Big win against the IRS!!!!!

[Joey Smith]

This will probably short out the simple minds of tax protestors, i.e., the idea that the IRS could lose .....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124698320557906557.html

[Quixote]

I agree it will blow the TPs' minds. The Tax Court said the IRC means what it says. What a concept.

But I don't see it as a big win for anyone but the Garnetts. The court interpreted the section the way Congress wrote it in 1986 instead of the way they would write it today to accomplish the same purpose. All this win means for everyone else is that a retroactive technical correction to IRC § 469(h)(2) is in the offing.

[Chemnor]

I agree it will blow the TPs' minds. The Tax Court said the IRC means what it says. What a concept.

But I don't see it as a big win for anyone but the Garnetts. The court interpreted the section the way Congress wrote it in 1986 instead of the way they would write it today to accomplish the same purpose. All this win means for everyone else is that a retroactive technical correction to IRC § 469(h)(2) is in the offing.

The IRC means what it says!!!? What a joke.

Where does it say what taxable income is?

Where does it say what income is. Where does it define how a person becomes a taxpayer?

Where does it say who is a person liable?

Where does it define what form of legal tender must be used to determine fair market value?

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

The ruling by the Particularized tribunal AKA Tax Court applies ONLY to people that have received a Congressionally created right. Where does the IRC define how an American with unalienable rights becomes a person with a Congressional right to earn a living?

Means what it says... BS.

[.]

short out the simple minds of tax protestors

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

It only took an hour or so for the first long-ago shorted-out simple mind to babble incoherently about everything but the decision.

[Paul]

First of all, none of your silly questions are relevant to the point that the IRC means what it says. You're asking about things you believe that it does not say. "Chicago is in Illinois" is a true statement, and a question about, "Where does it define 'meters'?" is irrelevant to the truth of that statement.

Second, you cannot define all words in a statute unless you use circular (and therefore meaningless) definitions. Some words you just have to know. Try defining any of the words in "Chicago is in Illinois." You would not even dream of living any phase of your life by the "every word must be defined" standard, so why do you insist that someone else must?

But, in answer to some of your questions--

Where does it say what taxable income is?

Section 63

Where does it say what income is.

The same place where the Constitution says what "income" is.

Where does it say who is a person liable?

Section 6151 says who must pay the income tax. You can do your own research from there.

Where does it define what form of legal tender must be used to determine fair market value?

Throughout the Code, it says "dollars."

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

It doesn't, and how could it? The value of a dollar in widgets? In gold? In liters of pure water? Nothing has a "fixed" value, so if you "fix" the value of a dollar relative to any commodity, it will vary with respect to all other commodities. So any transaction in any commodity other than the one you use to "fix" the dollar is going to vary in value over time.

[Famspear]

I have a stimulus plan for the economy: Repeal section 469. That's my "big stimulus package."

[Pottapaug1938]

I agree it will blow the TPs' minds. The Tax Court said the IRC means what it says. What a concept.

But I don't see it as a big win for anyone but the Garnetts. The court interpreted the section the way Congress wrote it in 1986 instead of the way they would write it today to accomplish the same purpose. All this win means for everyone else is that a retroactive technical correction to IRC § 469(h)(2) is in the offing.

The IRC means what it says!!!? What a joke.

Where does it say what taxable income is?

Where does it say what income is. Where does it define how a person becomes a taxpayer?

Where does it say who is a person liable?

Where does it define what form of legal tender must be used to determine fair market value?

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

The ruling by the Particularized tribunal AKA Tax Court applies ONLY to people that have received a Congressionally created right. Where does the IRC define how an American with unalienable rights becomes a person with a Congressional right to earn a living?

Means what it says... BS.

It's not worth a minute of my time to answer this baloney, especially since these same questions have been asked and answered elsewhere in Quatloos, to the satisfaction of all but the wilfully ignorant few who deny that the IRC says what it says because it does not do so in their chosen manner and in their chosen words. I hope that you don't actually act on your words, Chemnor. Tax evasion is still tax evasion, and even the best federal prison is still a federal prison; and trying to repeat these tired, guaranteed-to-fail arguments to the IRS is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

[Doktor Avalanche]

[tripe deleted]

You need to quit while you're behind, slick.

[Famspear]

Oh, come on, it'll be fuuuuunnn.......

Where does it [the law] say what taxable income is?

Section 63.

Where does it [the law] say what income is. Where does it define how a person becomes a taxpayer?

"It" doesn't say what "income" is. "It" doesn't "need" to. For the umpteen gazillionth time, there is no general rule under the American legal system that each and every particular legal term must be "defined." Many, many important legal terms are not defined in the statutes that use those terms. Surprise, surprise!

"It" does say what "gross income" is (section 61, sections 101 through 140, etc., etc.). It doesn't "define how a person becomes a taxpayer." It doesn't need to. It simply defines "taxpayer" as any person "subject to" any "internal revenue tax" (see section 7701(a)(14)).

Where does it say who is a person liable?

It doesn't "say who is a person liable." It doesn't "need" to "say who is a person liable." However, see section 6151, and then work your way backward to section 6012, section 6011, section 1, section 63, section 61, and so on. If you need help, hire a tax attorney and CPA, and be sure to pay him or her big bucks. It'll build your character, and it stimulates the economy. Think of it as your patriotic duty.

Where does it define what form of legal tender must be used to determine fair market value?

It doesn't. It doesn't need to. And for federal income tax purposes, there is no form of "legal tender" that must be "used" to determine "fair market value." The idea that some form of "legal tender" must be "used" to determine "fair market value" is gibberish. Further, the income tax law is not particularly "concerned" with the concept of "legal tender". And, from the form of the question, it's obvious that the questioner did not and does not understand the concept of legal tender. So the question itself is gibberish. The term "fair market value," however, is a defined term. The definition of ''fair market value'' is found in the United States Supreme Court decision in the Cartwright case:

The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.

--from United States v. Cartwright, 411 U. S. 546, 93 S. Ct. 1713, 1716-17, 36 L. Ed. 2d 528, 73-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) ¶ 12,926 (1973) (quoting from U.S. Treasury regulations relating to Federal estate taxes, at 26 C.F.R. sec. 20.2031-1(b)).

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

"It" doesn't say what the "fixed value" of a dollar is. It doesn't need to. And there is no "fixed value" of a dollar. The income tax law doesn't "care" whether there is a "fixed value" of a dollar. The question is gibberish.

In short, the questions are pretty much gibberish in general.

[Nikki]

Two thoughts:

1. Either Chmnor is jerking your chains and just whooshed you, or

2. He does not realize that the ruling effects a small handful of taxpayers with the same unique situation and does not apply to 99.99%+ of the taxpayers out there.

3. He is so monomaniacal in his views of laws, taxes, and all things governmental that he automatically spews this nonsense whenever triggered.

[Dezcad]

3. He is so monomaniacal in his views of laws, taxes, and all things governmental that he automatically spews this nonsense whenever triggered.

Chemnor the Pavlovian...

[jcolvin2]

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... TC.WPD.pdf

Interesting issue: whether LLC/LLP members are like a limited partner in an LP for purposes of the passive loss rules. LImited partners in LPs are almost always treated as "passive" for purposes of section 469.

LLCs and LLPs were not around when the passive loss rules were enacted and expanded in the mid-1980s. Given that members of LLCs and LLPs commonly particiate in the affairs of the companies and that section 469 has significant "material participation" requirements (expressed in terms of hours per year) that taxpayers must meet in order to avoid the application of the passive loss rules, I don't see this as a boondoggle for taxpayers. Taxpayers must still demonstrate that they materially participate in the activity carried on by the LLC or LLP in order to obtain the benefits of the ruling.

[Chemnor]

Second, you cannot define all words in a statute unless you use circular (and therefore meaningless) definitions. Some words you just have to know. Try defining any of the words in "Chicago is in Illinois." You would not even dream of living any phase of your life by the "every word must be defined" standard, so why do you insist that someone else must?

Another guy justifying the vagueness of the IRC. How quaint.

Senator Elihu Root commented about the complexity of that first law: "I guess you will have to go to jail. If that is the result of not understanding the Income Tax Law I shall meet you there. We shall have a merry, merry time, for all of our friends will be there. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax Law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."

So here are a few of the "questions that arise under it." And make no mistake. This is a FEW questions that I have sufficient intelligence to ask.

It is a maxim of law that, “When the law fails to serve as a rule, almost everything ought to be suspected. (Ubi non adest norma legis, omnia quasi pro suspectis habenda sunt).”

The 13th Amendment does not disallow VOLUNTARY Servitude but it certainly does disallow slavery and involuntary servitude.

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation."
M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316, 327

But the servant [federal government] was never granted the power to destroy the sovereign Citizen from which Congress's derives its authority. It was only granted the power to destroy that which it created. Congress did not create our wages. Congress did not create me. Did Congress create you? Now if you work for the IRS or the BLM or the BATF or the Post Office then your wages are a Congressionally Created right and so Congress can "destroy" your wages by taxing them out of existance. They have no such authority concerning wgaes they did not create.

Senator Daniel Webster made it VERY clear as to what Congress had the power to destroy in a speech delivered in the Senate of the United States on the 22nd of February in the year of our Lord 1834:

“But, Sir, how are we to get through the first experiment, so as to be able to try that which is to be final and ultimate, that is to say, how are we to get rid of the State banks? How is this to be accomplished? Of the Bank of the United States, indeed, we may free ourselves readily; but how are we to annihilate the State banks? We did not speak them into being; we cannot speak them out of being. They did not originate in any exercise of our power; nor do they owe their continuance to our indulgence. They are responsible to the States; to us they are irresponsible. We cannot act upon them; we can only act with them; and the expectation, as it would appear, is, that, by zealously cooperating with the government in carrying into operation its new theory, they may disprove the necessity of their own existence, and fairly work themselves out of the world!”

Congress did not speak me into being; and therefore Congress cannot speak me out of being or even have the power to destroy me by and through the power of taxation. Congress did not originate the exercise of my power; and I do not owe my continuance to indulgences to Congress.

But, in answer to some of your questions--

Section 63

That is funny. Obviously you didn't actually read that section. It is not clear and unequivocal as it defines income using the word income. That is like saying the a dollar is a dollar or a foot is a foot or a yard is a yard. Well a dollar is a ringgit and a foot is at the end of my bed and my yard has flowers in it but I cannot use any of those to MEASURE income because even if they were measurements in the USA they cannot measure an undefined word of art like income.

Words of art must be defined or they have no clear and unequivocal meaning. Measurement that are undefined are not measurements.

"Keeping in mind the well-settled rule that the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid" Spreckels Sugar Refining Co. v. McClain,192 U.S. 397

Taxable income cannot not mean everything that comes in but only only that income which was allowed to be accumulated due to a Congressionally created right. And of course no tax laid by Congress can be taken from one person and given to another becasue the Supreme Court said so.

When you ASK for a Congressionally created right then you have a choice and if you choose that Congressionally created "benefit" then you lose your rights surrounding that benefit because you become "voluntarily" a servant to the creator of that right...Congress.

"We conclude then that government regulation that indirectly and incidentally calls for a choice between securing a governmental benefit and adherence to religious beliefs is wholly different from governmental action or legislation that criminalizes religiously inspired activity or inescapably compels conduct that some find objectionable for religious reasons." Bowen v. Roy 476 U.S. 693, 706, 106 S.Ct. 2147, 2155 - 2156

It is also VERY CLEAR that Congress cannot pass a law "that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 388-389

Therefore "income" within the IRC cannot mean that property of A can be taken to give to B (the religious cult of Marxism) UNLESS the tax is 100% voluntary because the person has asked for and/or obtained a Congressionally created right which can be made taxable and therefore able to be destroyed by Congress and which Congress has the power to define that right, creates presumptions concerning that right, assign burdens of proof, and prescribe remedies, like non-article III tribunals like Tax Court.

Income must mean some property received from Congress (hence a "return") because Congress, in the IRC, established that persons seeking to vindicate a deductions must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Therefore all "taxable income" must be accumulated from a Congress establishing a statutory right to that "income." Therefore the word "income" MUST have a limited meaning of all "income" from taxable sources. Since the IRC is not clear and unequivocal about this the citizen must be exempt EVEN if the "taxable income" comes from a taxable source"" of a Congressionally create source.

If the tax code were to say that a taxable item was "apples" and that for every 100 apples that you grew had a 50% tax on them and you had 1000 apples what would the tax be? 500? But what if the "source" of the tax was only on lemon trees? Then how much tax do you owe on the 1000 apples? Easy. You would owe nothing because the apples did not come from a taxable source like a Creation of Congress .

Therefore "wages" could be a taxable item ONLY if it came from a "taxable source" which MUST be from a Congressionally created right, like being a foreigner and doing commerce in the USA as a foreigner does not have rights from the Creator in the USA but only Congressionally created rights.

The source is ALL important and BECAUSE Tax Court is a "particularized tribunal" where all tax disputes must be tribunalized (Not adjudicated as that would infer justice.)

"[W]hen Congress establishes a statutory right, it clearly has the discretion, in defining that right, to create presumptions, or assign burdens of proof, or prescribe remedies; it may also provide that persons seeking to vindicate that right must do so before particularized tribunals created to perform the specialized adjudicative tasks related to that right. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. Such provisions do, in a sense, affect the exercise of judicial power, but they are also incidental to Congress' power to define the right that it has created. No comparable justification exists, however, when the right being adjudicated is not of congressional creation. In such a situation, substantial inroads into functions that have traditionally been performed by the Judiciary cannot be characterized merely as incidental extensions of Congress' power to define rights that it has created. Rather, such inroads suggest unwarranted encroachments upon the judicial power of the United States, which our Constitution reserves for Art. III courts."
Northern Pipeline Const. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. 458 U.S. 50, 83-84, (1982)

The same place where the Constitution says what "income" is.

So that would be corporate profit. YES! A Government created entity can be "destroyed" by the governemnt that created it. NOW YOU ARE GETTING IT! Congratulations.

"Where does it say who is a person liable?" Section 6151 says who must pay the income tax. You can do your own research from there.

Really?

TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 62 > Subchapter A > § 6151. Time and place for paying tax shown on returns
(a) General rule
Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, when a return of tax is required under this title or regulations, the person required to make such return shall, without assessment or notice and demand from the Secretary, pay such tax to the internal revenue officer with whom the return is filed, and shall pay such tax at the time and place fixed for filing the return (determined without regard to any extension of time for filing the return).

So where does the IRC tell you when a return is required so that anyone can clearly and unequivocally determine if they are a "person required to make such return." That just tells me that if a return is required how I would take care of that obligation.

Were you confused when you stated I could find out "Where does it say who is a person liable," when you said Section 6151? That happens a lot. People don't read what the IRC says but only what they think it says because the IRC is not written in clear and unequivocal language. Would you like to try again? How about:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—

So we have to know what taxable income is to know and we know that taxable income must come from a Congressionally created right or we Citizens could go to an Article III Court to dispute the tax and not an Article I Particularized Tribunal called Tax Court.

Throughout the Code, it says "dollars."

RIGHT! What is a dollar?

I found this?

31 USC § 5112(d)(1) United States coins shall have the inscription “In God We Trust”. The obverse side of each coin shall have the inscription “Liberty”. The reverse side of each coin shall have the inscriptions “United States of America” and “E Pluribus Unum” and a designation of the value of the coin.

And this:

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall mint and issue, in quantities sufficient to meet public demand, coins which—
(1) are 40.6 millimeters in diameter and weigh 31.103 grams;
(2) contain .999 fine silver;
(3) have a design—
(A) symbolic of Liberty on the obverse side; and
(B) of an eagle on the reverse side;
(4) have inscriptions of the year of minting or issuance, and the words “Liberty”, “In God We Trust”, “United States of America”, “1 Oz. Fine Silver”, “E Pluribus Unum”, and “One Dollar”;

So do I determine my "taxable income" in those dollars? Federal Reserve notes are not defined as being dollars according to 31 USC. They are legal tender but so are pennies. Do you know where CONGRESS says "FRNs are dollars? I cannot find that law. I can find that Congress says FRNs are redeemable in lawful money and that they are legal tender but I cannot find where Congress says they have the "value of the" note printed on them.

Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption
Federal reserve notes,... shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

So first of all what does redeem mean?

It is not defined in the statutes so we need to refer to the dictionary:

re⋅deem
–verb (used with object)
1. to buy or pay off; clear by payment: to redeem a mortgage.
2. to buy back, as after a tax sale or a mortgage foreclosure.
3. to recover (something pledged or mortgaged) by payment or other satisfaction: to redeem a pawned watch.
4. to exchange (bonds, trading stamps, etc.) for money or goods.
5. to convert (paper money) into specie.

So they are to be exchanged or converted into specie? What is used to buy or pay off a Federal Reserve NOTE?

Lawful money of course.

What is lawful money AS DEFINED BY CONGRESS? Because only Congress can define what lawful money is. Spanish silver dollars (Pieces of Eight" were declared to no longer even be "Legal tender" in 1857 AD even though they were the original "dollars" in the Constitution.

Congress and ONLY Congress can determine the value of money. SO if Congress does not define what a dollar is then the word is meaningless at law. Meaningless makes ALL statutes that use that meaningless definition or measurement void for vagueness and the "citizen is exempt." I guess we could go back to determining any "value" using the unchangeable meaning of the word dollar in the Constitution (used twice)

An eight-real coin (original Spainsh dollar) nominally weighed 550.209 Spanish grains, which is 423.900 troy/avoirdupois grains (0.883125 troy ounce or 27.468 grams), .93055 fine: so contained 0.821791 troy ounce (25.560 grams) fine silver. Its weight and purity varied significantly between mints and over the centuries. In contrast, the Coinage Act of 1792 specified that the U.S. dollar would contain 371 4/16 grain (24.1 g) pure or 416 grain (27.0 g) standard silver. (Thanks Wiki)

So since Congress has not defined what a dollar is in clear and unequivocal language should you and I use 0.821791 troy ounce (25.560 grams) fine silver as my measurement to be used when determining taxable income?

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

It doesn't, and how could it? The value of a dollar in widgets? In gold? In liters of pure water? Nothing has a "fixed" value, so if you "fix" the value of a dollar relative to any commodity, it will vary with respect to all other commodities. So any transaction in any commodity other than the one you use to "fix" the dollar is going to vary in value over time.

So how could Congress, in 1792 AD, set the value of a dollar? Because that is what they did.
Section 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, viz.

* DOLLARS OR UNITS —each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.

Didn't Congress know, in 1792, that it was useless to establish a value of the money, as stated they had the power to do in the Constitution? Did Congress have LESS of an understanding what the Constitution meant in 1792?

[Duke2Earl]

Life is way too short to read, consider or answer the meaningless ravings of another Ed Brown in training. Let him bay at the moon.

[LOBO]

The IRC means what it says!!!? What a joke.

Where does it say what taxable income is?

Where does it say what income is. Where does it define how a person becomes a taxpayer?

Where does it say who is a person liable?

Where does it define what form of legal tender must be used to determine fair market value?

Where does it say what the fixed value of a dollar is?

The ruling by the Particularized tribunal AKA Tax Court applies ONLY to people that have received a Congressionally created right. Where does the IRC define how an American with unalienable rights becomes a person with a Congressional right to earn a living?

Means what it says... BS.

Before I answer, can you define the following terms you used: "mean", "says", "say", "define", "becomes", "legal", "fair", "market", "fixed", "of", "is", "applies", "where", "with" and "a". TIA

[Chemnor]

Life is way too short to read, consider or answer the meaningless ravings of another Ed Brown in training. Let him bay at the moon.

I see that once again an IRS apologist can't read and doesn't know that answers so he makes excuses. How quaint.

And I am not an Ed Brown. He was charged with a crime. I never have been.

I'm more like an Elihu Root or a Daniel Webster or a Patrick Henry. You know. Men with a brain that can read and answer questions.

And I heard that Quatloos debunked guys like me. LOL So far all I have seen in name calling and no law. I guess I was wrong. It is just like the IRS and Congress and Corrupt Federal Judges. NO answers, all threats.

[wserra]

And I am not an Ed Brown. He was charged with a crime. I never have been.

For all I know, you have never committed a crime so as to be charged. As far as the income tax is concerned, it you don't make the threshold, you don't have to file.

I'm more like an Elihu Root or a Daniel Webster or a Patrick Henry.

No ego problem there.

And I heard that Quatloos debunked guys like me.

You're not the one who decides whether you have been "debunked". I'm sure Ray Kazoo believes that he has never been "debunked" either.

[Joey Smith]

Bottom line:

Litigants with legitimate positions against the IRS win.

Litigants with bogus positions against the IRS lose.

Tax protestors fit into exactly one of these categories, batting a precise and cumulative 0.0000% over the last forty years since the scam (yes, it is a scam by scam artists to sell books and tapes to those dumb enough to believe it) first appeared.

It is not because there is any conspiracy grandioso (as Stevie and others have suggested over the years) to keep any "secret" about the legality of the income tax; it is because tax protestors are simply wrong.

[Duke2Earl]

Once again, I wonder where exactly in my job description it says I have any responsibility whatsoever to "answer" whatever "questions" any and every nutcase that blunders in here attempts to pose. And where exactly does it say I can't comment on insanity where I see it? Emotional children like this noxious chemical spill come in here with the same sort of nonsense "questions" that you get from 3-year old children and then just like those toddlers they have meltdowns when they get the answer... "Because the courts said so." Get this one thing straight... I have no responsibility to answer the bullcrap that you think are questions. And I have every right to call insanity craziness to its face. And if you don't like that... too bad.

[Arthur Rubin]

Noting an error rarely made by tax protesters....until now.

The 13th Amendment does not disallow VOLUNTARY Servitude but it certainly does disallow slavery and involuntary servitude.

Actually, the 13rd Amendment does prohibit selling oneself into slavery. One could argue that it would be morally valid, but apparently not legally valid.