| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » But the Law Says....
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:10 pm |
|
|
|
|
<From email list>
Dear Subscriber,
The issue which this series of messages
addresses is often called the "861 evidence." You may note,
however, that I haven't even MENTIONED "861" until now,
demonstrating that there is a whole lot more to the issue than one
section. But now it's time to address 861 itself. 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. Let's consider a few things that the lawbooks
themselves say:
1) Section 861 itself is titled "Income from
sources within the United States" (while Section 862 is about
income from outside of the U.S.). The first two subsections of 861
are titled "Gross income from sources within United States" and
"Taxable income from sources within United States."
2) If you
look in the indexes of the tax code, under "gross income," you'll
see entries regarding "sources within the United States," which
direct the reader to Section 861. If you look under "taxable
income," you'll see entries referring to 861 regarding income from
within the U.S. If you look under "deductions," you'll see 861
referenced regarding determining taxable income from sources within
the United States.
3) Section 61 gives the broadly-worded general
definition of "gross income." Up until 2001, all three major
printings of the tax code (USC, USCA, USCS) included a cross-
reference under Section 61 itself, pointing to Section 861
regarding income from sources INSIDE the U.S. You can see scans of
such cross-references here:
http://irobyou.info/TaxableIncome_Net/exhibits/61crossref.html
4)
The regulations which go along with Section 861 include Section
1.861-1, which is titled "Income from sources within the United
States," as well as Section 1.861-8, which is titled "Computation
of taxable income from sources within the United States [*]and from
other sources and activities." (The part after the asterisk was
added in 1978.)
5) Section 1.861-1 addresses three types of
income: income from INSIDE the U.S., income from OUTSIDE the U.S.,
and income which comes from both inside and outside. Concerning
domestic income (income from inside the U.S.), the regulation very
plainly shows Section 861 and its regulations (and in some cases
Section 863 as well) to be the place to look. The actual regulation
can be found here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/26cfr1i_06.html
6)
Section 1.861-8 of the regulations begins by saying this:
"(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."
There are many other sections
which point to 861 and its regulations regarding the determination
of one's domestic "gross income" and "taxable income" (e.g., 26 CFR
1.863-1(c), Treasury Decision 6258), but the above will do for now.
Notice that none of the above citations give even the slightest
hint that only certain people should use those sections in certain
unusual circumstances. No, the lawbooks say over and over again,
unequivocally and unconditionally, that 861 is the place to be
regarding income from INSIDE the U.S. (If you have income from
outside the U.S., other sections, particularly 862, deal with
that.)
Having seen the above, what would you think of someone
saying that it's "frivolous" for me to think I should use 861 to
determine my taxable domestic income? How about "baseless"? Maybe
"ridiculous," or even "stupid"? And, in light of the above, what
would you think about me getting PROSECUTED, and then thrown in
prison, for using 861 and its regulations to determine my "taxable
income from sources within the United States"?
Well, I did. And
my wife is in prison right now (halfway through her 30-day
sentence) for doing just that. You may think I'm making this up,
because it's so absurd. I am REQUIRED to determine my tax liability
(if any) the way the LAW says to determine it. Remember, this is
all about how to COMPLY with the law, and I complied exactly with
the citations you see above. For my trouble, I was thrown in prison
for a year.
People who haven't been following the issue will
probably have a really hard time believing what I just said. I
wouldn't believe it myself if it hadn't happened to me. You may
wonder, what did the government cite from the law itself
demonstrating that I was wrong to use 861 (and related regulations)
to determine my taxable domestic income? Absolutely nothing. In
fact, when I met with the IRS to discuss the issue (at my request)
they admitted that they weren't familiar with the sections I just
cited above, and could not answer my questions--one of which was
whether I should be using 861 to determine my taxable domestic
income. They said they would do further research and get back to
me. They never did, unless you call raiding my house in 2003
"getting back to me." Yep, a dozen armed IRS agents invaded my
home, stole every copy they could find of my "Theft By Deception"
video (www.861.info), my "Taxable Income" report (explaining the
issue above in detail), etc. Then they prosecuted me for doing what
the law COMMANDED me to do.
If you're thinking, "That cannot be,"
I sympathize. You can get the whole story, with all the surreal
details, later. For now, just look again at the citations above,
and ask yourself, is there anything frivolous about what I did? Is
it ridiculous of me to think I should have referred to Section 861?
Soon we'll see what those sections say (and then you'll know WHY
the IRS really doesn't want people looking at those sections). But
for now, I know of no better "assumption versus evidence" test than
this: Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see
above), or what IRS bureaucrats and tax professionals baselessly
ASSERT? Most people choose the latter. Apparently the jury in my
case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the law itself and
instead obey the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and
commands of the people who work for the IRS, DOJ, and the courts--
who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from the money the IRS
collects. Does that seem odd to you?
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
<end> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
§ 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.
(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
( Social security benefits.
What part of that don't you understand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:33 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 17, 12:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: From email list
Dear Subscriber,
Soon we'll see what those sections say (and then you'll know WHY
the IRS really doesn't want people looking at those sections). But
for now, I know of no better "assumption versus evidence" test than
this: Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see
above), or what IRS bureaucrats and tax professionals baselessly
ASSERT? Most people choose the latter. Apparently the jury in my
case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the law itself and
instead obey the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and
commands of the people who work for the IRS, DOJ, and the courts--
who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from the money the IRS
collects. Does that seem odd to you?
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
end
And the next case....
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/Update2007-01-25.htm |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cpt banjo |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Feb 17, 2:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: 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.
Quote: Having seen the above, what would you think of someone saying that it's "frivolous" for me to think I
should use 861 to determine my taxable domestic income? How about "baseless"? Maybe
"ridiculous," or even "stupid"? And, in light of the above, what would you think about me getting
PROSECUTED, and then thrown in prison, for using 861 and its regulations to determine
my "taxable income from sources within the United States"?
I'd think that a con artist got what he deserved.
Quote: Well, I did. And my wife is in prison right now (halfway through her 30-day sentence) for doing just
that. You may think I'm making this up, because it's so absurd. I am REQUIRED to determine my
tax liability (if any) the way the LAW says to determine it. Remember, this is all about how to
COMPLY with the law, and I complied exactly with the citations you see above. For my trouble, I
was thrown in prison for a year.
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?
By the way, you also failed to pay your Pennsylvania income taxes.
Since there's no provision of PA tax law comparable to Section 861,
what's your excuse? Could it be it's because you're a freeloading con
artist?
Quote: Is it ridiculous of me to think I should have referred to Section 861?
Yes, as every court that has ever addressed your idiotic arguments has
held.
Quote: Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see above), or what IRS bureaucrats
and tax professionals baselessly ASSERT?
The law doesn't say what you say it does.
Quote: Apparently the jury in my case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the law itself and instead obey
the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and commands of the people who work for the IRS,
DOJ, and the courts-- who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from the money the IRS collects.
Does that seem odd to you?
No, that wasn't what the jury was supposed to decide. Because you ran
like a scalded cat away from your own argument, their job was to
decide whether you had willfully evaded taxes, and the factual issue
on that point was whether you had a bona fide belief that you didn't
have to pay taxes because of Section 861. But the jury didn't buy
your lies, and they convicted you. Guess they weren't as gullible as
the folks who bought into your scam, were they? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:10 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 17, 12:49Â pm, "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote: 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.). Â 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.
Having seen the above, what would you think of someone saying that it's "frivolous" for me to think I
should use 861 to determine my taxable domestic income? How about "baseless"? Maybe
"ridiculous," or even "stupid"? And, in light of the above, what would you think about me getting
PROSECUTED, and then thrown in prison, for using 861 and its regulations to determine
my "taxable income from sources within the United States"?
I'd think that a con artist got what he deserved.
Well, I did. And my wife is in prison right now (halfway through her 30-day sentence) for doing just
that. You may think I'm making this up, because it's so absurd. I am REQUIRED to determine my
tax liability (if any) the way the LAW says to determine it. Remember, this is all about how to
COMPLY with the law, and I complied exactly with the citations you see above. For my trouble, I
was thrown in prison for a year.
And you didn't even have the guts to rely on Section 861 in your
defense, did you? Â 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. Â But
the jury didn't buy it, did they?
By the way, you also failed to pay your Pennsylvania income taxes.
Since there's no provision of PA tax law comparable to Section 861,
what's your excuse? Â Could it be it's because you're a freeloading con
artist?
Is it ridiculous of me to think I should have referred to Section 861?
Yes, as every court that has ever addressed your idiotic arguments has
held.
Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see above), or what IRS bureaucrats
and tax professionals baselessly ASSERT?
The law doesn't say what you say it does.
Apparently the jury in my case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the law itself and instead obey
the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and commands of the people who work for the IRS,
DOJ, and the courts-- who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from the money the IRS collects.
Does that seem odd to you?
No, that wasn't what the jury was supposed to decide. Â Because you ran
like a scalded cat away from your own argument, their job was to
decide whether you had willfully evaded taxes, and the factual issue
on that point was whether you had a bona fide belief that you didn't
have to pay taxes because of Section 861. Â But the jury didn't buy
your lies, and they convicted you. Â Guess they weren't as gullible as
the folks who bought into your scam, were they?
( Note: Prior messages in this series can be found here:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/LarkenRose/index.html )
Dear Subscriber,
At this point, some of you may be thinking, "Well, if this guy went
to prison, what good is this info?" Good question. Let me add to
your apprehension by saying this: If you want to avoid trouble,
IGNORE the parts of the law that tell you to use 861 (and related
regulations) to determine your taxable domestic income. Oh, and
ignore the thing about some income being excluded because of the
Constitution. Oh, and ignore the fact that everywhere the tax laws
discuss the issue of commerce, only certain international trade is
mentioned. In fact, for the purely practical-minded among you, you
might want to pretend you never heard about any of this. And you
definitely don't want to hear what comes next, because we're about
to see evidence of the largest financial fraud in history,
perpetrated by the most powerful government in history.
As Plato said, it's dangerous to be right when the government is
wrong. I don't suggest that people do what I did, so if blissful
ignorance is your goal, you can stop reading now. If you don't want
to be faced with evidence that should anger and frustrate you,
don't continue. If you don't want to know when you're being
defrauded and robbed, and if you don't want to know what your
government has become, read no further. You can choose to be like
those Germans who didn't WANT to know what Hitler was up to, or the
Russians who turned a blind eye to what their country became. On
the other hand, you might have the attitude...
"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to
the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this
the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for
liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having
eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so
nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole
truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." [Patrick Henry]
For radicals with that attitude... on with the show!
As an exercise, try using the following section to determine your
taxable domestic income:
“(a) In the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to
the benefits of section 262[*], the following items of gross income
shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
(1) Interest on bonds, notes, or other interest-bearing
obligations of residents, corporate or otherwise;
(2) The amount received as dividends from a domestic
corportation…;
(3) Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the
United States;
(4) Rentals or royalties from property located in the United
States…;
(5) Gains, profits, and income from the sale of real property
located in the United States;
(b) From the items of gross income specified in subdivision (a)
there shall be deducted [the allowable deductions]. The remainder,
if any, shall be included in full as net income from sources within
the United States.”
(* One could only be entitled to the benefits of section 262 if
most of his income came from federal possessions, such as Guam or
Puerto Rico.)
So, did you have any trouble using that to determine YOUR taxable
domestic income? It clearly says that U.S.-source income is taxable
for CERTAIN people (probably not including you), but it said
nothing about the income of the average American. So the rest of us
can't do much of anything with it; it says nothing about OUR
income.
So why should we care? Because what you see above is the
"grandfather" of Section 861 said back in the 1920's (back then it
was Section 217). Would anyone mistake that to mean that domestic
income is taxable for ALL American citizens and residents? No. It
very specifically stated for WHOM such domestic income was taxable
(foreigners and people with possessions income), and very
conspicuously did NOT mention Americans who live and work only
inside the 50 states. And THIS is where the current sections for
determining one's taxable domestic income (861 and regs) came from.
(Are you starting to see WHY the IRS is so desperate for us NOT to
look at this part of the law?)
Why on earth would the law specifically say that those types of
domestic income, including wages earned inside the U.S., are
taxable for FOREIGNERS and for CERTAIN Americans (who have
possessions income), instead of saying that domestic income is
taxable for EVERYONE? "Conventional wisdom" says that income earned
in the U.S. is taxable for everyone. So why would the lawmakers go
out of their way, using more words, to NOT say that it's taxable
for ALL Americans?
Recall that the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that we are NOT
to interpret tax laws as if they apply to matters "not specifically
pointed out." It would be hard to think of a better example of the
law specifically pointing out certain things, while conspicuously
omitting other things. If you really owe the tax, why on earth
would the law say only that income from inside the U.S. is taxable
for certain people OTHER THAN YOU? If they meant to say it's
taxable for everyone, why didn't they?
Now, you might wonder, how does the government explain this? They
don't. I've never seen any IRS form letter, any notice or lower
court ruling, talk at all about the history of Section 861. I have
seen a couple people, who apparently are ignorant of the history of
the section, claim that 861 means that domestic income is taxable
for everyone (though IRS Chief Counsel lawyers know enough that
they have never argued that). In the following messages we'll see
why someone might think that, and why it's dead wrong. In the
process we'll see clear evidence of cover-up and fraud, perpetrated
by the federal lawmakers and regulation-writers.
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
<end list email> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Johnson |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:31 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Feb 17, 1:14 pm, "Dave Johnson" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Who pays you to peddle your lies, propaganda, and IRS front websites? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dave Johnson |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:48 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Lancaster |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Feb 17, 1:14 pm, "Dave Johnson" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:> On Feb 17, 12:49 pm, "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
on Feb 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.).
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Larken - Are you already out of prison and scamming again? better
talk to Dale!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlwww.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com/www.quatloos.comwww.quatlosers.com
Who pays you to peddle your lies, propaganda, and IRS front websites?
The little old lady and her husband down the street who just did a year
in the slammer believing this crap.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171745374.651600.264320@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| default |
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Apparently, knews4u2c missed the fact that Larken Rose, the foremost
proponent of the silly 861 argument in recent times just got out after
serving far too short a sentence for using this insanity in his defense.
Oh,yes, Tessa Rose also went off to the slammer for an even shorter sentence
and Dr. TOM has just left to spend 5 years at a club Fed..
But then, no one here has ever said that kenws4u2c had an ounce of brains or
sense.
"cpt banjo" <cptbanjo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171745374.651600.264320@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote: 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.
Having seen the above, what would you think of someone saying that it's
"frivolous" for me to think I
should use 861 to determine my taxable domestic income? How about
"baseless"? Maybe
"ridiculous," or even "stupid"? And, in light of the above, what would
you think about me getting
PROSECUTED, and then thrown in prison, for using 861 and its regulations
to determine
my "taxable income from sources within the United States"?
I'd think that a con artist got what he deserved.
Well, I did. And my wife is in prison right now (halfway through her
30-day sentence) for doing just
that. You may think I'm making this up, because it's so absurd. I am
REQUIRED to determine my
tax liability (if any) the way the LAW says to determine it. Remember,
this is all about how to
COMPLY with the law, and I complied exactly with the citations you see
above. For my trouble, I
was thrown in prison for a year.
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?
By the way, you also failed to pay your Pennsylvania income taxes.
Since there's no provision of PA tax law comparable to Section 861,
what's your excuse? Could it be it's because you're a freeloading con
artist?
Is it ridiculous of me to think I should have referred to Section 861?
Yes, as every court that has ever addressed your idiotic arguments has
held.
Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see above), or
what IRS bureaucrats
and tax professionals baselessly ASSERT?
The law doesn't say what you say it does.
Apparently the jury in my case decided that I was obliged to IGNORE the
law itself and instead obey
the unsupported, legally worthless assertions and commands of the people
who work for the IRS,
DOJ, and the courts-- who, coincidentally, all get their paychecks from
the money the IRS collects.
Does that seem odd to you?
No, that wasn't what the jury was supposed to decide. Because you ran
like a scalded cat away from your own argument, their job was to
decide whether you had willfully evaded taxes, and the factual issue
on that point was whether you had a bona fide belief that you didn't
have to pay taxes because of Section 861. But the jury didn't buy
your lies, and they convicted you. Guess they weren't as gullible as
the folks who bought into your scam, were they?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
Quote: § 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.
(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
( Social security benefits.
What part of that don't you understand.
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.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c08/20051040.html
=======================================================
http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/c02/index.html
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
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.
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.
Internal Revenue Code
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....
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.
(a) In general--(1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general
terms how to determine taxable income ...
This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code
sections ...
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.862-1(b) Taxable income.
The taxable income from sources without the United States, in the case
of the items of gross income specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, 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.
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.863-1(c) 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.
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.861-8 (a)(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;
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.861-8 (b) Allocation--(1) In general.
See paragraph (d)(1) of this section which provides that in a taxable
year there may be no item of gross income in a class or less gross
income than deductions allocated to the class, and paragraph (d)(2) of
this section which provides that a class of gross income may include
excluded income.
Huh? A class of gross income may include "excluded income"?
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.861-8 (a) In general--(4) Statutory grouping of gross income
and residual grouping of gross income.
For purposes of this section, the term ``statutory grouping of gross
income'' or ``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 [that] specific source or
activity...
In some instances ... the statutory grouping or the residual grouping
may include, or consist entirely of, excluded income.
See paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to the allocation
and apportionment of deductions to excluded income.
Huh?
* A statutory grouping of gross income may include, or consist
entirely of, "excluded income".
* A residual grouping of gross income may include, or consist
entirely of, "excluded income".
* A class of gross income may include "excluded income".
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.861-8 (d) Excess of deductions and excluded and eliminated income--
(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded, or eliminated
income. [Reserved] For guidance, see Sec. 1.861-8T(d)(2).
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.861-8T (d)(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded,
or eliminated income--
(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.
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.861-8T (d)(2) Allocation and apportionment to exempt, excluded,
or eliminated income--
(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:
What are they trying to hide?
Exempt = Not Taxable
Eliminated = Not Taxable
Excluded = Not Taxable
Not considered to be Exempt = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Not considered to be Eliminated = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Not considered to be Excluded = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Double Negatives cancel.
Not considered to be Exempt = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Not considered to be Eliminated = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Not considered to be Excluded = Not considered to be Not Taxable
Not considered to be Exempt = Considered to be Taxable
Not considered to be Eliminated = Considered to be Taxable
Not considered to be Excluded = Considered to be Taxable
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.861-8T (d)(2)(iii) Income that is considered [taxable]
(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;
(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC and its
related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;
A DISC is a Domestic International Sales Corporation.
A FSK is a Foreign Sales Corporation.
Code of Federal Regulations
Sec. 1.861-8T (d)(2)(iii) Income that is considered [taxable]
(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the
computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation
and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a
possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section
936(a); and
(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the
regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not
require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions,
including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for
purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section
911(d)(6)).
--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/weeklydalee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
cpt banjo wrote:
Quote: 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.
(a) In general--(1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general
terms how to determine taxable income ...
This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code
sections ...
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.862-1(b) Taxable income.
The taxable income from sources without the United States, in the case
of the items of gross income specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, 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.
Code of Federal Regulations
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
Sec. 1.863-1(c) 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.
2 OF 6 Questions asked of the IRS by 1,200 people... (That is NOT a
typo. One Thousand Two Hundred.)
2 OF 6 Questions asked of the IRS by 1,200 people and a scanned copy
of the reply:
http://www.synapticsparks.info/evidence/2of6Q.html
Quote: 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. By the way, here's an excerpt of the Cheek
decision:
=CHEEK= Held: 1. A good-faith misunderstanding of the law or A
GOOD-FAITH BELIEF THAT ONE IS NOT VIOLATING THE LAW NEGATES
WILLFULNESS, whether or not the claimed belief or misunderstanding is
objectively reasonable.
STATUTORY WILLFULNESS, which protects the average citizen from
prosecution for innocent mistakes made due to the complexity of the
tax laws, United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389 , IS THE VOLUNTARY,
INTENTIONAL VIOLATION OF A KNOWN LEGAL DUTY. United States v.
Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10 . Thus, if the jury credited Cheek's assertion
that he truly believed that the Code did not treat wages as income,
the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness,
however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Characterizing
a belief as objectively unreasonable transforms what is normally a
factual inquiry into a legal one, thus preventing a jury from
considering it. And FORBIDDING THE JURY TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE THAT
MIGHT NEGATE WILLFULNESS WOULD RAISE A SERIOUS QUESTION UNDER THE
SIXTH AMENDMENT'S JURY TRIAL PROVISION, which this interpretation of
the statute avoids. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's
claim, THE JURY IS FREE TO CONSIDER ANY ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE SHOWING HE
HAD KNOWLEDGE OF HIS LEGAL DUTIES.
=COMMENT= Held: 1. A good faith belief that one is not violating the
law negates willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief is
objectively reasonable.
2. Statutory willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a
known legal duty.
3. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate
willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's
jury trial provision.
Item three above is of importance when coupled with the details within
the case itself.
=CHEEK= JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 26, 7201 of the United States Code provides that any person "who
willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by
this title or the payment thereof" shall be guilty of a felony. Under
26 U.S.C. 7203, "[a]ny person required under this title . . . or by
regulations made under authority thereof to make a return . . . who
willfully fails to . . . make such return" shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor. This case turns on the meaning of the word "willfully" as
used in 7201 and 7203.
=COMMENT= As does any case under 7201 or 7203. And any Chapter 75 case
turns on the definition of person covered here.
<http://www.triallogs.com/index.php/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,31/topic,156.msg423#msg423>
=CHEEK= In the course of its instructions, the trial court advised the
jury that, to prove "willfulness," the Government must prove the
voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty, a burden
that could not be proved by showing mistake, ignorance, or negligence.
=COMMENT= There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty".
=CHEEK= II. The general rule that ignorance of the law or a mistake of
law is no defense to criminal prosecution is deeply rooted in the
American legal system.
Based on the notion that the law is definite and knowable, the common
law presumed that every person knew the law. This common law rule has
been applied by the Court in numerous cases construing criminal statutes.
The proliferation of statutes and regulations has sometimes made it
difficult for the average citizen to know and comprehend the extent of
the duties and obligations imposed by the tax laws. Congress has
accordingly softened the impact of the common law presumption by
making specific intent to violate the law an element of certain
federal criminal tax offenses. Thus, the Court almost 60 years ago
interpreted the statutory term "willfully" as used in the federal
criminal tax statutes as carving out an exception to the traditional rule.
....
Taken together, Bishop and Pomponio conclusively establish that the
standard for the statutory willfulness requirement is the "voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty."
=COMMENT= There is more to follow regarding this "known legal duty".
=CHEEK= A. Willfulness, as construed by our prior decisions in
criminal tax cases, requires the Government to prove that the law
imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty,
and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
=COMMENT= The only way to prove that the law imposes a duty on a
defendant is for the government to SHOW THE JURY the statute that
creates the duty. Never is proof shown to the jury that there was a
duty created by a statute. Never is the statute the creates the duty
shown to the jury.
Here is a summary of points:
1. A good faith belief that one is not violating the law negates
willfulness, whether or not the claimed belief is objectively reasonable.
2. Statutory willfulness is the voluntary, intentional violation of a
known legal duty.
3. Forbidding a jury to consider evidence that might negate
willfulness would raise a serious question under the Sixth Amendment's
jury trial provision.
4. The government must prove the voluntary and intentional violation
of a known legal duty.
5. Willfulness ... requires the government to prove that the law
imposed a duty on the defendant.
6. The only way the government can prove #5 is to show the jury the
written words of law.
7. Without #5, #4 can NOT happen.
8. When a court does not allow the defendant to force the government
to show the written words of law that the government claims imposes a
duty on the defendant (#5) the court has effectively forbidden the
jury to consider evidence that might negate willfulness.
9. The government did NOT do #5 or allow #6 in the Simkanin trial, the
Rose trial, or the Schiff trial, and from what Mr. Jahn says, it
sounds like it didn't happen in Mr. Farnsworth's case either.
http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/joesmith.html
Quote: Which would you give more weight to, what the law SAYS (see above), or what IRS bureaucrats
and tax professionals baselessly ASSERT?
The law doesn't say what you say it does.
It doesn't say what you say it does either.
--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/weeklydalee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Feb 17, 1:14 pm, "Dave Johnson" <nospam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Feb 17, 4:10 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:> On Feb 17, 12:49 pm, "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
on Feb 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.).
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
Larken - Are you already out of prison and scamming again? better
talk to Dale!
www.evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.htmlwww.lookstoogoodtobetrue.com/www.quatloos.comwww.quatlosers.com
Who pays you to peddle your lies, propaganda, and IRS front websites?
Kirby aka dave aka hale aka a dozen other KNOWN 'nyms means you are
arguing with a sock puppet.
--
http://www.synapticsparks.info/weeklydalee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dale E |
| Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Don Lancaster wrote:
Quote: The little old lady and her husband down the street who just did a year
in the slammer believing this crap.
Mr. Lancaster,
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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:42 pm
|
|