Hijack detour

[Quixote]

Bulten's latest statement denying he believes all the nonsense he posts on LH.

===============================================

OK here I will take time to deny strawmen:

1. I do not interpret "includes" and "including" to be words of limitation.
2. The Federal income tax does apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma, and Florida, and Alaska.
3. For a receipt of income, since it's income, you should pay the tax (it's only when you don't know whether it's income that you should consult the code, statutes, and regulations).
4. I am not trying to sell falsehoods.
5. I am not considering the Bulten Belief defense (the name coined by Famspear and used by him about 40 times on this forum), or counterfactual hypotheticals about it.

Mixed in with Famspear's misrepresentations are some accurate representations, which I wholeheartedly affirm and would challenge him to rebut if he disagrees. Namely, payments received for working should be compared against the fact tests for statutory "wages" given in sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) and dependent subsections. And, some payments for working are simply not statutory "wages" or "income". For instance, I mentioned payments for ag labor, which any tax beneficiary would agree is not "wages" and does not meet the statutory fact tests.

However, Famspear is a trained lawyer, so he is perfectly capable of calling these valid explications of tax law a "totally false idea" and, in his next post, creating and advocating some rationalization for his confusion. Oh, wait, he posted his next post while I was writing that last (unretouched) sentence, and sure enough, he rationalized that my correct statements of law are false because they mean something different than they say. Orwellian. (Famspear is also an amateur psychologist, as a simple search for threads initiated by him will reveal— and my experience with self-appointed amateur psychologists who rationalize and digress frequently would not be complimentary to him.) But for a lawyer to advise your not reading the law is neither surprising, nor without its benefits to the lawyer.

But Famspear's later post is mostly meritless, such as his rejecting the (strawman) position that "gross" amounts are not "taxable" amounts. Obviously 26 USC 61 and 63 clearly distinguish "gross income" from "taxable income". But even if Famspear corrected his hasty and rather deep-seated mischaracterizations, you can see why I still wouldn't be interested in rebutting every position that comes down his pike.

But to return: userfriendly (presumably) holds a W-2 listing amounts of "wages" as defined in subsections 3401(a) and 3121(a). How would userfriendly know the amounts of "wages" were correct, if not by use of the fact tests in those sections?
_________________
Nothing on earth is less certain than death and taxes.

[Quixote]

2. The Federal income tax does apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma, and Florida, and Alaska.

...

4. I am not trying to sell falsehoods.

On this forum he's giving them away.

JB, Feel free to explain, for the first time anywhere, why the federal income tax does not apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma. If the explanation involves your peculiar interpretation of the verb "include" in any of its forms, don't bother.

[Famspear]

John, you continue to be a glutton for punishment. Here, you say:

I do not interpret "includes" and "including" to be words of limitation.

Yet here you say:

NO provision of law places Oklahoma otherwise within the term "State" for income tax purposes. [ . . .] NO court case has held that Oklahoma is a "State" for income tax purposes [ . . . ]

Here, you say:

The Federal income tax does apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma, and Florida, and Alaska.

How Orwellian of you, John. So, John, are you admitting that the gross income of that McDonald's worker in Tulsa includible in gross income under section 61? And have you abandoned "Cracking the Code," and are you reporting everything you earn as gross income for tax purposes?

Here, John says:

payments received for working should be compared against the fact tests for statutory "wages" given in sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) and dependent subsections.

No, John, that is incorrect. How Orwellian of you. We're talking about whether a particular item of compensation is includible in gross income under section 61. Sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) are not determinative of that question, as you well know. For our purposes, payments received for working should NOT be compared against those "fact tests."

No, John, I am not confused about any of this stuff, and neither are the other non-tax protester posters here in Quatloos.

More to the point, the problem for you, John, is that a jury might some day conclude from your comments here in Quatloos that you are not really confused either. A jury might some day conclude that you are simply continuing with your obdurate, long-standing, well-documented disagreement with the law - a disagreement that just might not rise to the level of an actual good faith belief based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the Code. And you know, it just looks a whole lot to me like you are well aware of what the Code says -- and that you're just a tax protester who disagrees with the law. You'd better hope people who think like me don't end up on your jury.

Bulten wrote:

But Famspear's later post is mostly meritless, such as his rejecting the (strawman) position that "gross" amounts are not "taxable" amounts. Obviously 26 USC 61 and 63 clearly distinguish "gross income" from "taxable income".

Oh, John, I hate to be a bore, but YOUR point is the meritless "strawman" point. How Orwellian of you. In the post or posts to which you apparently refer, I never brought up anything that would require you to point out the difference between section 61 "gross income" and section 63 "taxable income." You did, though, just then.

And since you brought that up, I must point out -- unfortunately for you -- that a jury that sees you can clearly tell the difference between "gross income" (section 61) and "taxable income" (section 63) might just be able to conclude that you are ALSO aware that section 61 gross income is what counts here -- and that you are IN FACT WELL AWARE that sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) are not proper Code sections to be citing to argue that someone's compensation is not includible in section 61 gross income. I hate to be such a bother!

Bulten wrote:

But for a lawyer to advise your not reading the law is neither surprising, nor without its benefits to the lawyer.

John, I'm not sure what you mean by a lawyer advising someone not to read the law - as I don't recall seeing any such advice posted, at least not here in Quatloos, by me or anyone else. Come to think of it, though, it might be a good idea to advise YOU, JOHN, not to read the law anymore -- since reading the law hasn't gotten you anywhere -- at least, not anywhere you should want to be. You might be healthier and happier if you just dropped the whole subject. (That's just my inner amateur psychologist self speaking to you, though.) My advice to you would be to stop reading tax law, stop thinking about tax law, stop associating yourself with a loser like Pete Hendrickson, and definitely stop following your own advice about tax law if that's what you're doing.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Bulten's latest statement denying he believes all the nonsense he posts on LH.

===============================================

OK here I will take time to deny strawmen:...2. The Federal income tax does apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma, and Florida, and Alaska.

As for Oklahoma, that side of the Red River is, well, Oklahoma, which I believe is a native American word that translates to "orifice." Hence, workers in Oklahoma are, well, use your own imagination, but that doesn't involve "ordinary."

Florida also has no "ordinary" workers. As I understand it, they are all "immigrant" workers.

Alaska by virtue of its lattitude has only "frozen" workers.

You're welcome.

My work here is done.

[notorial dissent]

===============================================

............. snipped Bulten nonsense

For instance, I mentioned payments for ag labor, which any tax beneficiary would agree is not "wages" and does not meet the statutory fact tests.
Oh, and pray elaborate as to where you come up with this? For if they do not receive wages, what pray tell to do they receive?

............... more Bulten nonsense

Nothing on earth is less certain than death and taxes. Or John trying to weasel his way out of a straightforward response.

[Joey Smith]

Simply because of John's posts here on Quatloos, and the replies to him of other posters telling him in no uncertain terms that he is wrong, will totally destroy any attempted Cheek defense (the only defense that he could assert) at trial.

John is a lost cause. He doesn't realize it yet, but in future years we will be checking up on his status at http://www.bop.gov

The only TPs who have successfully asserted the Cheek defense are those like Long, Kuglin and Cryer who flew below the public radar screen until nearly the day of their trials. No TP who has called attention to him or attempted to argue the law has even gotten close to winning an acquittal, and most of those (Rose, Clayton, Scharff, Thompson, etc.) who were active on the discussion boards went down as spectacular failures at trial.

[wserra]

The great thing about juries is that youse never know. I mean, what's more ridiculous than a lawyer succeeding with a Cheek defense?

Still, jumping up and down in an open field during a thunderstorm, in hopes that the lightning will strike the lone tree fifty meters away rather than you, doesn't seem like an intelligent plan.

[John J. Bulten]

- All my quotes above are accurate CtC positions.

- I have not abandoned CtC, nor the law.

- I did not hijack the thread.

- Again, the federal income tax applies to workers in the fifty states (if they have income, of course).

- Gross income is included in gross income because it's gross income.

- I report all my gross income as gross income.

- Not everyone should report everything they earn to the IRS as gross income.

- I do not disagree with the law here (not counting a couple nonprecedential cases in other districts).

- Famspear did reject the idea "that 'gross' amounts are not 'taxable' amounts", as I made light of:

Bulten would argue (for example) that the gross amounts earned ... are not taxable to that worker.

- But I admitted that that was not what he meant to say in my next (unquoted) sentence.

- Famspear did advocate not reading the law applicable to pay for work:

the totally false idea taht [sic] payments received for working should be compared against the fact tests for statutory 'wages' given in sections 3121(a) and 3401(a) and dependent subsections

- My authority that "ag labor ... does not meet the statutory fact tests" is 3121(a)(8) and 3401(a)(2).

- 3121(a) and 3401(a) also describe lots of remuneration or payments excepted from "wages".

- Exceptions to brief descriptions (like "ag labor") are the reason I refer to the statutory tests anyway.

- I am where I want to be and should want to be.

- Oklahoma means "red men".

[Famspear]

It's no use, John. You're whistling past the cemetery. The gross amounts earned by and paid to a McDonald's Hamburger worker in Tulsa, Oklahoma are taxable to that worker for Federal income tax purposes.

[BBFlatt]

John J. Bulten wrote:

- My authority that "ag labor ... does not meet the statutory fact tests" is 3121(a)(8) and 3401(a)(2).

IRC section 3121(a) states:

For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means all...

The chapter in which that section appears is Chapter 21, which begins with section 3101 to 3128, so the definitions in section 3121 has no impact outside of that chapter; and does not limit the applicability of section 61, which is in Chapter 1.

IRC section 341(a) states:

For purposes of this chapter, the term "wages" means...

The chapter referenced therein is chapter 24, which includes sections 3401 through 3456, and likewise has not impact outside of that chapter.

It does not appear from your posts that you have difficulty reading and understanding plain English, perhaps you are being deliberately obtuse?

edited 2007-08-02 14:47 to correct spelling of Bulten.

[ArthurRubin]

- All my quotes above are accurate CtC positions.

Oxymoron.

[Joey Smith]

Bulten's latest statement denying he believes all the nonsense he posts on LH.

===============================================

OK here I will take time to deny strawmen:...2. The Federal income tax does apply to ordinary workers in Oklahoma, and Florida, and Alaska.

As for Oklahoma, that side of the Red River is, well, Oklahoma, which I believe is a native American word that translates to "orifice." Hence, workers in Oklahoma are, well, use your own imagination, but that doesn't involve "ordinary."

Florida also has no "ordinary" workers. As I understand it, they are all "immigrant" workers.

Alaska by virtue of its lattitude has only "frozen" workers.

You're welcome.

My work here is done.

Uncalled-for disparagements of native Oklahomans are not appreciated on Quatloos.com

[Judge Roy Bean]

Uncalled-for disparagements of native Oklahomans are not appreciated on Quatloos.com

I'll only use called-for disparagements of native Oklahomans from now on.