| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » But the Law Says....
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Paul Thomas |
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
sticking his fingers in his ears and repeating over and over
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: The exchange of labor for tangible goods is not taxable.
No, it's not, at least in your case. When you do the dishes for your momma,
and she feeds you, you don't have taxable income.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas |
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote
Quote: Because you "need" a job.
Why? What do you stand to gain form a "job"?
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
For those who do not, none will suffice."
- Joseph Dunniger
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 5:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172369072.723042.201920@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
"The (sixteenth) ammendment created no new powers of taxation." It
changed NOTHING. That means there is no "income" tax on wages that are
not apportioned to the states by population.
Another complete falacy, the only case that said an Income Tax
required apportionment, the Pollock decision, only applied this
rule to Income from PROPERTY such as rents, and dividends.
What the Pollock decision said about income from labor was:
"We have considered the act only in respect of the tax on income
derived from real estate, and from invested personal property,
and have not commented on so much of it as bears on gains or
profits from business, privileges, or employments, in view of
the instances in which taxation on business, privileges, or
employments has assumed the guise of an excise tax and
been sustained as such."
.. . ."
"If that be stricken out, and also the income from all invested
personal property, bonds, stocks, investments of all kinds, it
is obvious that by far the largest part of the anticipated revenue
would be eliminated, and this would leave the burden of the
tax to be borne by professions, trades, employments, or
vocations; and in that way what was intended as a tax on
capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations
and labor. We cannot believe that such was the intention
of congress. We do not mean to say that an act laying by
apportionment a direct tax on all real estate and personal
property, or the income thereof, might not also lay excise
taxes on business, privileges, employments, and vocations.
But this is not such an act, and the scheme must be considered
as a whole. Being invalid as to the greater part, and falling, as
the tax would, if any part were held valid, in a direction which
could not have been contemplated, except in connection with
the taxation considered as an entirety, we are constrained to
conclude that sections 27 to 37, inclusive, of the act, which
became a law, without the signature of the president, on
August 28, 1894, are wholly inoperative and void."
The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled a tax on income
from labor to be a direct tax, it has always been in the
nature or guise of an excise. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cpt banjo |
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 24, 8:04 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: "The (sixteenth) ammendment created no new powers of taxation." It
changed NOTHING. That means there is no "income" tax on wages that are
not apportioned to the states by population.
Congress already had the power to tax personal earnings without
apportionment before the 16th Amendment. Read the Springer case,
idiot. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| default |
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
You are assuming that boobs like Knews4u can read and understand English.
Based on all the gibberish we see from them, don't you think that is a poor
and inappropriate assumption?
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172412929.716694.324650@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Feb 24, 8:04 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
"The (sixteenth) ammendment created no new powers of taxation." It
changed NOTHING. That means there is no "income" tax on wages that are
not apportioned to the states by population.
Congress already had the power to tax personal earnings without
apportionment before the 16th Amendment. Read the Springer case,
idiot.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| esenter |
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote:
But the gains are taxable.
No gains. I make an even trade.
Define 'gain'.
Why should your definition be different than the common definition:
GAIN = RECEIPTS (revenue) minus COSTS. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| esenter |
Posted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 2:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
cpt banjo wrote:
Quote: On Feb 24, 8:04 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
"The (sixteenth) ammendment created no new powers of taxation." It
changed NOTHING. That means there is no "income" tax on wages that are
not apportioned to the states by population.
Congress already had the power to tax personal earnings without
apportionment before the 16th Amendment. Read the Springer case,
idiot.
The "new power", as referenced in the quotation, is not about Congress'
general power of taxation, but was about removing the apportionment
requirement on an otherwise Direct Tax- thus, "no new power of
taxation". All Direct Taxes must still be apportioned.
Nonetheless, an income tax on wages, or a wage tax, is not and has never
been a Direct Tax. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
Quote: "Dale E" <"Dale E"@synapticsparks.info> wrote
The page number of the Form 1040 instructions that say:
What page do you find that on?
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 am looking for the EXACT wording shown above that compliments the
exact wording shown below.
None of your post does that.
Quote: 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.
Sure, in the section that specifically is describing Foreign-Sourced Income.
Page 22 in the instructions I have.
Great. Now where is that section "that specifically is describing
Domestic-Sourced Income"?
Quote: Why then would the instructions for Line 7 Wages, Salaries, Tips, etc. read
in part: "Enter the total of your wages, salaries, tips, etc. If a joint
return, also include your spouse's income. For most people, the amount to
enter on this line should be shown in box 1 of their Form(s) W-2."
W-2 forms are only issued to employees working in US businesses (ie: US
sourced income).
People in China don't get W-2's. People in Canada don't get W-2's. People
in Mexico don't get W-2's.
Only people who fill out W-4's get W-2's. Prove to me that I am
required by title 26 to fill out a form W-4 (or a W-9). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale Eastman |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Shyster1040 wrote:
Quote: Dale, Dale, Dale, you're such a posturing ignoramus and, obviously, you
have learned nothing during your little hiatus. Why didn't you take a
copy of the IRC with you when you went to the federal pen - you would have
had plenty of free time to actually read the thing for the first time in
your life.
Here's some more words for you to add to your vocabulary:
li·bel Law. n. 1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or
typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a
person's reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a
statement to the public.
Your libel is a lie without proof, therefore it may be refuted without
proof. You are a liar.
Quote: So, let's try the following:
1) Code Sec. 6011(a) - "General rule. When required by regulations
prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by
this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return
or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. Every person required to make a return or statement shall
include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."
Let's highlight that last bit: "Every person required to make a return or
statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or
regulations."
Let's highlight the highlighting:
"EVERY PERSON REQUIRED TO MAKE A RETURN OR STATEMENT shall include
therein the information required by such forms or regulations."
A person must FIRST be required to make a return. That sentence does
NOT require ANY person to make a return. That sentence only requires
the information to be on the return IF the return is required.
Perhaps we need to back up just a little bit, to see WHO is REQUIRED
by this section to make a return or statement:
"any person MADE LIABLE for any tax imposed by this
title or with respect to the collection thereof,
shall make a return or statement..."
Query:
Who is "MADE LIABLE" for Subtitle A - Income Taxes?
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 3 - WITHHOLDING OF TAX ON NONRESIDENT ALIENS
AND FOREIGN CORPORATIONS
Subchapter B - Application of Withholding Provisions
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax
under this chapter IS HEREBY MADE LIABLE for such tax
and is hereby indemnified against the claims and
demands of any person for the amount of any payments
made in accordance with the provisions of this
chapter.
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under chapter 3,
which is in regard to "withholding of tax on nonresident aliens and
foreign corporations.
Who is the person required to deduct and withhold tax under chapter 3?
7701(a)(16) Withholding agent
The term "withholding agent" means any person
required to deduct and withhold any tax under the
provisions of section 1441, 1442, 1443, or 1461.
6011(a) does not apply to me.
Moving along:
Quote: 2) Code Sec. 6012(a) - "General rule. Returns with respect to income
taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following: (1)(A) Every
individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or
exceeds the exemption amount, [exceptions not quoted because none provides
a wholesale exception regarding income derived from sources within the
U.S.]"
"The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation
of tax assessment and collection. They relate to
taxpayers, and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are
without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for
nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of
their rights and remedies in due course of law. With
them [nontaxpayers] Congress does not assume to deal,
and they are neither of the subject nor of the object
of the revenue laws". [emphasis added] Economy
Plumbing and Heating Co. v. United States, 470 F. 2d
585 (1972)
I'm a "nontaxpayer". The tax laws do NOT apply to me.
Only "taxpayers" have "taxable years".
7701(a)(23) Taxable year
The term "taxable year" means the calendar year, or
the fiscal year ending during such calendar year,
upon the basis of which the taxable income is
computed under subtitle A.
A "taxable year" is the basis for computing "taxable income". No
"taxable income" -> No need for a "taxable year" "basis".
Unless you finish this discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/6cc947c6a1d1eaca?hl=en
You can NOT prove I have ANY form of gross income.
Until you prove I have any form of gross income, section 6012 does not
apply... And I'm still waiting for you to "tan my hide" as you
threatened in that thread.
Quote: 3) Reg. 1.6011-1(a) requires the use of prescribed forms.
If one is NOT "MADE LIABLE" no form is required.
Quote: 4) Reg. 1.6012-1(a)(6) provides that, unless otherwise provided, Form
1040 is the form "prescribed for general use in making the return required
under this paragraph [i.e., Reg. 1.6012-1(a)]."
You have not proven that a return is required because you haven't
proven that I have gross income.
You can't prove I have gross income until you prove that what is
defined as gross income is something I receive. You dropped that like
a hot potato:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.taxes/msg/6cc947c6a1d1eaca?hl=en
Quote: 5) Form 1040 requires you to report all of your items of income, earned
and unearned, on a world-wide basis, i.e., both from sources within the
U.S. as well as from sources without the U.S.
Except that's not what the instructions say... And the instructions
agree with 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii).
The instructions say:
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.
Nobody has shown 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.
Quote: Since Form 1040 requires you to report all items of income, earned and
unearned, derived from sources within the U.S.,
The instructions say:
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.
Nobody has shown 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.
Which brings this discussion full circle.
Quote: Code Sec. 6011 obligates
you to comply with those requirements and to report the income.
No, it doesn't. I am not "MADE LIABLE".
Quote: QED
Geez, Dale, what were you doing with yourself in the federal pen,
circle-jerking? Or wouldn't your boyfriend respect your need for personal
time?
Here's some more words for you to add to your vocabulary:
li·bel Law. n. 1.a. A false publication in writing, printing, or
typewriting or in signs or pictures that maliciously damages a
person's reputation. b. The act or an instance of presenting such a
statement to the public.
Your libel is a lie without proof, therefore it may be refuted without
proof. You are a liar.
--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/weeklydalee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dale E" <"Dale E"@synapticsparks.info> wrote
Quote: 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 am looking for the EXACT wording shown above that compliments the exact
wording shown below.
Childs play.
§ 61 Gross income defined.
(a) General definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income
means all income from whatever source derived
Section 61 is inclusive of foreign sources AND domestic sources AND
intergalactic sources. So the income you earn on Mars is taxable on your US
income tax return.
Now it's your turn to prove that domestic sourced income is specifically
exempt.
No where does it state that domestic income is exempt from tax.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Mr. Macdonald,
I want your best quality arguing points.
Take your time in answering.
Take the time to make your best shots.
Take your time to proof read your posts.
(I'm only going to correct your typos this one time.)
It all goes here:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/richardmacdonald.html
This is your chance to embarrass me on my own web site.
Make it count.
Please number your points so that they all can be addressed, or shown
to not be addressed.
(I WILL number the points as they seem to be unique if you don't.)
If you would like italics, bold, or underlining shown on the web page,
I will do so if you indicate which words to format.
Richard Macdonald wrote:
Quote: 1. Dale seems to confuse LAW and mere regulations that have no
power to alter what the law says and that's why his BS always
fails.
2. Again the LAW, Section 26 USC 861 says:
26 USC 861(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.
3. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable
income from sources within the United States.
Quote: 4. So until Dale can clearly demonstrate where Regulations
written by Treasury Department bureaucrats have the power
to alter and overcome statutes enacted by Congress,
5. which
under the Constitution are the Supreme law of the Land, the
entire basis for his assertions are worthless.
1. Properly promulgated regulations have the full force and effect of
law. I am required to obey properly promulgated regulations.
Therefore, properly promulgated regulations are also "the law".
2. The items of gross income specified in subsection (a) MUST be items
of gross income "for federal income tax purposes."
3. G - D = N is the format of the equation being laid out by section
861(b). If a certain item of gross income is NOT an item of gross
income "for federal income tax purposes" then "G" equals zero before
the deduction even begins to be apportioned or allocated to the "gross
income" "G". If "G" is zero to begin with, then there can be NO
remainder.
4. The regulations interpret the statutes within the Constitutional
limits of Congress. Those regulations do NOT alter anything.
Simplified example follows:
4a. If the Constitution says that red gizmos can not be taxed by
Congress, then Congress can not tax red gizmos. If Congress then
enacts a statute that says, "There is hereby imposed upon gizmos, a
tax of blah, blah. Congress STILL can not tax red gizmos. The
regulations will NOT show any tax upon red gizmos, though the
regulations will address gizmo taxes on every other type of (taxable)
gizmos. Such a regulation does NOT alter or overcome the gizmo
statute enacted by Congress.
4a1. It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the
light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it
cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was
within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach.
So, although general language was introduced into the statute it is
not to be read as reaching to matters in respect to which the
legislature had no constitutional power, but only as to those matters
within its control.
McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia 172 U.S. 102 (1898)
4a2. Therefore, a statute levying a tax on gizmos is "to be read in
the light of the constitution". "However broad and general its
language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond the restriction
which prohibits taxing red gizmos."
"So, although general language was introduced into the statute it is
not to be read as reaching to" taxing red gizmos "in respect to which
the legislature had no constitutional power, but only as to those
matters within its control."
That would be Taxing NON-red gizmos.
4b. Congress gave the the power to the Secretary of Treasury: "...the
Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the
enforcement of this title..." 26 USC 7805.
4b1. "In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the
established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond
the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operation
so as to embrace matters not so specifically pointed out. In case of
doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in
favor of the citizen."
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917)
4b2. The following list is a list of gizmos that are not exempt and
thus may have deductions allocated and apportioned to them: White
Gizmos, Blue Gizmos, Yellow Gizmos, Brown gizmos.
Your logic insists that red gizmos are taxable.
5. To be addressed later.
--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/richardmacdonald.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dale E" <"Dale E"@synapticsparks.info> wrote
Quote: This is your chance to embarrass me on my own web site.
Not to worry Dale, you are your own embarassment.
§ 61 Gross income defined.
(a) General definition.
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income
from whatever source derived
"all income from whatever source derived" means that you INclude domestic
sourced income, foreign sourced income, and intergalactic sourced income.
That temp job of yours on Mars is includable in your US total income, and,
if greater than the standard deduction and personal exemption, becomes
taxable income.
Unless of course, you can show where domestic sourced income is specifically
excluded from gross income.
--
If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons?
----------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dale E" <"Dale E"@synapticsparks.info> wrote in message
news:oGAEh.6063$_73.2267@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:
Richard Macdonald wrote:
The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled a tax on income
from labor to be a direct tax, it has always been in the
nature or guise of an excise.
Wrong.
So Dale, give me the citation of any Supreme Court
case that said otherwise. Go ahead, name the case. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 4 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:34 am
|
|