Definition of income

[Patriotdiscussions]

Hello good folks, was going thru the google fu and came across your site.

I was wondering if you fine folks knew the definition of the word "income".

not taxable income or gross income or net income.

Just income.

I know that the irs is not allowed to define it, and indeed they do not, neither is congress allowed to define it.

however the supreme court has said the definition in the 1909 case is the correct definition, but I can not seem to find it.

any help from you tax professionals.

also in regards to levy 26 usc 6331a I do not find it in the sec's authority to levy taxpayers, only, and I quote....

Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official.


Taxpayer is no where in the authority of the sec to levy, is that why when they file levies at banks and such they always leave (a) off the back when they quote that statute?

[Arthur Rubin]

You are, as are many of the "what is income" posters, completely wrong.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#incomedef for the small amount which is correct.

The Supreme Court held Congress cannot define the Constitutional meaning of "income", but could (but chose not to) define "income" as used in 26 USC 61. However, the Constitutional meaning of "income" is more-or-less what the common (not "common law") definition of income was when the 16th Amendment was proposed, which includes almost any "accession to wealth" that you can think of. (Query to real legal scholars: Is the estate tax authorized by the 16th Amendment? Or is the estate tax just clearly an "indirect tax"?)

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#levysalaries

As for levies, the second sentence of 26 USC 6331(a) (which you quoted) extends the authority of the IRS to levy, to override a Supreme Court decision which (IMO) found that, to levy the salary of a Federal employee under the then-existing law would be considered levying directly on the Federal government, which was not specifically authorized by the then-existing 6331(a). Levying the salary of a non-Federal employee could be done under the authority of the first sentence of 6331(a), by levying against the employee's rights to property (wages) in possession of the employer. The Court ruled that the first sentence of 26 USC 6331(a) was not adequate to levy on property which the taxpayer has the right to, but in possession of the Federal government. Hence the second sentence .

[Patriotdiscussions]

so the 1909 corp case do not define income then ?


the s.c did not say this.....

A couple of years later in Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913), a case involving the 1909 act, the Supreme Court defined “income” as “the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”



What irc allows them to levy taxpayers property as in homes and not wages held by employees?


And is it true that the income tax is an excise tax?

[Patriotdiscussions]

I read the second link, and am wondering why statutory construction was left out of his reasoning. Anyone that even thinks a little about the law knows that that which is not included is excluded, and that which is included can only include things in the same class.

[Arthur Rubin]

I read the second link, and am wondering why statutory construction was left out of his reasoning. Anyone that even thinks a little about the law knows that that which is not included is excluded, and that which is included can only include things in the same class.

Wrong, and possibly wrong.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#includes

26 USC 7701(c): The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined.

The second one is probably not applicable, although the analysis in the FAQ above notes that a State is a "person" for the purpose of section 6332, even though a State is not normally considered a person, although it can be an employer. I don't know if a State would be considered "in the same class as" a person.

[Arthur Rubin]

so the 1909 corp case do not define income then ?


the s.c did not say this.....

A couple of years later in Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913), a case involving the 1909 act, the Supreme Court defined “income” as “the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.”

Someone else will have to take that. I thought the Constitutional definition was found to be "accession to wealth".

What irc allows them to levy taxpayers property as in homes and not wages held by employees?

Homes are "property", not necessarily "income". Levies are usually against property (such has houses, or cash) or rights to property (such as wages).

And is it true that the income tax is an excise tax?

Yes or no, it's not relevant to tax law after the 16th Amendment.

[Arthur Rubin]

Anyone that even thinks a little about the law ...

should know that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I shouldn't have bothered to note the errors in "Patriotdiscussions"'s statement.

[AndyK]

Regarding "Stratton's Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913), a case involving the 1909 act" -- there may be some relevance as to the year in which the 16th amendment was adopted and the first income tax laws came into effect.

HINT: Both happened AFTER 1913. Thus, court decisions related to income tax prior to 1916 are moot (m eaning debatable, but of no effect).

Now, take a look at the 16th Amendment. The language "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration." is fairly straight forward.

And, since neither the Amendment nor Congress chose to specifically define income, according to generally accepted statutory interpretation, the word "income" defaults to what it generally meant at the time.

So, as others have pointed out, "income" has been (and will continue to be) interpreted as 'that which comes in: i.e, any and all accessions to wealth including but not limited to salaries, business profits, forgiveness of debt, wages, gains on sales of stock. and much more.

As to 26 USC 6331(a), you need to read ALL of 26 USC 6331. Selective reading / interpretation of laws doesn't work. For your benifit

(a) Authority of Secretary: If any person liable to pay any tax neglects or refuses to pay the same within 10 days after notice and demand, it shall be lawful for the Secretary to collect such tax (and such further sum as shall be sufficient to cover the expenses of the levy) by levy upon all property and rights to property (except such property as is exempt under section 6334) belonging to such person or on which there is a lien provided in this chapter for the payment of such tax. Levy may be made upon the accrued salary or wages of any officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of the United States or the District of Columbia, by serving a notice of levy on the employer (as defined in section 3401(d)) of such officer, employee, or elected official. If the Secretary makes a finding that the collection of such tax is in jeopardy, notice and demand for immediate payment of such tax may be made by the Secretary and, upon failure or refusal to pay such tax, collection thereof by levy shall be lawful without regard to the 10-day period provided in this section. (b) Seizure and sale of property The term "levy" as used in this title includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (e), a levy shall extend only to property possessed and obligations existing at the time thereof. In any case in which the Secretary may levy upon property or rights to property, he may seize and sell such property or rights to property (whether real or personal, tangible or intangible). (c) Successive seizures Whenever any property or right to property upon which levy has been made by virtue of subsection (a) is not sufficient to satisfy the claim of the United States for which levy is made, the Secretary may, thereafter, and as often as may be necessary, proceed to levy in like manner upon any other property liable to levy of the person against whom such claim exists, until the amount due from him, together with all expenses, is fully paid. (d) Requirement of notice before levy (1) In general Levy may be made under subsection (a) upon the salary or wages or other property of any person with respect to any unpaid tax only after the Secretary has notified such person in writing of his intention to make such levy. (2) 30-day requirement The notice required under paragraph (1) shall be - (A) given in person, (B) left at the dwelling or usual place of business of such person, or (C) sent by certified or registered mail to such persons's last known address, no less than 30 days before the day of the levy. (3) Jeopardy Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a levy if the Secretary has made a finding under the last sentence of subsection (a) that the collection of tax is in jeopardy. (4) Information included with notice The notice required under paragrap (1) shall include brief
state sets forth in simpl and nontechnical terms -

Again, as was pointed out earlier, sentence #2 of the law merely expands sentence #1.

Many people have tried to base their tax avoidance / evasion activities on sentence #2. If they were lucky, they merely ended up having to pay their taxes and not go to prison.

One final word: You have entered a forum populated by MANY tax experts. Think twice before you walk into a gun fight armed only with a feather duster.

[Famspear]

Adapated from a previous post here in Quatloos:

Tax protesters sometimes argue (incorrectly) that section 6331(a), empowering the Internal Revenue Service to administratively levy (that is, to seize or distrain) the assets of a taxpayer, applies only to the assets of "federal workers." The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" language in section 6331(a) is a case decided over 90 years ago.

Back in 1912, Congress enacted a law providing for a U.S. District Court in what was then the U.S. territory of the Canal Zone (the Panama Canal Zone). The law provided for a federal judge -- and a salary for that federal judge.

At some point, the judge was provided with living quarters owned by the U.S. government. An officer called the Auditor of the Canal Zone decided -- apparently on his own, as it turns out -- that he had the legal duty or right to withhold, from the judge’s pay checks, an amount to cover the rent for the government-owned living quarters provided to the judge.

The Auditor's action raised some eyebrows. In 1915, the Secretary of War (now, we would say the Secretary of Defense) asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General as to whether the Auditor was legally entitled to do this.

The Attorney General rendered a legal opinion that the Auditor was not authorized to withhold from the judge’s pay unless a law allowed the withholding. Essentially, the Auditor was engaging in a “setoff” (or “offset”) – offsetting the amount the Auditor claimed was due by the judge to the U.S. government for rent against the salary due by the government to the judge. The Attorney General found no law allowing that offset.

The Auditor was not satisfied with the Attorney General’s opinion, and apparently continued to make the offsets for the rent.

The judge understandably filed a lawsuit to compel the Auditor to stop withholding the rent from the judge’s paychecks.

The Auditor lost the lawsuit -- both at the trial court, and on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In April 1918, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judge and against the Auditor. In the absence of a law allowing the Auditor to make the offset, the Auditor would not be allowed to make the offset. The case is Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388 (1918).

According to the text of the United States Supreme Court decision in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), the language of what is now section 6331 regarding an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, etc., etc., (I’ll abbreviate this to the “federal worker language”) was added to the tax statutes many years ago because of the decision in Smith v. Jackson. This is another example of emphatic redundancy (or intensive redundancy) on the part of Congress –- purposefully adding what might be considered redundant language to a statute in response to prior court decisions, in this case to make absolutely crystal clear that it is the intent of Congress that the law allow an administrative levy against federal workers, etc. Had the Auditor in the Canal Zone never withheld the pay of that judge, the case of Smith v. Jackson would have never been brought, and it is entirely possible that the “federal worker language” of section 6331 would not be there today.

Congress was concerned because the Supreme Court, back in 1918, had ruled that an offset against a judge's pay was invalid, that an administrative levy for a federal tax on the income of a federal worker might be deemed to be an invalid offset covered by the doctrine of Smith v. Jackson. Now, in the absence of the "federal worker" language in 6331, maybe some court or another might view a tax levy as being covered by Smith v. Jackson, or maybe that court might not view it that way. Either way, the Congress simply wanted to avoid the problem and to make clear that federal administrative tax levies are not impaired by the Smith v. Jackson doctrine. Hence, the partially redundant language of what is now section 6331(a).

In short, section 6331 authorizes the IRS to levy on "any person liable to pay any tax". The term "person" is not limited to "officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States...." etc.

[Famspear]

Dear "Patriotdiscussions" Welcome to Quatloos!

Regarding the "what is income" rhetoric, you have fallen into the same trap that has snared many others who read tax protester literature: the trap of failing to recognize the hidden, unstated, imaginary rule.

The imaginary rule in this case is the "rule" that words have to be "defined" in the laws in order for the laws to be valid, effective, etc. To a novice, such an "rule" sounds reasonable -- sounds like something that ought to be a rule.

Unfortunately, there is no such rule in American law.

Indeed, most words in most laws in the United States are not defined in the laws where those words are found. Many, many IMPORTANT words in various laws are not defined in those laws -- and this has no effect on the validity of the laws. The absence of clear definitions is part of the reason that people disagree about what the laws mean, and that's part of the reason that we have a court system to decide disputes about what the laws mean. Sometimes, definitions are assigned -- by the courts -- to words that are not defined in the statutes.

The fact that the word "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code has hung up tax protesters for years and years. Pointing out that the term is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code is nothing new -- and it will get you nowhere.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Andy k

Perhaps more time learning the law would of shown you this

Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) "It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court."

[Patriotdiscussions]

Adapated from a previous post here in Quatloos:

Tax protesters sometimes argue (incorrectly) that section 6331(a), empowering the Internal Revenue Service to administratively levy (that is, to seize or distrain) the assets of a taxpayer, applies only to the assets of "federal workers." The genesis of all this argument about the "federal worker" language in section 6331(a) is a case decided over 90 years ago.

Back in 1912, Congress enacted a law providing for a U.S. District Court in what was then the U.S. territory of the Canal Zone (the Panama Canal Zone). The law provided for a federal judge -- and a salary for that federal judge.

At some point, the judge was provided with living quarters owned by the U.S. government. An officer called the Auditor of the Canal Zone decided -- apparently on his own, as it turns out -- that he had the legal duty or right to withhold, from the judge’s pay checks, an amount to cover the rent for the government-owned living quarters provided to the judge.

The Auditor's action raised some eyebrows. In 1915, the Secretary of War (now, we would say the Secretary of Defense) asked for a legal opinion from the Attorney General as to whether the Auditor was legally entitled to do this.

The Attorney General rendered a legal opinion that the Auditor was not authorized to withhold from the judge’s pay unless a law allowed the withholding. Essentially, the Auditor was engaging in a “setoff” (or “offset”) – offsetting the amount the Auditor claimed was due by the judge to the U.S. government for rent against the salary due by the government to the judge. The Attorney General found no law allowing that offset.

The Auditor was not satisfied with the Attorney General’s opinion, and apparently continued to make the offsets for the rent.

The judge understandably filed a lawsuit to compel the Auditor to stop withholding the rent from the judge’s paychecks.

The Auditor lost the lawsuit -- both at the trial court, and on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Finally, the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In April 1918, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the judge and against the Auditor. In the absence of a law allowing the Auditor to make the offset, the Auditor would not be allowed to make the offset. The case is Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388 (1918).

According to the text of the United States Supreme Court decision in Sims v. United States, 359 U.S. 108 (1959), the language of what is now section 6331 regarding an officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States, etc., etc., (I’ll abbreviate this to the “federal worker language”) was added to the tax statutes many years ago because of the decision in Smith v. Jackson. This is another example of emphatic redundancy (or intensive redundancy) on the part of Congress –- purposefully adding what might be considered redundant language to a statute in response to prior court decisions, in this case to make absolutely crystal clear that it is the intent of Congress that the law allow an administrative levy against federal workers, etc. Had the Auditor in the Canal Zone never withheld the pay of that judge, the case of Smith v. Jackson would have never been brought, and it is entirely possible that the “federal worker language” of section 6331 would not be there today.

Congress was concerned because the Supreme Court, back in 1918, had ruled that an offset against a judge's pay was invalid, that an administrative levy for a federal tax on the income of a federal worker might be deemed to be an invalid offset covered by the doctrine of Smith v. Jackson. Now, in the absence of the "federal worker" language in 6331, maybe some court or another might view a tax levy as being covered by Smith v. Jackson, or maybe that court might not view it that way. Either way, the Congress simply wanted to avoid the problem and to make clear that federal administrative tax levies are not impaired by the Smith v. Jackson doctrine. Hence, the partially redundant language of what is now section 6331(a).

In short, section 6331 authorizes the IRS to levy on "any person liable to pay any tax". The term "person" is not limited to "officer, employee, or elected official, of the United States...." etc.

Interesting

It seems that the irc defines a person as an individual, what is the the definition of individual from them I wonder.

Now who exactly gave me the title of person/individual?

[Famspear]

so the 1909 corp case do not define income then ?

The 1909 case does not provide a comprehensive legal definition of "income" as that term is used the U.S. Federal tax laws.

The false argument that the 1909 case provides a comprehensive definition of "income" is an example of what is sometimes called a "touchstone" argument -- a false argument that a definition of income in one particular U.S. Supreme Court case is all-encompassing, and applies to all subsequent cases.

the s.c did not say this.....

Stop right there. You need to focus not on what a court "said," but rather on what a court ruled. Under American law, we follow the concepts of judicial precedent and stare decisis. In part, this means that a court case is important for what the court DECIDED, not what the court "said." To understand how to tell the difference, you need to go to law school.

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the '''decision'''. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." [ . . . ] under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the what, not for the why, and not for the how. Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996).

You asked:

What irc allows them to levy taxpayers property as in homes and not wages held by employees?

Internal Revenue Code sections 6331 through 6334 allow the IRS to levy "property" as in "homes" and not just wages. Regarding levy (seizure) of a taxpayer's residence, see also section 6334(a)(13), and section 6334(e)(1), in which Congress gave taxpayers a little breathing room with respect to certain residences.

Actually, Congress has provided quite a few exceptions in the Internal Revenue Code.

And is it true that the income tax is an excise tax?

Yes. And no.

Most courts refer to the federal income tax as an "excise" (which is short hand for "indirect tax", which in turn is shorthand for "impost, duty or excise") A few courts, even after the Sixteenth Amendment, have referred to it as a direct tax.

Sounds contradictory, right?

Guess what? You don't need to worry about whether the income tax is an "excise" or not. The federal income tax is constitutionally valid regardless of whether you call it an excise or not.

[Patriotdiscussions]

Dear "Patriotdiscussions" Welcome to Quatloos!

Regarding the "what is income" rhetoric, you have fallen into the same trap that has snared many others who read tax protester literature: the trap of failing to recognize the hidden, unstated, imaginary rule.

The imaginary rule in this case is the "rule" that words have to be "defined" in the laws in order for the laws to be valid, effective, etc. To a novice, such an "rule" sounds reasonable -- sounds like something that ought to be a rule.

Unfortunately, there is no such rule in American law.

Indeed, most words in most laws in the United States are not defined in the laws where those words are found. Many, many IMPORTANT words in various laws are not defined in those laws -- and this has no effect on the validity of the laws. The absence of clear definitions is part of the reason that people disagree about what the laws mean, and that's part of the reason that we have a court system to decide disputes about what the laws mean. Sometimes, definitions are assigned -- by the courts -- to words that are not defined in the statutes.

The fact that the word "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code has hung up tax protesters for years and years. Pointing out that the term is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code is nothing new -- and it will get you nowhere.

In reality the rule is that if a word is defined in a statute then that definition must be used even of it differs from the words normal meaning.

Maybe you remember Clinton ask what the definition of "is" was? Did you think he was not a lawyer?


People get confused because they do not know the legal definitions of common words, nor have they studied statutory construction.

For example, could you tell me when "shall" means "may" in a statute?

[Famspear]

It seems that the irc defines a person as an individual, what is the the definition of individual from them I wonder.

Now who exactly gave me the title of person/individual?

You don't need to worry about "who exactly" gave you the "title" of "person/individual."

Under the U.S. federal income tax law, you are an individual, and you are a person. That's all you need to know.

These kinds of questions we have seen a thousand times. These kinds of questions will get you nowhere.

There is no magical, mystical law -- or a specific person -- who needs to officially grant you the "title" of "person" or "individual" in order for you to be liable for federal income tax. And asking others to explain why you're a "person" or an "individual" for federal income tax purposes is a fruitless endeavor -- just as is asking questions about the meaning of the word "income."

You already are aware that you are a person, and an individual. There are a lot of important questions that a person can ask about federal tax law. The questions you are asking are not important.

If you try to argue in a court of law that you are not a person, or you try to get someone else to prove that you are a person, the court will rule against you. If you don't believe me, ask Peter Eric Hendrickson, who ended up in federal prison.

[Patriotdiscussions]

so the 1909 corp case do not define income then ?

The 1909 case does not provide a comprehensive legal definition of "income" as that term is used the U.S. Federal tax laws.

The false argument that the 1909 case provides a comprehensive definition of "income" is an example of what is sometimes called a "touchstone" argument -- a false argument that a definition of income in one particular U.S. Supreme Court case is all-encompassing, and applies to all subsequent cases.

the s.c did not say this.....

Stop right there. You need to focus not on what a court "said," but rather on what a court ruled. Under American law, we follow the concepts of judicial precedent and stare decisis. In part, this means that a court case is important for what the court DECIDED, not what the court "said." To understand how to tell the difference, you need to go to law school.

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the '''decision'''. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." [ . . . ] under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the what, not for the why, and not for the how. Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

--United States Internal Revenue Serv. v. Osborne (In re Osborne), 76 F.3d 306 (9th Cir. 1996).

You asked:

What irc allows them to levy taxpayers property as in homes and not wages held by employees?

Internal Revenue Code sections 6331 through 6334 allow the IRS to levy "property" as in "homes" and not just wages. Regarding levy (seizure) of a taxpayer's residence, see also section 6334(a)(13), and section 6334(e)(1), in which Congress gave taxpayers a little breathing room with respect to certain residences.

Actually, Congress has provided quite a few exceptions in the Internal Revenue Code.

And is it true that the income tax is an excise tax?

Yes. And no.

Most courts refer to the federal income tax as an "excise" (which is short hand for "indirect tax", which in turn is shorthand for "impost, duty or excise") A few courts, even after the Sixteenth Amendment, have referred to it as a direct tax.

Sounds contradictory, right?

Guess what? You don't need to worry about whether the income tax is an "excise" or not. The federal income tax is constitutionally valid regardless of whether you call it an excise or not.

The court has said it in a couple cases including my post to Andy k.

It is an excise tax or not, there is no maybe brother, need me to quote the s.c. Again as they are the only court that counts.

[Famspear]

...In reality the rule is that if a word is defined in a statute then that definition must be used even of it differs from the words normal meaning.

That's pretty much correct. The problem is that people who make the kinds of statements you make don't want to accept the definitions in the statutes. The statute means what the court rules it to mean -- not what you want it to mean.

Maybe you remember Clinton ask what the definition of "is" was? Did you think he was not a lawyer?

Maybe you remember that Clinton got a lot of grief over that line, and that nobody bought his argument.

Leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

People get confused because they do not know the legal definitions of common words, nor have they studied statutory construction.

No, people don't get confused. People deliberately try to twist the meanings of words in statutes in an effort to try to prove to themselves or others that they don't owe federal income tax.

People are wrong.

For example, could you tell me when "shall" means "may" in a statute?

Yep. For example, "shall" really means "may" in Internal Revenue Code section 6020(b). But, many other places in the Internal Revenue Code, the same word "shall" means "must". The same word can mean different things in different places -- sometimes even within the same sentence.

[Patriotdiscussions]

It seems that the irc defines a person as an individual, what is the the definition of individual from them I wonder.

Now who exactly gave me the title of person/individual?

You don't need to worry about "who exactly" gave you the "title" of "person/individual."

Under the U.S. federal income tax law, you are an individual, and you are a person. That's all you need to know.

These kinds of questions we have seen a thousand times. These kinds of questions will get you nowhere.

There is no magical, mystical law -- or a specific person -- who needs to officially grant you the "title" of "person" or "individual" in order for you to be liable for federal income tax. And asking others to explain why you're a "person" or an "individual" for federal income tax purposes is a fruitless endeavor -- just as is asking questions about the meaning of the word "income."

You already are aware that you are a person, and an individual. There are a lot of important questions that a person can ask about federal tax law. The questions you are asking are not important.

If you try to argue in a court of law that you are not a person, or you try to get someone else to prove that you are a person, the court will rule against you. If you don't believe me, ask Peter Eric Hendrickson, who ended up in federal prison.

There are lots of tax protestors locked up, I know why and I am not one of them. Thanks for your concern.

Now you know that I know that individual is defined in 26 c.f.r., funny thing is does not include us citizens,us taxpayers or us persons does it?

Who does it say are individuals fam?

[Patriotdiscussions]

...In reality the rule is that if a word is defined in a statute then that definition must be used even of it differs from the words normal meaning.

That's pretty much correct. The problem is that people who make the kinds of statements you make don't want to accept the definitions in the statutes. The statute means what the court rules it to mean -- not what you want it to mean.

Maybe you remember Clinton ask what the definition of "is" was? Did you think he was not a lawyer?

Maybe you remember that Clinton got a lot of grief over that line, and that nobody bought his argument.

Leave the lawyering to the lawyers.

People get confused because they do not know the legal definitions of common words, nor have they studied statutory construction.

No, people don't get confused. People deliberately try to twist the meanings of words in statutes in an effort to try to prove to themselves or others that they don't owe federal income tax.

People are wrong.

For example, could you tell me when "shall" means "may" in a statute?

Yep. For example, "shall" really means "may" in Internal Revenue Code section 6020(b). But, many other places in the Internal Revenue Code, the same word "shall" means "must". The same word can mean different things in different places -- sometimes even within the same sentence.

Great, so what did the court rule about the definition of income? For a hint look at my post to Andy k

[Patriotdiscussions]

26 C.F.R. §1.1441-1 Requirement for the deduction and withholding of tax on payments to foreign persons.

(c ) Definitions

(3) Individual.

(i) Alien individual.

The term alien individual means an individual who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. See Sec. 1.1-1(c).

(ii) Nonresident alien individual.

The term nonresident alien individual means a person described in section 7701(b)(1)(B), an alien individual who is a resident of a foreign country under the residence article of an income tax treaty and Sec. 301.7701(b)-7(a)(1) of this chapter, or an alien individual who is a resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or American Samoa as determined under Sec. 301.7701(b)-1(d) of this chapter. An alien individual who has made an election under section 6013 (g) or (h) to be treated as a resident of the United States is nevertheless treated as a nonresident alien individual for purposes of withholding under chapter 3 of the Code and the regulations thereunder.










This is the ONLY IRS definition for individual, correct?