The IRS shows Ed the law

[Demosthenes]

But they've already collected their $1,000,000 property reward...

IRS official cites federal tax code

By KRISTEN SENZ
Sunday News Correspondent
9 hours, 12 minutes ago

Frank Keith knows some people will never be convinced of their obligation to pay federal income tax. Nevertheless, he said, paying the tax is, in fact, a legal requirement of all U.S. residents.

Keith, chief of communications and liaison for the IRS, said two specific sections of Title 26 in the United States Code establish tax liability for individuals.

Sections 6011(a) and 6012(a), he said, are the basis for the "hundreds" of court cases in which anti-tax activists like Plainfield's Ed and Elaine Brown have been convicted of felony tax evasion.

Section 6011(a) reads in part: "When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary . . ."

Keith said multiple courts have ruled that the "regulations," or IRS rules, to which the statute refers carry the same weight as laws. "I think there's ample case law that says regulation has the strength of law," he said.

The Browns and many of their supporters argue that the federal court system is corrupt and invalid, and that court decisions are not the same as laws.

Section 6012(a), titled "Persons required to make returns of income," reads:

"Returns with respect to income taxes ... shall be made by the following: Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individual who: is not married, is not a surviving spouse, is not a head of a household and for the taxable year has gross income of less than the sum of the exemption amount plus the basic standard deduction applicable to such an individual ..."

Keith, who refused to talk specifically about the Browns' case, said he understands that the language used in the statutes may not satisfy all citizens.

"I'll agree that I may never be able to point to a section that's written in a way that they would like it to be written," he said.

But, he added, the U.S. Code can't be dissected to suit one's arguments.

"You can't always take one section of a code all by itself," he said.

Keith also pointed to a document on the IRS Web site that attempts to debunk "frivolous" arguments about tax liability. The 61-page document (available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf) addresses several claims the Browns have made, including improper ratification of the 16th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"The arguments are well laid out right there in that document," Keith said. "There are a number of arguments, and I think what most of them have in common is they are not persuasive in a court of law."

Yet some people with views similar to the Browns' have won their court cases.

When a defendant convinces a jury that he honestly believed no tax liability existed, the jury must acquit due to a lack of criminal intent.

But the duty to pay federal income taxes is a very real one, Keith said.

"If certain conditions are met, you're required to file a tax return," he said, "and there are civil and criminal consequences for those who don't."

Keith said those "conditions" have to do with income, a term the Browns say isn't defined in the statutes and seems to deal only with corporate or off-shore activities.

"I point to a section in a code that I and hundreds of judges and juries have said creates the requirement," and still tax protesters argue about definitions and technicalities, Keith said. "The statute gives you the requirement."

[Demosthenes]

IRS lists and refutes 'all of the anti-tax arguments'

By SHAWNE K. WICKHAM
New Hampshire Sunday News Staff
8 hours, 57 minutes ago

Convicted tax evaders Ed and Elaine Brown of Plainfield aren't the first Americans to claim they shouldn't have to pay income tax, and they likely will not be the last, given the amount of debate the issue has sparked on the Internet.

But legal scholars are quick to point out the U.S. Constitution -- the document many anti-government folks like the Browns hold most sacred -- does in fact allow an income tax. Article 1 enumerates the powers of Congress, including "the power to lay and collect taxes ... to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ..."

As our young nation grew, lawmakers and the courts debated whether any income tax collected had to be divided equally among the states on a per capita basis. Finally, Congress passed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1909, and sent it out to the states to be ratified, which required three-quarters of the then-48 states.

Here's the text of the 16th Amendment: "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."

Seems clear? Not so fast, say some folks, among them Brendan Kelly, chairman of the New Hampshire Libertarian Party.

"They never passed it," he insisted. "They just said they did."

Kelly -- and he has plenty of company -- contends "they didn't have enough states to go along with it" to ratify the 16th Amendment.

"This is when it started," he said. "They started the Federal Reserve Bank and all this nonsense that stole freedom from the country."

Not true, says Michael York, the state librarian. He produced the New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, 2003 edition, which lays out the history of Amendment XVI. The amendment, it states, "was proposed by the Sixty-first Congress on July 12, 1909, and was declared ratified on February 25, 1913."

It goes on to list the states that ratified the amendment and the dates they did so. The first was Alabama, on Aug. 10, 1909.

The last? New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 -- which happens to be after the date the U.S. Secretary of State declared the amendment ratified. (According to information posted on the U.S. House of Representatives Web site, New Hampshire had previously rejected the same amendment in March, 1911.)

York said he's heard the arguments over the years that there weren't enough states that ratified the 16th amendment, but, by his count, there were more than enough.

"When I counted them up, there were 42. They needed 36," he said.

►IRS official cites federal tax code
►What the law says
►Browns say they will either walk free, or die
►The Browns insist they won't back down
►Feds say they can outwait the Browns
►Couple won't fight verdict of tax evasion
►Freedom or 'body bags,' say Browns
►Officials: Browns have enough assets
►Prosecutors: Seize Browns' property

Ohio is a particularly popular target of Internet theories; the argument goes that Ohio wasn't really a state until 1953, when Congress issued a proclamation making it so -- even though it was accepted into the union 150 years earlier.

By York's count, there were 40 states that had ratified the 16th Amendment by Feb. 25, 1913; Massachusetts and New Hampshire did so on March 4 and March 7 of that year, respectively.

So even if you wanted to discount Ohio, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, 39 states had ratified the amendment prior to Feb. 25, 1913.

As a historian, York said, it's clear to him that the issue has been settled. "This has been adjudicated at the U.S. Supreme Court level, and they're the ones that in fact decide whether the laws are constitutional, and they've decided that in fact the 16th Amendment is constitutional."

Stephen Black is a professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, and an expert in tax law. For years, he, too, has heard the arguments that there's no legal basis for federal income taxes.

He noted the IRS lists and refutes "all of the anti-tax arguments that have been collected over the years" on its Web site. (Search for "frivolous tax arguments" on irs.gov.)

Black said one recurring argument is that states voted on slightly different versions of the 16th Amendment.

"They didn't have Xerox machines. They had to copy things by hand," he said, and that apparently led to minor differences in the wording.

But in the decades since, Congress has written and re-written the federal tax code, the first codified in 1939 and the most recent version in 1986. And the courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of income tax laws, Black said.

"The fact is, we live together as a country," Black said. "There are costs that we the people have agreed to via our representatives, and we have to pay those somehow."

Nobody really wants to pay taxes, he said. "But if we're going to have an army to protect us, if we're going to have freeways to go in between states, if we're going to have Homeland Security, if we're going to have the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure the milk I drink is pasteurized, then each of us has to come up with our fair share, whatever that fair share has to be."

Kelly is not convinced. He said he doesn't file a federal tax return, although he does have federal taxes withheld from his paycheck by his employer. He claims there are "millions of people in this country that do what I do."

He does not believe the Browns went too far by not paying their federal taxes, "because the government has no right to collect it in the first place."

Kelly said his own approach is to work toward electing more libertarians to reduce the role and power of the federal government.

But, Black noted, the founding fathers created the representative form of government that enacted the tax system that exists today.

"If we don't like that, we have channels to change it. But we the people need to do that," he said.

"And at the point where one person says, 'I'm not going to pay,' we the people have said, 'If you don't, that's a crime.' And there's a punishment attached to it."

[Nikki]

The response by the IRS is totally invalid since it relies on both the 16th Amendment and Title 26.

According to Ed's rules, both of those are not admissable.

[Famspear]

In my view the statutes, etc., are fine, and I don't think there is any rewording that you could do to the statutes that would significantly reduce the amount of tax protester activity. This is a group of people, many of whom assert that Congress has no power to impose taxes on incomes from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the states, etc., even though the 16th Amendment clearly states otherwise. This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the fifty states are not "states." This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the words "includes" and "including" do not mean what IRC section 7701 clearly state they mean. This is a group of people, man of whom read section 61 and refuse to accept it. This is a group of people who say they have not been "shown the law."

Some hard core tax protesters, as a group, are intellectually dishonest. They are dishonest with themselves, and they are dishonest with other people. They are cheaters and deadbeats. Other hard core protesters suffer from severe psychopathologies of one sort or another. I personally believe that there is no amount of statutory refinement that would stop the hard core people from arguing their frivolous arguments, or that would stop these people from trying to cheat. After losing literally every case on tax protester arguments since the term "tax protester" began popping up in reported court cases (apparently around 1975), these people persist. Look at the penalties already imposed for frivolous positions on tax returns, and the penalties for frivolous positions in court. Like Wile E. Coyote in the Warner Brothers Road Runner cartoons, who keeps coming back and keeps being defeated, there may be nothing we can do to save the hard core wackos.

We might, however, be able to save a few of the ones who are not so hard core, not so loony. I believe that many of those people are caught up in tax protester scams and other scams not because they are really, really bad people, but instead because they are maybe just a "little" dishonest and really very, very gullible. That's an oversimplification, I know.

People with apparent serious mental conditions (like a certain someone recently banned from this website) are probably not salvageable.

People like John Bulten might or might not be salvageable. I personally don't hold out a lot of hope for them, realistically.

The ones who have not yet become too deeply entangled in the tax protester cults are the ones for whom I think we can reasonably hold the most hope.

--Famspear

[student]

Let's all hold hands, blindly follow the law, and give money and personal financial information to strangers.

Now... if collections agents were making the rounds at their local elementary school, explaining to children why it's important to give away paper money (and private things) back to the same government who prints the stuff, then perhaps we wouldn't even neeeed a CID.

Life is so simple when you're right.

[gezco]

Let's all hold hands, blindly follow the law, and give money and personal financial information to strangers.


Life is so simple when you're right.

I don’t think anyone on here really thinks you should blindly follow the law. I for one, never blindly follow the tax law, and I argue with the IRS all the time. You shouldn’t just make stuff up because you don’t like the law.

[Imalawman]

Life is so simple when you're right.

Yes, yes it is.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

Let's all hold hands, blindly follow the law, and give money and personal financial information to strangers.

Could you? I have some gas cards and some surplus air conditioners sitting in a warehouse in Viet Nam just waiting for a big time investor... How big is the mortgage on your house?

Seriously, it's okay to test the waters with the IRS and in fact one time with a messy probate I was invovled in, I actually stumped the IRS to the point of getting this advice:

"We're not really sure how to calculate the tax for this [we all acknowledged there was a tax], so make it reasonable."

The accountants who liked things nice and to the penny were very uneasy when I told them to figure out something to 13%.

However, you noticed how we didn't state that because of the lack of an OMB on the Consttution we didn't have to pay.

We might, however, be able to save a few of the ones who are not so hard core, not so loony. I believe that many of those people are caught up in tax protester scams and other scams not because they are really, really bad people, but instead because they are maybe just a "little" dishonest and really very, very gullible. That's an oversimplification, I know.

Yes there are always those who are easily lead so much by what they want to believe is true and slowly develop a deep "cost sink" of emotional attachment after having evangelized these theories to their freinds and neighbors and in court that, like the gold miners I knew in Alaska, the next case would bring the mother load and they would be heros for bringing down the evil tax man. [Insert: photo of super-happy well-dressed people petting tigers in paradise] (And of course they forget that the instant such a loophole opened, Congress would close it.)

[Disilloosianed]

Actually, new definitions wouldn't help. Our state statutes define a number of terms not defined federally and it doesn't seem to make a difference. Although it is fun when they say "I am not an individual.....there is no definition of individual....." and you can pull out the state statutes and say "Sure there is, bud...."

It never changes their minds, though........I think it would have to include their actual names, with the appropriate colons, of course.

[Anti-861]

Let's all hold hands, blindly follow the law, and give money and personal financial information to strangers.

Now... if collections agents were making the rounds at their local elementary school, explaining to children why it's important to give away paper money (and private things) back to the same government who prints the stuff, then perhaps we wouldn't even neeeed a CID.

Life is so simple when you're right.

So, never going to have a bank account, or investment account, or any sort of loan are we? Going to be awfully hard to find a home where the down payment is under $10,000 and someone will take your word that you are good for the monthly mortgage payment.

Also not planning to hold any sort of meaningful job, or establish your own business are you? Darned difficult to do either without giving your information to strangers.

Guess that rules out international travel too, and possibly even travel within the U.S., at least by driving your own car/truck/motorcycle.

Yes, I too want to make my life needlessly complicated and tortuous......sign me up! NOT!!

Cap, student is a troll of long standing. Don't feed him.

[John J. Bulten]

This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the fifty states are not "states." This is a group of people, many of whom assert that the words "includes" and "including" do not mean what IRC section 7701 clearly state they mean.

It is perfectly reasonable that sometimes your particular state is excluded from the definition of "State". For purposes of 33 USC 2901-2909, Oklahoma is not a State (2902(10)). Therefore, one cannot assume in general that Oklahoma is a State when not explicitly provided.

26 USC 7701(a)(10) provides what constitutes a "State" for tax purposes (e.g., DC), and does NOT explicitly provide that Oklahoma is a "State" for tax purposes. 26 USC 7701(c) does explicitly provide that IF something is otherwise within the meaning of the term "State" for tax purposes, THEN it is (surprise) within the meaning of the term "State" for tax purposes (the regulations narrow this further). 26 USC 7651(1) provides that other possessions (e.g., PR) are also to be counterfactually considered as "States", so PR is otherwise within the meaning of the term "State" for tax purposes.

NO provision of law places Oklahoma otherwise within the term "State" for income tax purposes. Congress has simply NEVER provided in any place that it is within this term. Because NO judge has succeeded in finding such a provision, NO court case has held that Oklahoma is a "State" for income tax purposes, although there are numerous cases that uphold union states being states for general and nontax purposes, and that uphold collectibility of taxes within union states whether or not they are "States" for tax purposes.

When judges need to prove liability they are obliged to rely on some nexus and they cannot find it in the word "State". They assume the proof is somewhere else, because "everybody knows" Oklahoma is a State for tax purposes; then they rule on the defendant's stipulation (or their own assumption) that some other easier nexus was proven, such as employee, employment, wages, United States, self-employment, trade or business, income, gross income, etc.

Famspear, are you able to admit that no judge has ever actually touched the electric fence and said outright that Oklahoma (or any other union state) is a 7701(a)(10) "State"? Since you don't think it's significant, you should be able to admit it freely.

BTW, Keith's fluff is CtC-transparent.

[Prof]

It should be noted that John J. Bulten is referring to Oklahoma, which refers to itself as "The Sooner State" and puts it on their vehicle license plates, thus anouncing to the world that Oklahoma is indeed a state, the "Sooner" state.

I apologize to all those in Baja Oklahoma.......

Here in Baja Oklahoma, we refer to "Sooner's" as refugees from Arkansas (see, e.g., Neckbone).

[Famspear]

Hello, Mr. Bulten. You wrote:

-----"It is perfectly reasonable that sometimes your particular state is excluded from the definition of "State". For purposes of 33 USC 2901-2909, Oklahoma is not a State (2902(10)). Therefore, one cannot assume in general that Oklahoma is a State when not explicitly provided."

No, John. It is not perfectly reasonable. It is laughable. The reason that Oklahoma and certain other states are not listed as states in 33 USC 2901 thru 2909 JUST MIGHT BE that in the absence of wording to the contrary, the legal meaning of "state" in Acts of Congress (when referring to the political entities making up the United States of America) is the same as the ordinary sense of the term "state" -- as in "one of the fifty states." Congress was using the term "state" in 33 USC 2901 et seq. in an unusual way, as the average tenth grader of normal intelligence and normal psychological condition can discern. This is not rocket science.

And, you wrote:

-----"Famspear, are you able to admit that no judge has ever actually touched the electric fence and said outright that Oklahoma (or any other union state) is a 7701(a)(10) "State"? Since you don't think it's significant, you should be able to admit it freely."

No, "it" is not particularly "significant" from a tax law standpoint whether a judge has "said outright" that Oklahoma or some other state is a section 7701 "state." Unfortunately for you, however, at least one person has indeed tried to argue in Federal court that one or more "states" were not really "states" for purposes of the Federal income tax -- and that person LOST ON THAT ISSUE. At least one case has recently been cited here in Quatloos, I believe. So sorry.

However, maybe the next variation on your argument will be that even if some other taxpayer in some other state lost on this issue, you, John Bulten, need for an OKLAHOMA resident to have lost on that argument before you will accept that OKLAHOMA is a "state" for Federal income tax purposes. Is that it? Do you need court rulings, one by one, in each of the fifty states, to incorporate each of those states in the union for Federal income tax purposes? You continue to make up your own new rules as you go along.

John, if you end up in a Federal court in Oklahoma and you argue that Oklahoma is not a "state" under section 7701, you WILL LOSE THAT ARGUMENT. Why don't you make that argument, along with all the other silly theories you have espoused here, if and when you go to court? And what are you going to do when you lose in court? Appeal? You will lose on appeal. What will you do then?

What's the plan, John? --Famspear

[Famspear]

Dear John: Regarding willfulness and the difference between a Cheek Doctrine "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code" and a "Bulten Belief" as we have discussed before, the following excerpt from a 1986 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is interesting:

-----"Moreover, defendant [James Harrold] testified he filed income tax returns from 1948 to 1975. By 1976, however, he stated he had come "to the conclusion that the wages [he] was receiving were not taxable income as defined by the Supreme Court, . . . ." R. X, 641. Defendant then ceased paying income tax. From this testimony we believe the jury had before it overwhelming evidence that defendant had full knowledge of his tax liability, but determined, for reasons known only to him, to drop out of the system. It would have been absurd for the jury to find that, although defendant had paid income tax on his wages for twenty-seven years, he suddenly no longer "knew" that this was his obligation. Cf. United States v. Weninger, 624 F.2d 163, 167-68 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012 (1980). The evidence demonstrated only that defendant disagreed with the law, not that he was unaware of it. [ . . . ] Thus, in light of the evidence at trial, defendant's good-faith defense was indeed transparent."

--United States v. Harrold, 796 F.2d 1275, 86-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9543 (10th Cir. 1986).

Now, Mr. Bulten, I presume you have been filing tax returns (albeit blatantly false ones), so your problem is different from that of Mr. James Harrold, who filed returns for years, and then stopped filing. The jury just did not believe his argument that was unaware of his filing requirement. But the basic concept applies. Every day you continue to come up with a new response here in Quatloos, you are driving another nail in your coffin. I presume you're not IN THE COFFIN, at least not yet. I presume your risk of being prosecuted is relatively low, as is everyone's risk -- at least at first. You do seem to be increasing your risks needlessly.

What's the plan, John? --Famspear

[Imalawman]

Famspear: I enjoy your posts, but if you could use the "quote" function they would be MUCH easier to read. Thanks.

[Famspear]

Famspear: I enjoy your posts, but if you could use the "quote" function they would be MUCH easier to read. Thanks.

The quote function?

(Famspear joins the 21st Century and learns about computer stuff .....)[/quote]

[John J. Bulten]

In the absence of wording to the contrary, the legal meaning of "state" in Acts of Congress (when referring to the political entities making up the United States of America) is the same as the ordinary sense of the term "state" -- as in "one of the fifty states."

Exactly Pete's point. 26 USC 7701(a)(10) is language to the contrary (i.e. language that "State" does NOT have the ordinary meaning of "one of the union states", in that it "includes" DC), and such language has been the law since the 1860s. So your assumption does not apply.

When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from that term's ordinary meaning. Meese v. Keene, 481 U. S. 465, 484-485 (1987) ("It is axiomatic that the statutory definition of the term excludes unstated meanings of that term"); Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. at 392-393, n. 10 ("As a rule, 'a definition which declares what a term "means" ... excludes any meaning that is not stated'"); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lenroot, 323 U. S. 490, 502 (1945); Fox v. Standard Oil Co. of N. J., 294 U. S. 87, 95-96 (1935) (Cardozo, J.); see also 2A N. Singer, Sutherland on Statutes and Statutory Construction §47.07, p. 152, and n. 10 (5th ed. 1992) (collecting cases).

Unfortunately for you, however, at least one person has indeed tried to argue in Federal court that one or more "states" were not really "states" for purposes of the Federal income tax -- and that person LOST ON THAT ISSUE.

I don't recall such a case. I do recall Nieman, a TC Memo ruling on "United States" rather than "State" (from Dan's FAQ):

Petitioner attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the States [sic] of Illinois is not part of the United States.

I note that the "judge" characterized Nieman's arguments as referring to the general meaning of "United States" rather than any specific definition such as 7701(a)(9). So Nieman was not provably arguing either for the word "State" or (more important) for taxation application only.

You, John Bulten, need for an OKLAHOMA resident to have lost on that argument before you will accept that OKLAHOMA is a "state" for Federal income tax purposes.

Are you able to admit that no judge has ... said outright that Oklahoma (or any other union state) is a 7701(a)(10) "State"?

Why don't you make that argument, along with all the other silly theories you have espoused here, if and when you go to court?

I do hope to argue this in court someday. If ever ruled against directly, it becomes an open invitation to the whole tax being struck down (such ruling would interpret "includes" as OTHER than what it says in 26 USC 7701(c) and 26 CFR 403.5, in order to explicitly make pay for work taxable in itself, against various Constitutional provisions). However, overall, the "plan" is just to keep speaking the truth, every way possible. Any suffering, if consequent on nothing more than speaking the truth, is easily dismissible.

Every day you continue to come up with a new response here in Quatloos, you are driving another nail in your coffin. I presume you're not IN THE COFFIN, at least not yet.

My responses may be new to you, but I've been able to deliver them consistently for 2+ years ever since getting the full understanding of CtC. Now, usually in your metaphor someone else nails the coffin, after the corpse is inside. Fascinating recharacterization. But then not unexpected considering your others.

-------

So here's the main questions, because you've shown past difficulty in finding them. Are you able to admit that no judge has said outright that any union state is a 7701(a)(10) "State"? What text makes you think there is some way that union states are "otherwise within the meaning" and "in the same general class" of DC and possessions for 7701(a)(10) purposes?

If it's so obvious that "the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) 'States'", it should be easy to find ANY case where a judge proves that, from some accepted principle of statutory construction: and significant that NO judge is willing to apply such a principle. As you know, judges like the path of least resistance: since 7701(c) permits great resistance, judges do NOT generally rule on it.

Look, I think you'd at least admit that it's a reasonable proposition that many statutes fail to name everything they might be presumed to apply to, and that in many cases there is an observable private/public line between what is stated and what is unstated:

- 3401(c) employee
- 3121(e)(1) State
- 7701(a)(10) State
- 4 USC 110(d) State
- 42 USC 1301(a)(1) State
- 3121(e)(2) United States
- 7701(a)(9) United States
- 22 USC 1395(a)(1) United States
- 42 USC 1301(a)(2) United States
- 7701(a)(26) trade or business
- 7701(c) includes and including
- 6331(a) subjects of levy

Such proposition is just an impartial observation about the existing law, which anyone, lawyer or not, could agree on. The question is if this fact has any significance. And the courts have refused to comment directly, assuming its insignificance without proof. Most notable is the USSC's refusal to define "trade or business" beyond public office or similar "income"-seeking activity:

But the difficulty rests in the Code's wide utilization in various contexts of the term "trade or business," in the absence of an all-purpose definition by statute or regulation, and in our concern that an attempt judicially to formulate and impose a test for all situations would be counterproductive, unhelpful, and even somewhat precarious for the overall integrity of the Code. We leave repair or revision, if any be needed, which we doubt, to the Congress where we feel, at this late date, the ultimate responsibility rests.

Your difficulty accepting these facts about the paucity of cases and the judicial desire to avoid my questions, in conjunction with your fixation on psychology and your blind acceptance of authority as if it will never betray you, suggest the weakness of your position. When one argues from a position of strength, one can freely admit contrary evidence, answer fearlessly, withhold ad hominems, and recognize higher authority: for instance, the USSC is happy to admit the unquestionable truth that there simply is no "all-purpose definition" of trade or business. I hope these circumstantial evidences will drive you to answer the main questions rather than punt, as you did on the last thread. In closing, here's a tremendous example of casuistry which never seems to get around to answering whether the union states are included:

The term "State", except where otherwise provided, includes the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and when used in subchapters IV, V, VII, XI, XIX, and XXI of this chapter includes the Virgin Islands and Guam. Such term when used in subchapters III, IX, and XII of this chapter also includes the Virgin Islands. Such term when used in subchapter V and in part B of this subchapter of this chapter also includes American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Such term when used in subchapters XIX and XXI of this chapter also includes the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. In the case of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, subchapters I, X, and XIV, and subchapter XVI of this chapter (as in effect without regard to the amendment made by section 301 of the Social Security Amendments of 1972) shall continue to apply, and the term "State" when used in such subchapters (but not in subchapter XVI of this chapter as in effect pursuant to such amendment after December 31, 1973) includes Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. Such term when used in subchapter XX of this chapter also includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Such term when used in subchapter IV of this chapter also includes American Samoa.

But for purposes of supplemental grants for population increases in certain States, where Constitutionality is not at issue:

The term "State" means each of the 50 States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Digression: Hey, did you hear Wisconsin Right to Life just won their USSC free speech case?

[Quixote]

If it's so obvious that "the 50 states are 7701(a)(10) 'States'", it should be easy to find ANY case where a judge proves that, from some accepted principle of statutory construction: and significant that NO judge is willing to apply such a principle.

Spoken like someone with no argument to support his silly position. That which is obviously true is seldom litigated. When it is, courts tend to dispose of it in the most expeditious manner possible, by noting that the position is silly and moving on. No one but a complete moron needs to be told that Oklahoma is a state in the ordinary meaning of the word.

[Famspear]

C-R-E-D-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, Mr. Bulten. No court has ever upheld your arguments. You are still bobbing and weaving. Trying to recharacterize your arguments to play with words to avoid the holdings in the cases I or others have previously cited to you gets you nowhere.

Let's look at 7701(a)(9) and (10) again for what must be the umpteenth time:

-----"(9) United States. The term "United States" when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

-----"(10) State. The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title."

Wouldn't it be nice for you if (a)(10) said:"The term "State" shall mean the District of Columbia"? It does not.

It would be nice for you if cases like the following didn't exist:

1. United States v. Ward, where the taxpayer's argument -- that the term "state" as used in Federal income tax law means only the District of Columbia and the territories -- was specifically rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. See United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987), 88-1 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 9177, cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1022 (1988).

2. United States v. Bell, which includes the following language:

-----"Defendants [Glen and Jeanette] Bell also argue the Secretary of Treasury's authority is limited by a definition of the "United States" that encompasses only territories and possessions such as the "Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa" (Def. Brief, p. 6, 11) but not the contiguous 48 states, Hawaii and Alaska. Defendants Bell reach this outcome "by interpreting the term 'include' [as used in the tax code] as a term of limitation rather than of definition", United States v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538, 1539 (11th Cir. 1987) "This claim . . . has no semblance of merit." " United States v. Bell, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1191, 98-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,791 (E.D. Calif. 1998), aff'd, 2001-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) paragr. 50,619 (9th Cir. 2001) [brackets in original].

3. Friesen v. Commissioner, where the taxpayer's argument -- that Nebraska was "without" the United States and that as a Nebraska resident the taxpayer was "alien to the foreign Federal jurisdiction" and therefore not subject to income tax -- was rejected. Friesen v. Commissioner, 71 T.C.M. (CCH) 1672, T.C. Memo 1996-2, CCH Dec. 51,103(M) (1996).

4. Nieman v. Commissioner, where the court rejected the following taxpayer arguments:

-----"That the Republic of Illinois is "without the United States";

-----[ . . . ]

-----"That "U.S. Citizens" are those people that are citizens of the District of Columbia; that U.S. citizens and/or inhabitants of the Territories, Possessions, or Federal States, may or may not be citizens of the United States (Union States);

-----"That Congress excludes the 50 States from the definition of "United States", for the purposes of 26 U.S.C., Subtitle A [ . . . ];

-----"That Ralph Edward Nieman is not a "U.S. Citizen", for purposes of Subtitle A, 26 U.S.C.; neither is he a resident, as that term is defined at 26 CFR 1.1-1, nor an inhabitant of the District of Columbia or any of the Territories, Possessions, or Federal States [ . . . ]"

--Nieman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1340, T.C. Memo 1993-533, CCH Dec. 49,403(M) (1993).

Mr. Bulten, why do you keep insisting, in effect, that your questions are the "main questions" -- the ones that other people must answer? You keep asking: "Are you able to admit that no judge has said outright that any union state is a 7701(a)(10) 'State'?" Are you asking us to find a case where the court stated, in these exact words, "Oklahoma, a union state, is a section 7701(a)(10) state."??? Do you really "believe" (as a "Bulten Belief" so to speak) that the jury is going to buy the idea that you have a Cheek Doctrine "actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code"?

Are you really so far gone mentally that you really believe that your arguments are not legally frivolous?

And when someone finds a case that has exactly the wording you've constructed in your futile attempt to avoid the legal effect of the cases we have cited, do you really think that we don't know you would just reject that case -- and go on to another silly argument?

More importantly, do you understand what will happen if you ever DO get to make your argument in open court in exactly the way you want to do it, couched in just the "right" words that you "believe" will somehow avoid all the holdings in all the cases?

What will happen is that you will lose.

And, with that loss, precedent number umpteen gazillion and one will be piled on top of all the previous umpteen gazillion precedents going the same way -- but with the significant difference that this time YOU will be the one to have to pay the piper. I hope for your sake that you do not end up in court. --Famspear

[gezco]

If he does end up in court and losing his case, John J. Bulten will most likely resort to the saddest, most pathetic saw of all, the one that every kool-ade drinking nut-job "TP" seems to love - the courts are corrupt and are part of a great plot to keep this "secret knowledge" from the hands of the people and ALL lawyers are in on the conspiracy.

Bets?

That’s a sucker bet. These guys all seem to go down the same path and it ends with “I can’t possibly be wrong, therefore the courts are corrupt.”