Section 93

[Famspear]

No, I am letting you bake in your juices a while longer, Weston.

You think you are such an expert on Pollock. You are clueless. Either you are incompetent or you are lying. The Court in Pollock rejected Adam Smith. Let's just leave it at that for a while. I like to watch you sweat.

Wow, and I though you here as a hobby because you like to “help” people? Great, just one more reason for me to NOT trust whatever it is that you post. Heh.

Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

No, Weston, sell that to Pete Hendrickson.

A person can be helped only if he wants to be helped. So far, you have illustrated that you are here only to argue, not to learn. You have also demonstrated that despite having received lots of excellent FREE advice, you have rejected that advice.

You, Weston, have also demonstrated a disturbing, recurring tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, and an obdurate recalcitrance when confronted with your own errors. You repeat the same mistakes over and over. You read things into sentences that aren't there (remember the phony argument that the IRS must do a 6020 return prior to asserting a deficiency?), and you ignore texts you don't like (for example, sections 6213 and 6215).

You aren't fooling anyone Weston, except (maybe) yourself.

[Nikki]

[Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

Weston:

Exactly what impact will your report have on the civil liabilities outstanding against you for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest AND on the potential criminal charges for tax evasion (if DoJ thinks you're significant enough to prosecute)?

You can blather here all that you want. However, the people who really matter start talking to your employer, your bank, and the moving company emptying out your house, your words will be, again, worthless.

I hope you've made reasonable arrangements for your wife and family -- otherwise you'll find that living in the back seat of a Yugo isn't the best thing for family bonding.

[The Operative]

First, you did not answer the question when I posted it. The first time I posted these question is at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4011&p=62055#p62055 Second, the similar question that I refer to is first found at viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4021&p=61980#p61980 You responded to that post, but YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED.

I did answer you to the best of my ability, given the artfulness of your post, you did not respond until now, or if you did I missed your response.

My original question was:

Weston,

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable.

A simple question: Do you think the courts would agree with that statement?

You responded with:

Just take out the word 'labor' and I agree with that statement.

I responded to that with:

I did not ask if YOU agreed with the statement, I asked if you think the COURTS would agree with that statement.

You did not properly read my question and you did not answer my question.

Now, by your 'NO' answer, you are saying that a tax on wages for labor is NOT a capitation. Is that what you are saying? If it is, that is in direct contradiction to what you said earlier,

No, for the sole fact that “wages” and "services" are specific legal terms that have been especially defined within 26 USC.

You are also saying that compensation for labor, paid in the form of wages, are subject to the income tax laws. Is that what you are saying?

I am not “also saying” anything, you are the one that insists upon using legal definitions; you are not being sincere in your questions.

However, what you stated above is incorrect, it is not 'compensation for labor' it is 'compensation for services' that is taxable in the form of "wage". BIG DIFFERENCE.

I am being sincere in my questions. You answered with a single 'NO' and I asked TWO separate questions. I was attempting to discern what you believe. I believe what you are claiming is that a person receives taxable 'wages' from an employer ONLY if he or she perform 'services' for the employer. If a person performs 'LABOR' for an employer, the compensation he or she receives is not classified as taxable 'wages.' If that is your argument, the courts will never accept it.

The courts have stated that "There is no constitutional impediment to levying an income tax on compensation for a taxpayer's labors." Funk v. Commissioner, 687 F.2d 264, 265 (8th Cir. 1982)

Compensation for labor or services, paid in the form of wages or salary, has been universally, held by the courts of this republic to be income, subject to the income tax laws currently applicable. We recognize that the tax laws bear heavily on all persons engaged in gainful activity, and recognize the right of a taxpayer to minimize his taxes by all lawful means. But Romero here is not attempting to minimize his taxes; instead he is attempting willfully and intentionally to shift his burden to his fellow workers by the use of semantics. He seems to have been inspired by various tax protesting groups across the land who postulate weird and illogical theories of tax avoidance, all to the detriment of the common weal and of themselves. - United States v. Romero, 640 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir. 1981).

[Weston White]

Read the entire sentence, Weston. "There is NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE SECRETARY DO A SECTION 6020 RETURN in order to determine an income tax deficiency." Read the part in italics. The courts have ruled that there is no requirement that the Secretary do a 6020 return in order for the Secretary to assert a deficiency. I don't make the rules. (By the way, that "shall" normally means "must" in a statute. That may be the source of your confusion.)

You are ignoring the fact that I have been stating that the Secretary can only perform their own assessment/deficiency in light of 6020; they can only perform the assessment/deficiency otherwise as provided by the “taxpayers” own data.

I know shall means must, I was pointing out what would be an obvious double standard if I were to believe your incorrect viewpoint.

No, Weston. Wrong. That's not what it means. Paragraph (a) is applicable regardless of whether the matter involves stamp taxes.

Negative, see that is why they wrote “which have not been duly paid by stamp”, that makes it scope stamp taxes, that has to do with BATFE/Subtitle E not Subtitle A, except for a few limiting sections that expand upon that…otherwise guess what it is just repeating itself within the other paragraphs of which has already been made clear within paragraph (a). Not everything with Subtitle F applies to the entire IRC, much of what is in Subtitle F is from the Title 27 merging.

You're still not reading, Weston. READ. I said it's a legally frivolous argument. I did not say it was covered by the list under section 6702(c). (It may or may not be.) You are confusing two related but separate concepts: An argument can be legally frivolous and yet not be covered by section 6702(c)'s list. That list wasn't even promulgated until March 15, 2007. The term "frivolous" argument covers a lot more than just the frivolous arguments specified in the list. (Surprise! Surprise!)

For the purposes of 26 USC if it is not in the 6702(c) List or it is not a similar or related argument to what is numerated within the 6702(c) List, it is not ‘frivolous’ for such purposes. Other than that only a judge can make the determination that you are making and as it is specifically applicable to my individual circumstance. Remember that thing called due process of law?

No, it's subsection (b), not paragraph (b), and subsection (b) does not limit the application of section 6011 to just Chapters 21 and 24.

Yes it does “… with respect to persons subject to the taxes imposed by chapter 21 or chapter 24 …”.

Gibberish, Weston. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no legal requirement that there be a "statute which implements any such 1040 form within 6012." That verbage is gibberish.

Where do you think the Regulations come from? Their purpose is to implement the statutes in a more practical manner…. The Regulations do not derive any power themselves. The Regulations come from the law, the moment the Regulations stop supporting the law or go outside the bounds of the law they are de facto.

Regarding Black's Law Dictionary: Black's is an example of what we call secondary authority. It's OK to quote from Black's if the person doing the quoting knows what he or she is doing. You, Weston, do not know what you are doing.

So said the loser, who lost.

[Weston White]

To which sections and regulations are you referring? Could they be the ones you just pulled out of thin air? You are playing a game and losing badly.

Cite something or admit you just made it all up, loser.

What are you a parrot?

You are right, the jig is up. I fabricated everything. I did it all, because I craved the attention. Can you ever find it in your heart to forgive me? Sniffle, sniffle.

[Judge Roy Bean]

....

Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

Weston, that's your real problem. Your "realizations" aren't based on reality. You have adopted a fantasy and your ego won't let you do anything but reinforce it. If someone hit you in the head with a shovel you'd be one of the bozos that says "I'm OK, man!"

I hear from struggling people infected by guys like you all the time. They get some kind of epiphany about what has happened to them based on something they find on the 'net. They get diverted into pathetically useless and expensive maneuvers when all the while the people taking advantage of them are gaining ground.

Ever stopped to figure out that some poor, even less-educated fool might destroy his financial life and his marriage and family by wandering off into the weeds you call a highway to tax salvation?

Fortunately your communication skills will preclude some from taking the plunge, but there are people as or even more ignorant than you who will keep on keepin' on. You, like other crackpots will help convince them to keep looking in the direction of nonsense that will ultimately condemn them to a disaster.

You have kids, Weston? Ever thought about what happens to families when one of the parents falls for your crap and eventually the mailman is at the door needing a signature on something or worse, people with badges are showing up at the house?

Ever seen what happens to kids at a school when word gets around there's legal trouble at home? Those visits from the process servers and the mail carrier needing signatures at the door don't go unnoticed by neighbors. People talk. Sometimes the local news picks up on the court cases, especially foreclosures. Do you think the kids really understand what happened and can explain it? No, they can't. Some of them even stop going to school because they're ashamed of what happened. They don't know their parent was just a fool who fell for a scam; they have even more vivid imaginations than you do. They have nightmares, too. Sometimes their relatives tell them things they've never known before about why things are going badly. Then family is no longer family. Trust breaks down. People take sides. Kids do stupid things, Weston.

So you can sing and dance all you want, but some of the people you help lure into the looking-glass world probably have people they drag down with them into the abyss, and some of those are kids.

Hope that gives you some comfort in your little narcissistic Internet fantasy realm.



You're a promoter of that, Weston.

[Weston White]

A person can be helped only if he wants to be helped. So far, you have illustrated that you are here only to argue, not to learn. You have also demonstrated that despite having received lots of excellent FREE advice, you have rejected that advice.

On the contrary I am learning much, I just do not share your contentions or sentiments. I have not rejected all advice, only bad advice. I have rather looked into the arguments that have been posed and found that they support my own understanding and have served to further enhance that.

You, Weston, have also demonstrated a disturbing, recurring tendency to play fast and loose with the facts, and an obdurate recalcitrance when confronted with your own errors. You repeat the same mistakes over and over. You read things into sentences that aren't there (remember the phony argument that the IRS must do a 6020 return prior to asserting a deficiency?), and you ignore texts you don't like (for example, sections 6213 and 6215).

Not at all and no I am not familiar with that argument. The IRS would only need to generate a 6020 if they intended to perform their own assessment/deficiency (otherwise there would never be a need for 6020 anyways, because the IRS could just do whatever they chose to regardless, just as you seem to believe that they can, though in reality they cannot, except for when those specific conditions listed therein have been met). If I am repeating the same mistakes, which they would be from your perspective, then that serves to show that I am consistent and am on the right track.

Also a legitimate CtC return does not meet the definition of a Zero Return and does not fail the Beard Test. This is why it is not mentioned in consideration of a Zero Return for the purposes of the 6702(c) List. This is because a CtC return has realized income included upon it and serves to correct misreported monies. If the IRS has an objection to that or a concern they need to contact the person and seek clarification through the proper channels, (hell our phone numbers are included right there on the 1040), sending vaguely written threatening and harassing letters and notices is not the correct way to handle this.

You aren't fooling anyone Weston, except (maybe) yourself.

Believe dat!

[Weston White]

[Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

Weston:

Exactly what impact will your report have on the civil liabilities outstanding against you for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest AND on the potential criminal charges for tax evasion (if DoJ thinks you're significant enough to prosecute)?

You can blather here all that you want. However, the people who really matter start talking to your employer, your bank, and the moving company emptying out your house, your words will be, again, worthless.

I hope you've made reasonable arrangements for your wife and family -- otherwise you'll find that living in the back seat of a Yugo isn't the best thing for family bonding.

Oh in due time it is going to put the likes of you and your ilk out of business. The day, it approaches!

[Weston White]

Aside from the fact I'm unsure what "ignorning" means ....

You can’t discern between “ignorning” and “ignoring”? Seriously? Than why should I trust you on anything else related to reading comprehension?

What part of 26 U.S.C. § 6020 am I not considering?

Oh I don’t know the whole enchilada I suppose? So far as its relation and significance to 6201 is concerned anyways.

The second subsection has another relevant provision, in that, it applies not only when a return is not filed, but in the event, a false or fraudulent return has been filed.

Think 'Cracking the Code' (i.e., "zero") returns. That's where 'CtC' fails.

CtC returns are not Zero returns… Here try thinking of it this way… If CtC was a “Zero Rerturn”, they would not have CtC and Peter Hendrickson still sitting on the IRS’ Dirty Dozen List as it has been for the last FOUR YEARS! Savvy?

[Imalawman]

[Sweat? Are you kidding me, these last two days I have gotten a ton of ideas for a new report I want to compile. The only thing I am “sweating” about it trying to retain all of the new information I have recently come to realize.

Weston:

Exactly what impact will your report have on the civil liabilities outstanding against you for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest AND on the potential criminal charges for tax evasion (if DoJ thinks you're significant enough to prosecute)?

You can blather here all that you want. However, the people who really matter start talking to your employer, your bank, and the moving company emptying out your house, your words will be, again, worthless.

I hope you've made reasonable arrangements for your wife and family -- otherwise you'll find that living in the back seat of a Yugo isn't the best thing for family bonding.

Oh in due time it is going to put the likes of you and your ilk out of business. The day, it approaches!

There will never be a world without some form of taxation. Never.

[Doktor Avalanche]

There will never be a world without some form of taxation. Never.

Didn't you know? He's secretly building a Stargate(TM) to take him to that habitable world where his theories prevail all day forever.

[absdes96]

It is with a lot of fascination that I have read this entire thread. Indeed, I have learned a few new things.

I run the risk of contributing absolutely nothing here...so many of you can save your thanks for a later time.

Though I am not trained as an attorney, knowing some fundamentals of federal income taxation is crucial for my line of work. One of the first concepts that any serious financial analyst or accountant learns is that "any item of income received by a taxpayer is includible in gross income unless a specific provision in the IRC specifically states that the item may be excluded". We are taught that "unless the Code explicitly provides otherwise, the rule that all items of income are includible in gross income stands".

I work in the financial industry (and I am an aspiring chemist), so I am layperson compared to many on this forum...but the language is clear even to this "not-so-bright" layperson.

The source that I quoted is Fundamentals of Income Taxation written by Professor James F. Ivers III, J.D. (published by The American College in Bryn Mawr, PA).

[ASITStands]

I work in the financial industry (and I am an aspiring chemist), so I am layperson compared to many on this forum...but the language is clear even to this "not-so-bright" layperson.

You're brighter than tax deniers! You've grasped the first principle of taxation, and you don't make stupid arguments how the tax code doesn't apply to you. Live long, and prosper well!

[Doktor Avalanche]

I work in the financial industry (and I am an aspiring chemist), so I am layperson compared to many on this forum...but the language is clear even to this "not-so-bright" layperson.

You're brighter than tax deniers! You've grasped the first principle of taxation, and you don't make stupid arguments how the tax code doesn't apply to you. Live long, and prosper well!

Yes, indeedy! You rock, dude!

[Weston White]

There will never be a world without some form of taxation. Never.

Oh sure, nobody is saying otherwise, though taxing ones labor, was not meant to be except for in sever and dire cases. Read the Federalist Paper 36 to gain some insight in that.

[Weston White]

It is with a lot of fascination that I have read this entire thread. Indeed, I have learned a few new things.

I run the risk of contributing absolutely nothing here...so many of you can save your thanks for a later time.

Though I am not trained as an attorney, knowing some fundamentals of federal income taxation is crucial for my line of work. One of the first concepts that any serious financial analyst or accountant learns is that "any item of income received by a taxpayer is includible in gross income unless a specific provision in the IRC specifically states that the item may be excluded". We are taught that "unless the Code explicitly provides otherwise, the rule that all items of income are includible in gross income stands".

I work in the financial industry (and I am an aspiring chemist), so I am layperson compared to many on this forum...but the language is clear even to this "not-so-bright" layperson.

The source that I quoted is Fundamentals of Income Taxation written by Professor James F. Ivers III, J.D. (published by The American College in Bryn Mawr, PA).

And what was stated in the IRC prior to 1939, when the context was conveniently omitted? When prior to the 1940's not more then ~8% of the population filed Income Tax Returns? Does your book explain the need for the 'Victory Tax of 1942' when by that time the Income Tax had been in implemented for about 29-years? "

That is right:

"those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" and "unless exempt from tax by law" and "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" and "No other items may be excluded from gross income except (a) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" and "provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets. Profits of citizens, residents, or domestic corporations derived from sales in foreign commerce must be included in their gross income".

[Imalawman]

Weston you're slipping into the confusion about what the should be and what the law IS. Remember though that those 8% paid taxes on their wages - it does not prove your point.

I think that the founding father did not foresee widespread income taxation, because of the system of taxation that was currently in place. We had duties and tariffs. You do realize that most member of quatloos would stand to gain significantly from revoking the income tax and going to tariffs and duties don't you? You would be the one that hurts from such revenue collection. Or, you could get involved with politics and reduce the size of the government to where we don't need the income. But all of this does not change what the law currently IS.

[absdes96]

Weston,

To answer your question , the textbook I have does not make reference specifically to the Victory Tax of 1942. From reading your previous posts, I think I can discern why that would be of interest to you.

This author discusses how the 16th Amendment nullified the Pollock decision and, with its broad & sweeping language, gave rise to the Revenue Act of 1913. There were additional revenue acts that lead to the codified IRC of 1939. The IRC of 1939 gave rise to employee withholding provisions. (I have actually picked through sections of IRC 1939 and, interestingly, the definitions of words ranging from individual to employer to employee to compensation are lengthy and precise.) It does not leave much room for ambiguity.

[LPC]

Though I am not trained as an attorney, knowing some fundamentals of federal income taxation is crucial for my line of work. One of the first concepts that any serious financial analyst or accountant learns is that "any item of income received by a taxpayer is includible in gross income unless a specific provision in the IRC specifically states that the item may be excluded". We are taught that "unless the Code explicitly provides otherwise, the rule that all items of income are includible in gross income stands".

Oddly enough, that is exactly what section 61 says, and exactly what the Supreme Court has affirmed in Glenshaw Glass and other cases.

And you mindlessly believed it. Welcome to the cult of the brainwashed sheeple.

[Weston White]

Weston you're slipping into the confusion about what the should be and what the law IS. Remember though that those 8% paid taxes on their wages - it does not prove your point.

I think that the founding father did not foresee widespread income taxation, because of the system of taxation that was currently in place. We had duties and tariffs. You do realize that most member of quatloos would stand to gain significantly from revoking the income tax and going to tariffs and duties don't you? You would be the one that hurts from such revenue collection. Or, you could get involved with politics and reduce the size of the government to where we don't need the income. But all of this does not change what the law currently IS.

No they paid it on their income just like they were supposed to and it serves to make at least two very important points:

1. If the income tax of 1913 was a tax upon laboring for sustenance, there would have been no need for the “Victory Tax Act of 1942’ because the government would have already been getting that money anyways.
2. It exposes the underlying truth because there is absolutely no other explanation as to why until the ‘Current Tax Payment Act of 1943’ which thereafter forced “wage” withholding, the majority of Americans did not file federal income tax returns during the first 29-years of it being established. The only explanations are that:
a. All of America was unemployed, which recorded statistics show that not to be the case.
b. That the majority of Americans did not meet the legal requirements to have to file a federal income tax return, which fundamental law supports, ergo, ‘capitation taxes’.
c. That the majority of Americans were required to file a federal income tax return, but chose not to for whatever reasons, which their actions in choosing to VOLUTARILY participate in the success of the Victory Tax does not support such a notion.
The fact is that the ‘Victory Tax’ served to lull the people into the idea of having their pay withheld under the guise of patriotism, it was nothing other than a form of trickery and deceit, notwithstanding the law in any capacity.

And what do you think the IRC is, exactly? It is the 'Underwood Tariff Act of 1913' or the 'Tariff Act of 1913'! OMG!

The only difference so far as taxes is concerned between then and now is there are many hundreds more types of taxes and there is no more taxes on slavery, though in exchange those that would be slaves to date are taxable in consideration of their productivity and the same goes for females, females are no productive members of society rather than just homemakers. The annual revenue generated by the federal government is massive regardless if they tax the American worker or not! The annual revenue generated by the federal government without taxing the American worker is ever massive compared to taxes laid prior to 1913, regardless!