| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » Is IT Frivolous?
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
|
<BEGIN SUBSCRIBER EMAIL>
Part 1
Dear
Subscriber,
Once upon a time there was an income tax law, and
that law included a section which said (to paraphrase) that in the
case of CERTAIN people (i.e., foreigners, and Americans with
possessions income) income from inside the U.S., such as wages
earned here and interest from domestic investments, was taxable.
Why didn't it mention the domestic income of ALL U.S. citizens and
residents? Was it the mother of all typos? Was it something that
has since been "fixed"? Is income earned here NOW taxable for all
of us? Let's trace that section of law through the years, and see
if we can find out.
1) Through the 1920's, the section (then 217)
was very plainly only saying that domestic income was taxable "In
the case of a nonresident alien or of a citizen entitled to the
benefits of section 262 [meaning those who get most of their income
from federal possessions, such as Guam or Puerto Rico]." It said it
right up front, and in plain English. No one could mistake the
section to mean that domestic income is taxable for ALL Americans.
2) In 1932, that section of the law mostly remained the same,
except the phrase about "in the case of a nonresident alien..."
disappeared. By itself, the section (then 119) seemed to be saying
that the listed types of domestic income are taxable for anyone who
receives them. HOWEVER, the official Executive Branch regulations,
which require the approval of Congress before they are passed, did
NOT change. They continued to say that the listed types of domestic
income are taxable for FOREIGNERS, and for Americans with
POSSESSIONS income. And they said that in several places. So the
correct application of the law had not changed. (In the following
couple of decades, however, some (but not all) of the regulations
admitting that vanished from the law books.)
In 1954, when the
section became Section 861 (which has remained essentially the same
ever since), Congress specifically said that the application of
that part of the law had NOT significantly changed (except for a
slight change in an obscure rule about nonresident aliens
temporarily in the country). In other words, what Section 119 meant
before, Section 861 means now. The statute itself changed hardly at
all, but the wording of the related regulations underwent some
extremely suspicious changes:
3) You may recall from prior
messages in this series that Section 1.861-8 of the regulations is
where we're repeated told to go to determine our "taxable income
from sources within the United States." Well, what the equivalent
section said prior to 1954 was that the listed types of domestic
income were, after deductions, to be included as taxable income, in
the case of NONRESIDENT ALIENS and FOREIGN CORPORATIONS doing
business in the U.S. After 1954, the "in the case of..." phrase
once again disappeared.
4) That section, before and after 1954,
gave an example of how to determine taxable domestic income. All
the numbers remained the same, but prior to 1954 the example was
plainly about "a nonresident alien individual," but after 1954 that
phrase was changed to "a taxpayer."
5) The regulation about
domestic interest previously said, as plain as day, that interest
on U.S. investments was to be included in the "gross income" of
foreigners and people with possessions income. After 1954, the
section remained exactly the same, except for the REMOVAL of the
phrase about foreigners and possessions stuff. (Remember, Congress
said that application of this part of the law had NOT changed.)
6)
After 1977, though Section 861 of the statutes didn't change at
all, the main regulation for determining taxable domestic income
(Section 1.861- went from ONE page in length to over THIRTY
pages, and many new "legalese" terms were introduced (which did not
exist in the statutes or any other regulations), such as "operative
sections," "specific sources," "statutory groupings," etc. The
section STILL says that domestic income is taxable in the case of
people engaged in certain activities (including foreigners doing
business here, and Americans doing business in federal
possessions), but it now explains it in the most convoluted manner
imaginable.
Again, the history of the section shows that the scope
and application of the section has NOT CHANGED since the 1920's,
when it obviously said that domestic income was taxable for
FOREIGNERS and for Americans with POSSESSIONS income. So what was
the purpose of the changes shown above? They all have the tendency
of leading the reader to believe that domestic income is taxable
for EVERYONE, though they never come right out and SAY that. Why
have those sections NEVER, in over 80 years, said anything about
the domestic income of an American who lives and works just in the
50 states?
I don't at all mind when people at first think that
what I'm suggesting can't possibly be true. But whatever the truth
is, there must be an explanation for the evidence that exists. It
sure LOOKS like someone was trying to make it more difficult to
understand that the sections for determining taxable domestic
income only show income to be taxable for certain people engaged in
international trade, but NOT for all Americans. Can you think of
any innocent explanation for all those changes?
Some people think
that merely calling something a "conspiracy theory" makes it
untrue. But of course, sometimes there ARE conspiracies, where a
group of people cooperate to commit a fraud. The fact that this
would be the biggest financial fraud ever (tricking 100,000,000
people into handing over a trillion dollars a year that they don't
actually owe) doesn't automatically make it untrue. Again, whatever
the truth is, there must BE an explanation of the evidence. When
the government says "frivolous" and "nonsense," and harrasses,
vilifies, robs, censors, and imprisons people, that's not an
explanation of the evidence--it's merely an effort to SUPPRESS the
evidence.
Now why, do you suppose, might they want to do that,
instead of explaining what it really means? If I'm off my rocker,
or if I'm missing something, misquoting or misreading something,
wouldn't it behoove the government to politely point that out,
instead of trying to forcibly silence me? Shouldn't they be EAGER
to answer questions, explain sections of law, and clear up all this
"confusion"? So why won't they?
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
www.larkenrose.com
Part 2
Dear Subscriber,
So now you've had a crash course (or crash
rehash) of the 861 evidence. While the conclusion (that most of us
never owed a penny in federal income taxes) is obviously difficult
at first to accept, the path leading to that conclusion consists
entirely of solid steps.
1) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense,"
"without merit," or "stupid" to think that there are some kinds of
income which, though not exempted by any particular section of the
tax code, are nonetheless NOT subject to the federal income tax
because they are, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the
federal government"? Since, as we've now seen, that's exactly what
many decades of official income tax regulations SAY, how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?
2) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
international trade MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes
must be paid on such income? Since the current regulations, and 80+
years of older regs, have said exactly that (while NOT mentioning
purely domestic income), how could any honest person call it
"frivolous"?
3) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without merit," or
"stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points out things
to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT apply to
anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme Court has
said exactly that over and over again (and the principle of law,
"inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any honest person
call it "frivolous"?
4) Is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that we should all use Section 861 of
the tax code, and the related regulations, to determine how much
(if any) taxable DOMESTIC income we have? Since a pile of citations
straight from the government's own lawbooks say exactly that, how
could any honest person call it "frivolous"?
5) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to think that income from
inside the U.S. is taxable for nonresident foreigners, and for
certain people who also receive income from federal possessions
(e.g., Guam, Puerto Rico)? Since over 80 YEARS of statutes and
regulations which "evolved" into the current 861 and its
regulations say that as plain as the nose on your face, how could
any honest person call it "frivolous"?
6) Is it "frivolous,"
"nonsense," "without merit," or "stupid" to wonder why the sections
of law about "income from sources within the United States have
NEVER said that such income is taxable for any U.S. citizen who
does NOT do business in federal possessions? Since that has been
true for over 80 years, how could any honest person call it
"frivolous"?
7) Again, is it "frivolous," "nonsense," "without
merit," or "stupid" to think that, when the law specifically points
out things to which it applies, we should conclude that it does NOT
apply to anything NOT specifically pointed out? Since the Supreme
Court has said exactly that over and over again (and the principle
of law, "inclusio unius," dictates it as well), how could any
honest person call it "frivolous"?
So let's put all the non-
frivolous, perfectly reasonable (if not downright undeniable) steps
together, and see what we get:
There are some kinds of income, not
exempted by any statute, that are nonetheless tax-free because of
the Constitution itself. Income from international trade, however,
MUST be reported as "gross income," and taxes must be paid on such
income. There are particular sections of law to be used to
determine when income from INSIDE the U.S. is taxable, and for over
80 years those sections said that such income is taxable for
foreigners, and for Americans with possessions income, but did NOT
say that U.S.-source income was taxable for all Americans. It is
well established that one should NOT assume that tax laws apply to
any matters which are not specifically pointed out.
Not to beat a
dead horse, but notice again that all of this is about how to
properly determine one's taxable income--in other words, how to
correctly COMPLY with the law. It's not about a loophole, a trick,
a protest, or anything of the sort--it's about DETERMINING WHAT WE
OWE, and that's all. So why are the feds so fond of calling people
"tax cheats" and "tax protestors" for talking about this stuff? Why
do they paint this conclusion as a "fraudulent tax scheme"? Why do
they vilify, demonize, threaten, and prosecute people for believing
what THE LAW says, or even for just asking QUESTIONS about the law?
Name-calling is one thing, but how despicable is it for the feds
to throw people in PRISON for believing what you see above, having
NEVER cited ANYTHING in the law refuting any of it? Is it okay when
they refuse to answer simple questions, and instead publicly
slander people, characterizing them as criminals and tax cheats,
execute armed invasions of their homes, subject them to a mock
trials at which all relevant evidence is suppressed, and finally
throw them in prison?
The term "terrorism" is often defined as
the use of force to achieve a political end. Doesn't that describe
what the IRS and DOJ have been doing? Whatever you believe the
truth to be, or whatever you think of my conclusions, is it okay
with you that your government uses violence to deal with the issue,
instead of using the law, or reason, or evidence, or logic?
In my
next message, you'll hear a bit about what our lovely "public
servants" have done to one person in particular, and you can decide
for yourself who is on the side of justice.
Sincerely,
Larken
Rose
www.larkenrose.com
<END SUBSCRIBER EMAIL> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cpt banjo |
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Some idiot cowering behind <knews4u2chew wrote
Quote: Once upon a time.....
And that is the beginning of fairytales and tax protestor manuals (or DVD's,
or CD's), what's it matter when they both are the same.
The only difference is in the ending. In the fairytales it ends "and they
all lived happily ever after". In the tax protestor world, it ends "and
they ended up paying the back taxes, penalties and interest and/or faced
jail time".
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
--
"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 |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 19, 5:02 am, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
Quote: Some idiot cowering behind <knews4u2chew wrote
Once upon a time.....
And that is the beginning of fairytales and tax protestor manuals (or DVD's,
or CD's), what's it matter when they both are the same.
The only difference is in the ending. In the fairytales it ends "and they
all lived happily ever after". In the tax protestor world, it ends "and
they ended up paying the back taxes, penalties and interest and/or faced
jail time".
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
So you think the extortion in which you assist the criminals is ok
then?
So you are also a criminal.
Or are you "just doing your job" like the Nazis were? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Paul Thomas, CPA |
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Some idiot hiding behind knews4u2chew wrote
Quote: So you think the extortion in which you assist the
criminals is ok then?
It's not extortion, it's the law. You're free to break it, and the
government would then be compelled to enforce it, including punishment if
necessary.
Quote: So you are also a criminal.
I help people obey the law.
You encourage folks to break it.
--
Have no fear of perfection - you'll never reach it.
----------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:15 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 18, 1:59?pm, "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
Quote:
Yes, it is, because there is absolutely no authority under current law
to support the claim that there is some kind of income that's
constitutionally exempt.
Are you saying the interest on state and local bonds is not
CONSTITUTIONALLY exempt from Federal income tax? .....OOPS!
Cheers,
WDK |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<KEBSCHULLW@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1174360532.427893.308330@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Mar 18, 1:59?pm, "cpt banjo" <cptba...@aol.com> wrote:
Yes, it is, because there is absolutely no authority under current law
to support the claim that there is some kind of income that's
constitutionally exempt.
Are you saying the interest on state and local bonds is not
CONSTITUTIONALLY exempt from Federal income tax? .....OOPS!
What he is pointing out is that all the Constitutionally exempt
income is currently also statutorily exempt under current law.
So if it isn't exempt under current law, it's not exempt under the
Constitution. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| strabo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
Quote: Some idiot hiding behind knews4u2chew wrote
So you think the extortion in which you assist the
criminals is ok then?
It's not extortion, it's the law. You're free to break it, and the
government would then be compelled to enforce it, including punishment if
necessary.
So you are also a criminal.
I help people obey the law.
You encourage people to weaken the American republic and ignore their
self-interests.
Quote: You encourage folks to break it.
The purpose of bringing to light the history and intent of taxation
under a free republic is to strengthen the social contract and
the culture.
The power to tax is the power to impede and destroy. Taxes have been
designed to accommodate the inflationary monetary system and circumvent
individual rights such as in the case of voting and other social
engineering schemes.
The Constitution is very clear, if the federal government is to
impose a tax on individuals it must tabulate the total and
divide by the number of citizens and send them a tax bill.
Nothing can be fairer than that.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| cpt banjo |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| default |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ah! Comments from another moron who has no clue what a direct tax is, what
the Constitution says and means and without an inkling of how the US
monetary system, nay the world's, operates.
And yet has the brass to parade that ignorance for all the world to see.
If US News NET does anything it proves idiots, like Strabo, are proud to
show the world just how stupid they are.
"strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1174375139_377@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
Quote: You encourage people to weaken the American republic and ignore their
self-interests.
You encourage folks to break it.
The purpose of bringing to light the history and intent of taxation
under a free republic is to strengthen the social contract and
the culture.
The power to tax is the power to impede and destroy. Taxes have been
designed to accommodate the inflationary monetary system and circumvent
individual rights such as in the case of voting and other social
engineering schemes.
The Constitution is very clear, if the federal government is to
impose a tax on individuals it must tabulate the total and
divide by the number of citizens and send them a tax bill.
Nothing can be fairer than that.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Steve Foley |
| Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"strabo" <strabo@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:1174375139_377@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
Quote: The Constitution is very clear, if the federal government is to
impose a tax on individuals it must tabulate the total and
divide by the number of citizens and send them a tax bill.
Nothing can be fairer than that.
I searched and searched, but couldn't find that in the US constitution. What
country are you talking about, and can you please cite the approptiate
document and paragraph? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:16 am
|
|