cpt banjo wrote:

On Feb 17, 2:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

From email list
For reasons shown below, I believe that one should use Section 861 of the
federal tax
code, and the regulations related to that section, to determine one's
taxable DOMESTIC income
(income from inside the U.S.). However, the vast majority of tax
professionals do NOT use those
sections for that, and the IRS very much does NOT want people looking
there.

If all of one's income is US-sourced, all tax professionals know that
Section 861 is irrelevant to computing one's taxable income.

Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

Sec. 1.861-8(f)(3)(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.

Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United
States and from other sources and activities.

Don Lancaster wrote: Dale_E@synapticsparks.info

The little old lady and her husband down the street who just did a year
in the slammer believing this crap.

Mr. Lancaster, DaleE@synapticsparks.info

I have a copy of the "TTL Cookbook" sitting on my shelf.

That title should be intimately familiar to you since you wrote it.

That title proves to me that your momma didn't raise an idiot...

Now why don't you step outside your ignorant prejudice and examine the
facts?

I've been to yours, now you visit mine
:http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/tax scams

On Feb 20, 3:59 am, "Dale E" Dale E@synapticsparks.info> wrote:

Don Lancaster wrote: Dale_E@synapticsparks.info


The little old lady and her husband down the street who just did a year
in the slammer believing this crap.

Mr. Lancaster, DaleE@synapticsparks.info

I have a copy of the "TTL Cookbook" sitting on my shelf.

That title should be intimately familiar to you since you wrote it.

That title proves to me that your momma didn't raise an idiot...

Now why don't you step outside your ignorant prejudice and examine the
facts?

I've been to yours, now you visit mine

:http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/tax scams

I visited your scam site dale!!
please vist mine !

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.fraudsandscams.com larken rose tax scams 861

I'm so glad you left the original cross posts, so more of the world
can see the important info on tax scams

glad you like it dale !

Don Lancaster wrote: Dal...@synapticsparks.info

The little old lady and her husband down the street who just did a year
in the slammer believing this crap.

Mr. Lancaster, D...@synapticsparks.info

I have a copy of the "TTL Cookbook" sitting on my shelf.

That title should be intimately familiar to you since you wrote it.

That title proves to me that your momma didn't raise an idiot...

Now why don't you step outside your ignorant prejudice and examine the
facts?

I've been to yours, now you visit mine

:http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/taxscams

I visited your scam site dale!!
please vist mine !

www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
www.quatloos.com internet tax scams
www.fraudsandscams.comlarken rose tax scams 861

--

http://www.synapticsparks.info/weekly/tax.scam

The page number of the Form 1040 instructions that say:

You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and
pensions, from sources inside the United States unless exempt by law or a
tax treaty. You must also report earned income, such as wages and tips,
from sources inside the United States.

I can't find it... But I CAN find the page in the instruction book that
says:
You must report unearned income, such as interest, dividends, and
pensions, from sources outside the United States unless exempt by law or a
tax treaty. You must also report earned income, such as wages and tips,
from sources outside the United States.

"Dale E" <"Dale E"@synapticsparks.info> wrote in message
news:IByCh.104$PL.41@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

cpt banjo wrote:


On Feb 17, 2:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:


From email list
For reasons shown below, I believe that one should use Section 861 of the
federal tax
code, and the regulations related to that section, to determine one's
taxable DOMESTIC income
(income from inside the U.S.). However, the vast majority of tax
professionals do NOT use those
sections for that, and the IRS very much does NOT want people looking
there.

If all of one's income is US-sourced, all tax professionals know that
Section 861 is irrelevant to computing one's taxable income.

Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

Sec. 1.861-8(f)(3)(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.

Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

Sec. 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United
States and from other sources and activities.


And if you do not have income from both within and without the US,
the whole procedure outlined in 1.861-8 becomes redundant

and
all you US sourced income will drop into one grouping

and all the
associated deductions are subtracted from it and what ever is left
becomes taxable income per 26 USC 861(b): "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." However, Larken and Dale's arguments totally ignore
what the law says in 861(b).

cpt banjo wrote:

And you didn't even have the guts to rely on Section 861 in your
defense, did you? Instead, you avoided the snake oil that you peddle
to others and relied instead on a Cheek defense -- that is, instead of
trying to convince the judge that your view of Section 861 was legally
correct, you abandoned what you profess to believe and tried to
convince the jury that you has a good faith belief that your views on
the law were correct, so that you didn't "willfully" evade taxes. But
the jury didn't buy it, did they?

Those that were at that trial know it was as much of a sham as any
other federal tax trial.

Mr. Macdonald's arguments totally ignore what the law says in 1.861-8,
1.861-8T, 1.861-1

"cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1171745374.651600.264320@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 17, 2:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
From email list
For reasons shown below, I believe that one should use Section 861 of the
federal tax
code, and the regulations related to that section, to determine one's
taxable DOMESTIC income
(income from inside the U.S.). However, the vast majority of tax
professionals do NOT use those
sections for that, and the IRS very much does NOT want people looking
there.

If all of one's income is US-sourced, all tax professionals know that
Section 861 is irrelevant to computing one's taxable income.

Actually 861 et seq and associated regulations are quite important
for the allocation and apportionment of expenses to gross income
in the computation of taxable income. However trying to give them
any more meaning or interpretation beyond the powers of the
overlaying statutes is totally unsupportable as many found out the
hard way.

26 USC (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. . . .

Ignoring the LAW or attempting to interpret the regulations
in a manner not consistent with the LAW is a sure loser. The
entire 861 argument totally ignores the actual LAW.

An exchange of labor for anything of value is not a "gain."
It is a even exchange, time, sweat, labor, for tangible goods.
Even exchange. No tax.
No apportionment, no legal tax.

An exchange of labor for anything of value is not a "gain."

It is a even exchange,

time,

sweat,

labor,

for tangible goods.

Even exchange.

No tax.

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
An exchange of labor for anything of value is not a "gain."


Sure it is.




It is a even exchange,



It's absolutely not even.

Why would an employer pay you exactly the amount of revenue you generated?
The employer isn't going to pay you 100% of what you generate. They never
have, and never will.

time,

Carries no cost.


sweat,


Carries no cost.




labor,


Carries no cost.




for tangible goods.


Then you have income in the amount of the goods received.




Even exchange.


But it's not.




No tax.


But there is.

On Feb 22, 2:47 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

An exchange of labor for anything of value is not a "gain."
It is a even exchange, time, sweat, labor, for tangible goods.
Even exchange. No tax.
No apportionment, no legal tax.

Sigh...another one who doesn't know that gain isn't measured by the
difference in value of the things exchanged.

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
An exchange of labor for anything of value is not a "gain."

Sure it is.

It is a even exchange,

It's absolutely not even.

Why would an employer pay you exactly the amount of revenue you
generated? The employer isn't going to pay you 100% of what you generate.
They never have, and never will.

A man contracts to work a given amount of time for a specified payment.
Once done, the transaction is complete and they both walk away.

Why would an employer pay you exactly the amount of revenue you
generated? The employer isn't going to pay you 100% of what you generate.
They never have, and never will.


A man negotiates a trade with another. That's the end of it.

A man contracts to work a given amount of time for a specified payment.
Once done, the transaction is complete and they both walk away.

That's free trade in free markets by free men.

You likely know all about business overhead, ledger systems and tax law,
so I'm going to give it to you straight, most people don't care. Most
people know that complexity breeds plenty of ways to get screwed. Most
people are practical. They have what is known as common sense.

The federalist constitution says that there may be a head tax IF it
is equally apportioned. This means that the federal government *may*
tax each citizen an equal share of the nation's cost of government.

So, figure up the total, divide by the number of citizens, and
send them each a bill at the end of each year. This is the only way
to fairly and reasonably tax.

That won't happen because thieves and opportunists disguised as
fair-minded, rational people have a stake in ventures that screw their
fellow citizens.

Maybe you'll get lucky and miss the next purge.