clear as possible, but not at the expense of being overbroad or overnarrow. The first duty of a law is to accomplish its objectives; if it takes a lengthy set of statutory rules to do so, then so be it.

36

The citation for that proposition is “learn some basic reading comprehension.” A simple, disciplined reading of the statutes shows how 861 fits into the scheme of things. See my rather detailed example above for an illustration. **

First of all, let’s note from the outset that Section 61 is very broad, capturing “all income, from whatever source derived,” and then lists examples of items which are considered income. It is not an exclusive list, as indicated by the clause “…including (but not limited to)…” I linked to Section 61 in my lengthy post above for those who would like to read the text.

Secondly, yes, sources and items are different. That’s the point. Section 61 tells us what gross income is. Section 861 determines where gross income came from.

Or, more simply, Section 61 tells us the “what.” Section 861 tells us the “where,” which is only relevant in certain narrow circumstances. **

You seriously need to improve your reading comprehension.

Section 861 (again, linked above) begins with the following declaration: “The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:”

That language does not define gross income. It clearly only states that certain items of gross income will be sourced to the US. Reaching for another interpretation is simply bizarre.

Let me illustrate how stupid this argument is. Let’s say I die with a will. In my will, I say that “the following items in my estate will pass to Rupert,” and I go on to list my fishing rod, CD collection, and coffee table. By your interpretation, that language would mean that my entire estate consisted of a fishing rod, CD collection and coffee table. Which is, not to put too fine a point on it, an idiotic interpretation. **

This leap of logic is astounding. Here you quote language that plainly only says that Section 861 sources income to a given geographic location, and then go on to say – with not a scintilla of stautory language to support you – that it also defines taxable income.

WHERE? Where does it say that? Nothing in the quoted language says anything of the sort. Upon what basis do you say that 861 is used to “determine our taxable income”? **

The words do NOT say so. Your asserting it does not make it true.

Are you sure the bungee cord didn’t snap last time you went for a jump? **

I’d be happy to see you cite where the law says you’re supposed to use Section 861 to determine taxable income.

This should really be moved from GD, because there’s nothing to debate. The OP is demonstrably, factually wrong. It’s a little like “debating” 2+2=5.

37

Davis’ quote is entirely correct: the argument is frivolous because the regulation simply doesn’t say what the defendants say it says (as Davis points out). That’s pretty much the definition of frivolous. It’s like arguing against someone claiming 2+2=5; at some level, you just have to say “look, they’re plainly wrong, and their point is frivolous.” It is indeed frivolous because it’s frivolous.

38

Dewey…
http://www.achadwick.com/861/law/26CFR1.861-1.htm

“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)”

“(a) In general–(1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in
general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources
within the United States after gross income from sources within the
United States has been determined.” [CITE: 26CFR1.861-8]

“Determination of taxable income. The taxpayer’s taxable income from sources within or without the United States will be determined under the rules of Secs. 1.861-8 through 1.861-14T for determining taxable income from sources within the United States.” [26 CFR § 1.863-1©]

“(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]

“Rules are prescribed for determination of gross income and taxable income derived from sources within and without the United States, and for the allocation of income derived partly from sources within the United States and partly without the United States or within United States possessions. §§ 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs. 861-864; ’54 Code.)” [T.D. 6258]

“(g) Gross income from sources within and without United States -
For computation of gross income from sources within and without the United States, see Section 119 [predecessor to 26 USC 861 and following]” [1939 Code, § 22(g)]

“(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. Each of these four provisions applies independently… [T]wo or more of these provisions may have to be applied at the same time to determine the proper allocation and apportionment of a deduction.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(3)(ii)]

“The rules contained in this section [1.861-8] apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(1)]

“[T]he term ‘statutory grouping’ means the gross income from a specific source or activity which must first be determined in order to arrive at ‘taxable income’ from which specific source or activity under an operative section. (See paragraph (f)(1) of this section.)” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(4)]

“The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which gives rise to statutory groupings [see prior citation] to which this section [1.861-8] is applicable [1.861-8] is applicable include the sections described below…” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)]

“(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:
(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer…
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC…
© …the gross income of a possessions corporation…
(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911…” [26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)]

“(3) Class of gross income. For purposes of this section, the gross income to which a specific deduction is definitely related is referred to as a ‘class of gross income’ and may consist of one or more items (or subdivisions of these items) of gross income enumerated in section 61, namely:
(i) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, and similar items;
(ii) Gross income derived from business;
(iii) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(iv) Interest;
(v) Rents;
(vi) Royalties;
(vii) Dividends;… [other “items” listed]” [26 CFR § 1.861-8(a)(3)]

“(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.” [26 CFR § 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii)]

Those are just the binding words in the law talking. I feel like Will ferril in Zoolander when he claims ‘Am I on happy pills here’ Give me just a little, tiny squdget of the possibility that all the people supporting the 861 get their ‘crazy insane nutty’ idea from the actual words in the law.

To determine sources of income from within use 861, without use 862, within and without use 863.

The claim that 861 includes most peoples income is understandable because USC861 and is addressed here….
http://taxableincome.net/debate/otherside/assert7.html

Here’s a site map that most of you can look up the reason why you think the 861 source evidence is ridiculous and at least get the rebuttal. http://taxableincome.net/sitemap.html

I have a lot of cool scans of the 861 regulation and it’s predecessors going back along way if any body wants them.

Wick

39

Some of you have good questions and know enough about the tax code to find your way around.

For a few people who claim to be a tax lawyer or CPA I’ll send you a free copy of ‘theft by deception’ if you agree to review it on this thread and send it back if you think it’s ridiculous. The taxable income report goes over the same material with a b comparisons of older regulations and you can hear the entire report on line at www.achadwick.com/861

I’ll take whatever measures you request to keep information private, like sending it care of the post office or P.O. box. Ect.

If any of you with credentials care to write a complete rebuttal/ refutation of Larken’s work there is a very good chance he would post it or at least write a response.

I have to go play a wedding today and perform Brown Eyed Girl for the thousandth time, then give some of my proceeds to the U.S. government so we can kill some more Iraqis…

Wick

40

All that proves is that you can copy and paste without reading. Nothing in what you’ve posted says what you claim it says if you actually read each provision in full.

Here’s a hint: pay careful attention to the phrases “…from sources [within/out] the United States…” and “[f]or purposes of this section…” Note where they are used, and how they change the meanings of the sentences containing them.

I’m apt to follow TaxGuy’s lead on this if blind cutting and pasting is all you can do. Parse out any one of your citations and explain your interpretation – in your own words, no less – or we’re done here.

On preview: you want me to take even more of my limited time to review a book on this topic, when the meager points you’ve already raised are clearly facially invalid? Thanks, but no thanks. Why don’t you try raising a valid objection first?