On Aug 26, 6:17 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted

from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free

because of the Constitution itself.

barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."

All labor starts out untaxable unless in a regulated activity or
foreign trade.

Is that logical, larkin?

Not for you.

2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.

Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.

And foreign earned income of a citizen.
But no mention of purely domestic activities.

Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?

You are obfuscating.
Disinfo 101.

3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.

Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?

Because that is where the index sends EVERYONE to detrmine if they
have any taxable activity.

Is that logical, larkin?

The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.

The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.

But don't address the facts stated.
Disinfo 101.

Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).

Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe...

More disinfo but no substance.

Look in the index.
To find taxable income.
All references point to it.

Taxable income is gross income minus deductions- section 63.


Once one determines if they were engaged in taxable activities...

All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.

Any wealth exchanged for labor is gross income- section 61, therefore it
is taxable.


Liar.

Period.
You will never get it unless you understand this basic concept of the
Constitution.
All one need do is rebut 1099's and W-2's.

Sorry, can't find "1099's and W-2's" in the Constitution and nothing
about rebuttals. You rebut facts not laws, dimwit.


To bad...more obfuscation.
Don't need them if not a taxpayer.

Anyone born on American soil can exchange his labor without tax unless
apportioned to the states.

Nope. There is not a single income tax that ever needs to be
apportioned- 16th Amendment.


Right. If you are in a taxable activity that is indirectly taxed.
If you are not, no tax, no direct tax unless apportioned.
"16th created no new powers of taxation." USSC.

Period.
Only priviledged activities are indirectly taxable and make one a
"taxpayer."

You are a taxapayer if you are subject to any internal revenue law.


No taxable activity, no liability, no juristiction over the exchange
of private labor.

If
you have taxable income, you are liable for the income tax.


No, only an employer is liable.
He must withhold for "employees."
Anyone who knows what they are doing signs a W-4 "Exempt."

"Privilege" has nothing to do with anything.


Liar.
Indirectly taxed activities must be "avoidable."
Those are the actvities listed in 861 et al.

Period.
The 16th amendment created "no new powers of taxation."

Correct on that point. All direct taxes must still be apportioned and
all indirect taxes must still be uniform.


Gee, you got one right.


Taxation on income is an
indirect tax so no apportionment is required.


Yup, indirect because one can avoid the taxable activities.
All labor is not taxable unless apportioned.
If it were it would be called a labor tax.

Period.
www.theft-by-deception.com

More tax cult gibberish from a jailbird.


He didn't go to jail for being wrong.
He went to jail for not rebutting the 1099's.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

I note that knews-chewy can not defend a single point made by barkin
larkin and can only regurgitate standard tax cult gibberish.


You haven't proven he is wrong about taxable activities being the only
way to directly tax income. The 16th changed nothing. You are
obfuscating thew terms "income" and "employee."

Are you capable of independent thought, chewy?
It's clearly evident that you aren't.


I was signing W-4's "exempt" long before Rose ever showed his face.
I discovered that the 1040 instructions told citizens with only
domestic income to use the Form 2555 years ago.
The 1040 form is only for Residents of Puerto Rico.

YOU ARE THE VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN.

Your Labor is not taxed, just the gain recognized,
otherwise I would owe tax for mowing my own lawn.

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 6:17 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

1) Many decades of income tax regulations very specifically said
that, in addition to those types of income specifically exempted

from tax by the tax code, some OTHER income is also tax-free

because of the Constitution itself.

barkin larkin's reasoning: "There is income that is exempt under the
Constitution from taxation; therefore, my income is exempt."

All labor starts out untaxable unless in a regulated activity or
foreign trade.

Nope, the only thing that is "untaxable" is exports from any state.
Everything else is taxable.

Liar.


Is that logical, larkin?

Not for you.

Did you know that the primary trait of an incompetent person is that
person does not know he is incompetent.

Ad hominem noted.


2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)), includes
four types of international trade. No mention is made of the
domestic income of the average American.

Yea, one of those "types of income which are NOT exempt" from that list
is the foreign earned income of a foreign person.

And foreign earned income of a citizen.
But no mention of purely domestic activities.

It is clear that you have never even looked at section
1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii). Look it up, dimwit, and get back to us.

Read:

Hey larkin, can Congress really tax the foreign earned income of a
foreign person, or are you taking something out of context and haven't
got a clue as to what you are talking about?

You are obfuscating.
Disinfo 101.

Did you know that barkin larkin actually claims the regulations contain
a typographical error, ie., they put in one too many "nots" in order for
his interpretation of the regs to mean what he wants them to mean?

Liar.

But you would have to be smarter to catch that, chewy.

Ad hominem noted.


3) In the older version of the tax codes, there was a section which
very plainly stated that in the case of FOREIGNERS, and in the case
of Americans with POSSESSIONS income, compensation for services
performed inside the U.S. (as well as other kinds of domestic
income) is, after subtracting allowable deductions, to be included
in full as TAXABLE income.

Now why would an American with domestic income be looking in a section
that applies only to foreigners and Americans with possessions income?

Because that is where the index sends EVERYONE to detrmine if they
have any taxable activity.

Do you know what "in the case of" means, chewy?

It means that section only applies to the specified subjects. Besides,
that section has nothing to do with "taxable activities", dimwit.

Index points to 861 to determine taxable income.


Is that logical, larkin?

The objective, thinking scientific mind seeks to explain evidence,
rather than looking for an excuse to IGNORE it.

The objective, thinking scientific mind first determines if the
"evidence" he is looking at is real or the figment of someone's deluded
imagination.

But don't address the facts stated.
Disinfo 101.

barkin larkin and you have stated nothing but gibberish, chewy.
There are no facts to address.

Read the report:

Well, for anyone who's interested in learning more about the
"bloody knives," you too can now have your very own copy of my
recent updated, much-improved "Taxable Income" report, for the low,
low price of... zero dollars and zero cents (just like it's always
been).

Well, as anyone with any sense can find, you get exactly what you pay
for. hehehehehe...

More disinfo but no substance.

Are you capable of writing a complete sentence with accurate grammar, chewy?

More obfuscation noted.


Look in the index.
To find taxable income.
All references point to it.

Taxable income is gross income minus deductions- section 63.

Once one determines if they were engaged in taxable activities...

The realization of income is the "taxable activity", chewy.

"Income is the measure of the activity being taxed."


All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.

Any wealth exchanged for labor is gross income- section 61, therefore it
is taxable.

Liar.

Do you see "compensation for services in any form paid"? It is right
there in section 61, dumbass.

After determining if your income is from a taxable activity.


Period.
You will never get it unless you understand this basic concept of the
Constitution.
All one need do is rebut 1099's and W-2's.

Sorry, can't find "1099's and W-2's" in the Constitution and nothing
about rebuttals. You rebut facts not laws, dimwit.

To bad...more obfuscation.
Don't need them if not a taxpayer.

But you said you did.

Don't need W-2's or 1099's.


Anyone born on American soil can exchange his labor without tax unless
apportioned to the states.

Nope. There is not a single income tax that ever needs to be
apportioned- 16th Amendment.

Liar.

Right. If you are in a taxable activity that is indirectly taxed.
If you are not, no tax, no direct tax unless apportioned.
"16th created no new powers of taxation." USSC.

But the realization of income or IOW, the act of deriving income is the
"taxable activity" you harp so much about.

And, it is "indirectly
taxed" by the income tax.

Liar.

Period.
Only priviledged activities are indirectly taxable and make one a
"taxpayer."

You are a taxapayer if you are subject to any internal revenue law.

No taxable activity, no liability, no juristiction over the exchange
of private labor.

The act of deriving income of which the income tax taxes satifies even
your deluded claims, chewy.

Liar.


If
you have taxable income, you are liable for the income tax.

No, only an employer is liable.
He must withhold for "employees."
Anyone who knows what they are doing signs a W-4 "Exempt."

Whether or not an employer withholds taxes is immaterial to your tax
liability if you have taxable income, dimwit.

Liar.

Section 1 imposes a tax on your taxable income regardless of whether or
not your employer withholds a tax.

"Taxable income" must first be determined.

"Privilege" has nothing to do with anything.

Liar.
Indirectly taxed activities must be "avoidable."
Those are the actvities listed in 861 et al.

You want to avoid the income tax? Then don't get paid for your labor.
See, it's avoidable.
Regardless, no income tax requires apportionment. Period.

any direct tax requires apportioment.

Period.
The 16th amendment created "no new powers of taxation."

Correct on that point. All direct taxes must still be apportioned and
all indirect taxes must still be uniform.

Gee, you got one right.

Taxation on income is an
indirect tax so no apportionment is required.

Yup, indirect because one can avoid the taxable activities.
All labor is not taxable unless apportioned.
If it were it would be called a labor tax.

That is why it is an INCOME TAX, dimwit.

No, the "income" is a measure of the taxable "activity."

Period.
www.theft-by-deception.com

More tax cult gibberish from a jailbird.

He didn't go to jail for being wrong.
He went to jail for not rebutting the 1099's.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm

Are you going to defend barkin larkin, or are you going to defend the
crackhead theories of pete letter bomb hendrickson? Because the two
theories are incompatible as well as gibberish.

Red Herring noted.


I note that knews-chewy can not defend a single point made by barkin
larkin and can only regurgitate standard tax cult gibberish.

You haven't proven he is wrong about taxable activities being the only
way to directly tax income. The 16th changed nothing. You are
obfuscating thew terms "income" and "employee."

Are you changing the subject again? The "taxable activity" is the act
of deriving income.

Are you now going to concede that point and argue
the meaning of 'income' and 'employee'?

All relevant. They are legal "terms."

Are you capable of independent thought, chewy?
It's clearly evident that you aren't.

I was signing W-4's "exempt" long before Rose ever showed his face.
I discovered that the 1040 instructions told citizens with only
domestic income to use the Form 2555 years ago.
The 1040 form is only for Residents of Puerto Rico.

Whatever form you want to claim, the form does not change the fact that
section 1 makes an individual liable for a tax if he has taxable income.

Nope, the only thing that is "untaxable"...

Liar.

knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:

2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)),

You got anything of substance to argue?

Index points to 861 to determine taxable income.

Paul Maffia wrote:


YOU ARE THE VILLAGE IDIOT OF MORON TOWN.

Does that make you a 'special' retard???????

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1188155636.611208.86980@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...



On Aug 26, 1:38 am, "Richard Macdonald" <rmacdon...@verizon.net
wrote:
knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1188105465.054002.161270@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

On Aug 25, 2:02 pm, nat <esen...@tx.rr.com> wrote:

All wealth for the exchange of one's labor is does not start out
taxable.

This falacy has been shown to be in error so many times, that
bothering with the details is meaningless for discussion. The
only reason to respomd is to prevent otheres from falling into
this error.

Liar.
Show where one's labor is taxable if not engaged in a priviledged
activity.

Your Labor is not taxed, just the gain recognized,
otherwise I would owe tax for mowing my own lawn.

Liar.

Show the law that makes "everyone liable" for a SPECIFIC TAX.

26 USC

All exchanges of labor start out as non-taxable unless ENGAGED IN A
listed "activity" exchanged for labor.

Unmittigated crap.

knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:

2) After saying that the "items" of income listed in Section 61 are
sometimes exempt, the current regulations give a list of types of
income which are NOT exempt--i.e., which ARE taxable. The list,
which you can go look up yourself (1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)),

Please cite a justification for 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii) having any authority
outside the subjects covered by 1.861-8T(d)(2) which are:

1.861-8T(d) Excess of deductions and excluded and eliminated items of
income.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded or eliminated
income-(i) In general. In the case of taxable years beginning after December
31, 1986, except to the extent otherwise permitted by §1.861-13T, the
following rules shall apply to take account of income that is exempt or
excluded, or assets generating such income, with respect to allocation and
apportionment of deductions.

And what is your Constitutional Justification for this being actually
taxable by the United States Government:
1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a
foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income,
gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively
connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business;

So please enlighten us as to Congress' authority to tax the foreign, not
effectively connected income of foreign persons. Can Congress tax the income
of Chineese Farmers?

Only corporate "income" and other privileged
(foreign trade) activities are taxable.

knowsnot> wrote

Only corporate "income" and other privileged
(foreign trade) activities are taxable.

Where does it say that?

Where does it say "only"?

On Aug 27, 1:25 pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net
wrote:

knowsnot> wrote

Only corporate "income" and other privileged
(foreign trade) activities are taxable.

Where does it say that?

Screw you. The law is simple if followed right from the BEGINING and

Where does it say "only"?

Come on now -- you're asking Knews the Cretin to actually cite the law
in support of his insane claims?