| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » It Says Right Here Who Should Use 861
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:07 am |
|
|
|
|
<begin subscriber email>
Plain as Day
From: 861@mail-list.com on behalf of 861-list-owner@mail-list.com
Sent: Tue 9/04/07 1:38 PM
To: xxxxxx@hotmail.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----Hash: SHA1 Dear Subscriber, By far
the most common argument made against the 861 evidence boilsdown to
"You're not supposed to look there! Those rules are forsomeone else!"
Oddly, the IRS and tax professionals can't seem toagree amongst
themselves who SHOULD use those rules, but somehowthey're sure (some
of the time) that it's not you and me. There are LOTS of rules in the
tax code that only apply to certainpeople, and in every case, the
rules make it abundantly clear,right up front, to WHOM the rules
apply. For example, let's comparetwo sections: Section 860 and Section
861. (Section 860 is the lastsection in Subchapter M, and Section 861
is the first in SubchapterN, so despite being right next to each
other, they aren't at allabout the same things.) Let's begin with
Section 860, and see if we can tell WHO issupposed to use the rules
found therein. Is it everyone? Is it justcertain people? Here is where
the section appears in thearrangement of the code:
---------------------TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODESubtitle A -
Income TaxesCHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXESSubchapter M -
Regulated Investment Companies and Real EstateInvestment TrustsPART
III - PROVISIONS WHICH APPLY TO BOTH REGULATED INVESTMENTCOMPANIES AND
REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUSTS Sec. 860. Deduction for deficiency
dividends(a) General rule - If a determination with respect to
anyQUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY results in any adjustment for
anytaxable year..."(b) Qualified investment entity defined - For
purposes of thissection, the term "QUALIFIED INVESTMENT ENTITY" means
- (1) aregulated investment company, and (2) a real estate
investmenttrust."---------------------Notice how often it just slaps
you in the face, saying who thoserules are for. The related
regulations are the same, over and overagain saying that these rules
are about any "qualified investmententity." When only CERTAIN people
are supposed to use a particular part ofthe law, the law SAYS so, and
it does it blatantly and repeatedly.No one needs to guess or theorize
about who is supposed to useSection 860. No insinuation or
extrapolation, no inference ordeduction is required.Now let's see
where Section 861 is located, and what it says:---------------------
TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODESubtitle A - Income TaxesCHAPTER 1 -
NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXESSubchapter N - Tax Based on Income From
Sources Within or Withoutthe United StatesPART I - DETERMINATION OF
SOURCES OF INCOME [*] Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United
States(a) Gross income from sources within United States...(b) Taxable
income from sources within United States... [* If you are looking in
some printing of the tax code other thanthe USCS printing, you will
find a different, INCORRECT title forPart I. For the complete
explanation, download my free "TaxableIncome" report from the link
near the bottom of the front page ofthe http://www.theft-by-deception.com
web site.]---------------------Nothing in Section 861 gives the
slightest hint that the rulestherein are only for certain people, or
that most of us shouldn'tbe looking there. Likewise, where the indexes
of the tax code point to 861 regardingdomestic income, under topics
such as "gross income," "taxableincome," "deductions," and "sources of
income," there is nothingeven remotely suggesting only CERTAIN people
should look there.Here is how the cumulative bulletin sums up what 861
and followingare all about: “Rules are prescribed for determination of
GROSS INCOME and TAXABLEINCOME derived from sources WITHIN and WITHOUT
the United States,and for the allocation of income derived partly from
sources withinthe United States and partly without the United States
or withinUnited States possessions. §§ 1.861-1 through 1.864. (Secs
861-864;‘54 Code.)” [Treasury Decision 6258] The first section of
regulations under 861 (26 CFR 1.861-1)elaborates on the concept,
explaining that 861(a) and related regsare for determining domestic
"gross income," and 861(b) and relatedregs are for determining
domestic "taxable income." You can findthat section here:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/26cfr1i_06.html So
where, in all that, does it say that only CERTAIN people, inCERTAIN
situations, should be looking there to determine their"taxable income
from sources within the United States"? When a partof the law only
applies to certain people, the law SAYS that,unambiguously and
repeatedly, as shown above. The real problem is not in the law books;
it is in peoples' heads.When twelve jurors, for example, heard that
IRS bureaucrats "TOLD"me I wasn't supposed to look at 861 (after
telling me they weren'tfamiliar with that part of the law, and weren't
really sure what itwas about), the jurors couldn't imagine how I could
still disagree. "Oh, those rules are only for people who..." At my
trial, severalgovernment folk asserted that, though none of them
backed up theirclaims with the smallest shred of evidence. Where does
the law SAY,or even HINT, that I'm not supposed to use those rules? It
doesn't.But they can simply ASSERT that it is so, and the average
sheepwill take their word for it. What I find most discouraging at
this point is how little evidenceand logic matter to people (including
a lot of people in the "taxhonesty movement"). The "argument" over the
861 evidence, if it caneven be called that, has become utterly absurd.
One side quoteswhat the law SAYS, while the other side asserts that it
MEANSsomething completely different from what it says. It's like
tryingto argue with someone who thinks 2 + 2 = 5. If they are so far
gonethat they literally refuse to see what's right in front of
them,what's the point? Being right, and having piles of evidence to
prove it, doesn'tmatter much when the general public is not only
incapable ofcritical thought, but unwilling to even look at evidence
whichmight threaten their comfortable assumptions. I'll keep putting
theevidence out there for the few who actually want it, but at
thispoint I don't think any amount of concrete evidence--whether
aboutthe federal income tax or anything else--can penetrate the
thick,empty heads of the indoctrinated masses. I wish I had
somethingmore upbeat to end this message with, but at the moment I
don't.Maybe in a few hundred years, the truth-tellers of today will
bevindicated (a la Galileo). Or maybe not. Maybe in a few
hundredyears, people will go back to thinking that the sun goes around
theearth, because "authority" says so. Sincerely, Larken
Rosewww.larkenrose.com
<end subscriber mail> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 2:17 am
|
|