Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Dr. Caligari]

without allowing me anytime to get her 'acceptable' 1040's to submit to the underwriters.

Great idea. Not only have you committed tax fraud, you can now also commit bank fraud. Two felonies for the price of one.

[The Observer]

Great idea. Not only have you committed tax fraud, you can now also commit bank fraud. Two felonies for the price of one.

Not to mention admitting to it and throwing your relatives under the bus on the Internet in a forum dedicated to committing tax fraud that is owned by a convicted tax felon.

Not sure how you can top that, Kris - but I bet you can.

[Gregg]

Ya know, if I were a loan officer, and even if I got it that you made say, $100K a year and wanted a very reasonable loan for that amount of income, and even if you had no other debt, and even if you had otherwise acceptable credit.... there is no way I'd do the loan if for no other reason than the likelihood that in the not too distant future you'd be buried in tax liens, levys, legal fees and bail maybe, that all in all might make paying the mortgage less of a priority for you.

[.]

Not to mention that liens, levies, garnishment and/or worse might result in a newly found devotion to one or more of the bogus debt/mortgage avoidance schemes extant in the nut-cake, conspirazoid universe. What mortgage? You made it up!

Adherence to any goofy TP theory is probably a good indicia of an idiot who is highly likely to be future trouble to a lender for any (or many) of a long, long list of reasons.

Loan denied: You're an intellectually bankrupt doofus. The stated reason would be something obvious like the tax return claim of no income. Either you have no income or you're busy committing tax fraud. That's an automatic lose/lose deal for any loan officer/committee.

And these clowns know that they can't get a mortgage without committing bank fraud by submitting bogus return "copies" -- ya know, something that more-or-less resembles an accurate return -- that bear absolutely no resemblance to their fraudulent, actual tax returns. Yet, this sort of internal contradiction never sets off any multiple-federal-felony alarm bells.

[notorial dissent]

I would suspect that most loan officers, if they have been at it for more than ten minutes, and have at least a spec of sense, would pass the buck and probably say that underwriting wouldn't accept it and let it go at that, or if pressed will say it is because of income without committing themselves any further, as they may be dealing with seriously crazy people here, but mainly, I doubt seriously that the parties in question could/would have passed a credit screening, which would most likely have bounced them before it ever got started, as most of the loan officers I know run that the first thing before they ever get ink wet on paper. I mean seriously, does it seem likely that any of Hendrickson's schlubs would have anything but a negative credit rating?

[LPC]

And these clowns know that they can't get a mortgage without committing bank fraud by submitting bogus return "copies" -- ya know, something that more-or-less resembles an accurate return -- that bear absolutely no resemblance to their fraudulent, actual tax returns.

The last few times I went through refinancings, I had to sign a form consenting to disclosures by the IRS. (Can't remember the form number and don't have the interest in looking it up.) So those lenders had the ability to check with the IRS to see if the IRS records matched the copies of the returns I provided.

I don't know if the lenders actually performed the check, but if they did, and the numbers didn't match, I would expect an instant s***storm.

[Arthur Rubin]

The last few times I went through refinancings, I had to sign a form consenting to disclosures by the IRS. (Can't remember the form number and don't have the interest in looking it up.)

4506-T (and sometimes 4506, if the bank wants to absorb the $49 charge)

[Famspear]

The last few times I went through refinancings, I had to sign a form consenting to disclosures by the IRS. (Can't remember the form number and don't have the interest in looking it up.)

4506-T (and sometimes 4506, if the bank wants to absorb the $49 charge)

And LPC may have signed a Form 8821, Tax Information Authorization, as well:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8821.pdf

Ah, federal tax forms! They are such beautiful creatures!

[JamesVincent]

Ah, federal tax forms! They are such beautiful creatures!

Sometimes I wonder about your sanity as much as DKs.

[Famspear]

Ah, federal tax forms! They are such beautiful creatures!

Sometimes I wonder about your sanity as much as DKs.

Just wait until you hear me start singing about the elegance and charm of the Internal Revenue Code......

[AndyK]

I have several friends in IRS Forms Design. They take a great deal of pride in being able to translate the legally-mandated language and calculations into forms which are visually tolerable.

They deserve thanks for their efforts -- or you can try to use the draft forms which they work from. Would you believe a 9-page form 1040 with embedded instructions, worksheets, and so on?

[Famspear]

I have several friends in IRS Forms Design. They take a great deal of pride in being able to translate the legally-mandated language and calculations into forms which are visually tolerable.

They deserve thanks for their efforts -- or you can try to use the draft forms which they work from. Would you believe a 9-page form 1040 with embedded instructions, worksheets, and so on?

Yeah, the folks who design the IRS tax forms are definitely doing some impressive work. Over the years, IRS forms have contained very, very, very few actual errors (that is, places where a form did not correctly reflect the tax law). I can't even think of a specific instance of an error, just off the top of my head.

Occasionally, there are errors in the IRS instructions; even these errors are few and far between.

The tax forms are a sort of visual representation of the complexity of the tax law. The complexity of course is not the "fault" of the IRS people who design the forms. The Congress enacts the the statutes, and the form designers presumably have no hand in drafting the statutes or the Treasury regulations, etc., on which the forms must be based.

Yes, hats off to the folks who design the IRS tax forms!!

IRS "publications" and various provisions of the Internal Revenue Manual, however, can sometimes be a bit problematic. Still, blatant errors are rare.

[Cathulhu]

I must confess I've made a fair bit of change from critique of the IRS forms; when I worked for the service I was told I held the record for adopted employee suggestions for the Western half of the USA. Whenever a form or publication ticked me off, I'd fix it and send a copy in as a suggestion. Never counted how much money I made, but it piled up. I recall the first one--I added worksheets to the repossession section of the installment sale publication. Also did a lot of changes on foreign tax credit forms (right after I did the embassy tour, what a coincidence) and added examples to the instructions for the 8824.

[webhick]

I wish they'd put the addresses with the 941 form. It may even fit on the payment stub page. Always such a pain to pull up the instructions. I'm lazy, I know.

[tracer]

Wouldn't a better analogy be 'CTC is the law, much like Pluto has a tropical climate?'

I was going to comment that, technically, any object orbiting the sun with an axial tilt less than 45 degrees has a Tropic zone surrounding its equator.

But then I noticed that Pluto's axial tilt is 120 degrees*.





*) That's relative to its orbit, you understand, not relative to the plane of the Ecliptic. Pluto's orbit is inclined about 17 degrees with respect to the Ecliptic.

[LPC]

Just wait until you hear me start singing about the elegance and charm of the Internal Revenue Code......

Not long ago, I attended a building permit hearing at which I had to listen to architects and engineers argue about the interpretation and application of the international building code (which had been adopted locally). After I left, I told several people that I was looking forward to going back to my office and returning to the clarity and simplicity of the Internal Revenue Code.

And I meant it sincerely.

[stija]

I will answer the OP question, but we may need to revisit some basic principles first.

United States is a gov't of limited explicitly granted (and implicitly inferred) powers through the compact we know as the US Constitution.

United States (US) was also given some land (territory) for the seat of US gov't through 1:8:17 where they exercise exclusive legislative authority, and also through 4:3:2 for other properties, possessions, and territories.

With me so far? If not, stop here and ask what's confusing you.

Now, United States, or any government, can have two jurisdictions: territorial, and subject matter. As seen above in what i just said, they have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia pursuant to 1:8:17 and other property (terr, poss, etc) under 4:3:2. When Congress legislates in this capacity, it legislates only for 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. This is territorial decree or legislation i am talking about, not subject matter. Let's move to subject matter.

Income taxation is legislated through US 1:8:1 subject matter jurisdiction. We can all agree that income taxes are excise taxes which are indirect taxes. Therefore, US has complete and plenary legislative powers over this subject matter ok? We agree so far? If not, stop and ask me a question or tell me how you disagree.

So let's pick a section from Title 26 to work with because it will help us better illustrate what is going on as well as the subject matter regulated by US in the same Title. Section 6041 says, and i quote:

(a) Payments of $600 or more
All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income ....

This is the section that Microsoft uses to file information returns, we know as W-2s, to he SSA and IRS reporting your taxable salaries, wages, etc. Well, if we read the above section, it is clear that the determining factors of whether payments are to be reported are:

a) more than 600$, AND
b) engagement in trade or business and payments in connection with the same

So what is this 'trade or business' you say? Well let's look at the clear and unambiguous statutory language form the same Title right? Afterall this post started with someone asking for clear language, let's see it in 26 USC 7701(a)(26):

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Ok, so trade or business is the performance of a public office. Public office? Hold on, i work for Microsoft you say. Nahhh, it says includes, that means it includes the public office, but it also implicitly includes everything else right? Well, before you go down that path, i would urge you to reconsider how this topic started. The question was posed to show clear statutory language imposing a liability only on federal payments right?

Well, in that case, if you argue that "trade or business" includes all businesses and commercial transactions including public office, i ask of you the same thing: "Show me the clear statutory language saying that?" Since you cannot, and you obviously conceded this argument by posing the very same question at LH forums, your argument is moot and irrelevant - it is not an argument at all in fact because you would be arguing against your own argument. So let's not go down that path.....let's just assume that it includes only public office, as it does and which is proven in License Tax Cases:

"But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the states. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor
Page 72 U. S. 471
any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the states. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a state is warranted by the Constitution except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a state is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the state over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a state in order to tax it."

Well, what public office do you suggest Congress can regulate?? Are you suggesting that Congress can regulate Nevada public office? Or Oregon public office? Wouldn't such regulation be left to the state legislatures? Rhetorical question, need not be answered.

Therefore, so far we have learned that information returns are to be filed by persons engaged in public office making paymetns of 600$ in connection with that public office. So who may the returns be filed on then? Well let's look at the definition of 'employee' in 3401:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

To me this is clearly congruent with the definition of trade or business, or US public office. Therefore, it seems that information returns under Title 26 are to be filed only against people who work for uncle Sam right? Weellll, not so quick. Let me explain how all of you private fools on this board also enter the IRS matrix legally and make your private property, otherwise outside regulatory subject matter jurisdiction of US, includible in 'wages' and taxable.

Pursuant to 3402(p)(3) and regulations thereunder, anyone can enter into voluntary withholding agreements on their property which is not otherwise includible in wages under Title 26. Here's the crystal clear language, yet again:

(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee’s employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

Well first, it clearly shows that there are remuneration for services of an employee for his employer that do NOT constitute wages. Microsoft employee fills out a W-4 per § 31.3401(a)-3 and § 31.3402(p)-1 to treat his private property to be treated 'as if' (see 3401(a)-3) it were wages for withholding purposes so that he can participate in FICA, FUCA, etc. He probably did this unknowingly, but nonetheless it makes it legal. What a man volunteers for and requests, he cannot hold to be a diminishment or tax later on.

So there....while Title 26 regulates information returns only on US public payments of more than 600$, anyone can participate and play the game of income taxes.

Now your initial question was "how do we know that Title 26 regulates only federal payments?" Well i say to you, look at the legal evidence in Title 26. I also say to you that you have no clue about American Jurisprudence if you ask such a stupid question.

Your question is suggesting that federal law can regulate:

a) state public offices/officers/payments
b) private individuals and property

If that is what you are suggesting, then lick the federal hand that feeds you and keep paying homage to it for the privileges they grant you.

I, like many others, on the other hand understand that no gov't can regulate private conduct, whether state or federal. These gov'ts were chartered by us for the protection of our rights and granted powers and duties to exercise that charter. Grant of rights goes from people ====> states, and then from states =====>. Now if i grant you a right or a duty and you codify legislation for that right, are you codifying for me or for the exercise of your rights and duties?? Rhetorical question, need not be answered.

Bottom line is this, public laws deal with public property and pulic rights (publici juris). I don't know about you guys, but i need no public rights because i surrendered those through the US Constitution for my protections in the first place. I have natural rights, protected by the gov'ts in entrusted with protecting them by granting them rights of their own - public rights. Illegal apparently have 1st amendment protected right to commercially contract for work (not public employment) and earn a living through their labor. See Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals No. 12-15688. I concur because all sovereigns have natural rights. You guys erroneously believe that our rights attach to citizenship or civil status when they do not:

""The rights of sovereignty," says Wildman in his Institutes on International Law, [Footnote 7]
"extend to all persons and things not privileged that are within the territory. They extend to all strangers therein, not only to those who are naturalized and to those who are domiciled therein, having taken up their abode with the intention of permanent residence, but also to those whose residence is transitory. All strangers are under the protection of the sovereign while they are within his territories, and owe a temporary allegiance in return for that protection."" See Carlisle v. United States - 83 U.S. 147

In my private capacity i am non privileged. When i contract for a job i use my natural rights instead of the privileged public rights. Which do you guys use?

Moving on...there are two characters of public sovereignties in American Jurisprudence, the US and the states. And anyone who posed a question, such as the guy that was quoted in the original post, asking for proof that federal legislation can only legislate for federal property or contracts does not understand his place in the constitutional scheme of our republic, or the basic fundamental principles of federalism, separation of powers and diffuse sovereign powers between the two gov'ts.

So now, let me explain succinctly employment taxes in Subtitle C to all you here who read this.

I offer you a job for 100k/yr. I require in the contract a return of 50% of the gains and profits portion on the original salary of 100k. Contract defines gains and profits as anything above 50k, thus you quickly calculate that after discharging the obligation of returning 25k to me, you are contractually entitled to 75k. You accept and sign contract. I sign too. A year goes by......

After a year, i ask for my 25k. You say:

a) no law requires me to return that 25k to you,
b) i earned that through my labor, you can' tax labor,
c) any other nonsense of your choosing....

I no care. I start levying your wages next year until you satisfy debt. You can sue but you will lose, contract law says you agreed to return, no recourse. If you quit, i go to court and obtain a judgment against you, thus collect again and lien your property. IRS does the same exact things, they even legislated recourse under 6331 to collect at source. American Express will do the same thing, if your credit card debt exceeds their win/loss ratios.

Now couple of questions to you folks in re: to above scenario.

1. Do you think the contract me and you signed applies also to Jack Waldo, another one of my fine employees??
2. Does it matter if there is no federal law requiring you to return it to me??
3. Is the 25k you agreed to return a debt or a tax?

If you answer those questions correctly you will understand that Subtitle C Employment taxes are not taxes but a contractual debt obligation one agreed to by accepting employment contract and also:

1. Why there is no statute requiring any American to file a 1040 return
2. Why filing such returns is voluntary, thus non violative of 5th amendment
3. Why anyone anywhere can earn wages which are subject to the tax.

Now, any one of you are not only welcome, but strongly urged to dispute anything i said so far in this post, but abide by the following rules:

1. Do not argue something you cannot support with clear and unequivocal statutory language, or
2. Do not argue something you cannot support with an appellate or SCOTUS decision.

Let me hear it....

PS: for the record, i do NOT agree with Pete Hendrickson because he does not understand the income tax laws completely either. This is just a challenge i privately chose to respond to.

[AndyK]

1 - Go back and re-read 26USC paying special attention to the "Definitions" section ESPECIALLY as it relates to the term 'include, includes, or including'

2 - While you are in 26USC, check out the first few sections and paragraphs. I bet you will find an exceptionally broad definition of taxable income.

3 - Next go back and read what you posted from 3401. I'll help you. It says, and you quoted For purposes of this chapter. That means -- in no uncertain terms -- that it ONLY applies to that chapter and nothing else.

4 - Finally, go back to your High School Civics teacher and apologize for not paying attention in class. Your opening remarks concerning exclusive jurisdiction, etc, are merely a red herring. According to the Constitution, the Federal government has CONCURRENT jurisdiction (with the states and local governments) throughout the entire geographic United States.

If you'd care to paint a bigger target on your head, please feel free to do so. You are only another in a long chain of posters who have attempted to justify tax evasion via specious arguments.

Hint: If you were correct then (1) many others before you would have succeeded with the same arguments (not one ever did) and (2) the Congress woould have quickly rectified any of the alleged weaknesses you brought up. Congress never did because they never had to because you are wrong.

[Famspear]

I will answer the OP question, but we may need to revisit some basic principles first.

United States is a gov't of limited explicitly granted (and implicitly inferred) powers through the compact we know as the US Constitution.

United States (US) was also given some land (territory) for the seat of US gov't through 1:8:17 where they exercise exclusive legislative authority, and also through 4:3:2 for other properties, possessions, and territories.

With me so far? If not, stop here and ask what's confusing you.

Now, United States, or any government, can have two jurisdictions: territorial, and subject matter. As seen above in what i just said, they have exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia pursuant to 1:8:17 and other property (terr, poss, etc) under 4:3:2. When Congress legislates in this capacity, it legislates only for 1:8:17 and 4:3:2. This is territorial decree or legislation i am talking about, not subject matter. Let's move to subject matter.

Not exactly. The term "subject matter jurisdiction" is a term referring to the kinds of cases that a given court has the power to decide.

The term "territorial jurisdiction" is sometimes used as a synonym for "personal jurisdiction." In layman's terms, personal jurisdiction is the power of a court over a defendant in a civil (non-criminal) case. At least one court has used the term "personal jurisdiction" in a criminal context.

Income taxation is legislated through US 1:8:1 subject matter jurisdiction.

No. Income tax laws are enacted under article I, section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution, but that's not a matter of "subject matter jurisdiction." The power to enact statutes is a legislative power -- one granted to Congress. It's not a matter of "subject matter jurisdiction" in the sense I have explained above.

We can all agree that income taxes are excise taxes which are indirect taxes. Therefore, US has complete and plenary legislative powers over this subject matter ok? We agree so far? If not, stop and ask me a question or tell me how you disagree.

Some courts still refer to income taxes as direct taxes. Generally, you don't need to worry about whether income taxes are direct taxes or, alternatively, excises (indirect taxes).

So let's pick a section from Title 26 to work with because it will help us better illustrate what is going on as well as the subject matter regulated by US in the same Title. Section 6041 says, and i quote:

(a) Payments of $600 or more
All persons engaged in a trade or business and making payment in the course of such trade or business to another person, of rent, salaries, wages, premiums, annuities, compensations, remunerations, emoluments, or other fixed or determinable gains, profits, and income ....

This is the section that Microsoft uses to file information returns, we know as W-2s, to he SSA and IRS reporting your taxable salaries, wages, etc. Well, if we read the above section, it is clear that the determining factors of whether payments are to be reported are:

a) more than 600$, AND
b) engagement in trade or business and payments in connection with the same

So what is this 'trade or business' you say? Well let's look at the clear and unambiguous statutory language form the same Title right? Afterall this post started with someone asking for clear language, let's see it in 26 USC 7701(a)(26):

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

Ok, so trade or business is the performance of a public office. Public office? Hold on, i work for Microsoft you say. Nahhh, it says includes, that means it includes the public office, but it also implicitly includes everything else right? Well, before you go down that path, i would urge you to reconsider how this topic started. The question was posed to show clear statutory language imposing a liability only on federal payments right?

Well, in that case, if you argue that "trade or business" includes all businesses and commercial transactions including public office, i ask of you the same thing: "Show me the clear statutory language saying that?" Since you cannot, and you obviously conceded this argument by posing the very same question at LH forums, your argument is moot and irrelevant - it is not an argument at all in fact because you would be arguing against your own argument. So let's not go down that path.....let's just assume that it includes only public office, as it does and which is proven in License Tax Cases:

"But very different considerations apply to the internal commerce or domestic trade of the states. Over this commerce and trade Congress has no power of regulation nor
Page 72 U. S. 471
any direct control. This power belongs exclusively to the states. No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a state is warranted by the Constitution except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature. The power to authorize a business within a state is plainly repugnant to the exclusive power of the state over the same subject. It is true that the power of Congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the Constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a state in order to tax it."

Well, what public office do you suggest Congress can regulate?? Are you suggesting that Congress can regulate Nevada public office? Or Oregon public office? Wouldn't such regulation be left to the state legislatures? Rhetorical question, need not be answered.

Therefore, so far we have learned that information returns are to be filed by persons engaged in public office making paymetns of 600$ in connection with that public office. So who may the returns be filed on then? Well let's look at the definition of 'employee' in 3401:

(c) Employee
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

To me this is clearly congruent with the definition of trade or business, or US public office. Therefore, it seems that information returns under Title 26 are to be filed only against people who work for uncle Sam right? Weellll, not so quick. Let me explain how all of you private fools on this board also enter the IRS matrix legally and make your private property, otherwise outside regulatory subject matter jurisdiction of US, includible in 'wages' and taxable.

Pursuant to 3402(p)(3) and regulations thereunder, anyone can enter into voluntary withholding agreements on their property which is not otherwise includible in wages under Title 26. Here's the crystal clear language, yet again:

(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
(3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
(A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee’s employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and

Well first, it clearly shows that there are remuneration for services of an employee for his employer that do NOT constitute wages. Microsoft employee fills out a W-4 per § 31.3401(a)-3 and § 31.3402(p)-1 to treat his private property to be treated 'as if' (see 3401(a)-3) it were wages for withholding purposes so that he can participate in FICA, FUCA, etc. He probably did this unknowingly, but nonetheless it makes it legal. What a man volunteers for and requests, he cannot hold to be a diminishment or tax later on.

So there....while Title 26 regulates information returns only on US public payments of more than 600$, anyone can participate and play the game of income taxes.

Now your initial question was "how do we know that Title 26 regulates only federal payments?" Well i say to you, look at the legal evidence in Title 26. I also say to you that you have no clue about American Jurisprudence if you ask such a stupid question.

A complete waste of your time.

Title 26 of the United States Code -- a codification of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended -- imposes income taxes. The imposition of the income tax is not a "regulation" in the constitutional sense.

Congress can enact statutes that impose taxes. Congress can enact states that appropriate (spend). And Congress can enact statutes that regulate.

Taxation and regulation are separate constitutional concepts.

Your question is suggesting that federal law can regulate...

[snip]

I can see that you're having a problem with some basic legal concepts.

I, like many others, on the other hand understand that no gov't can regulate private conduct, whether state or federal....

Baloney.

So now, let me explain succinctly employment taxes in Subtitle C to all you here who read this.

No, you don't understand employment taxes under Subtitle C of the Internal Revenue Code. That's obvious.

Welcome to Wikipedia!


(more to come.....)

[Famspear]

Stija wrote:

If you answer those questions correctly you will understand that Subtitle C Employment taxes are not taxes but a contractual debt obligation one agreed to by accepting employment contract and also:

1. Why there is no statute requiring any American to file a 1040 return

2. Why filing such returns is voluntary, thus non violative of 5th amendment

3. Why anyone anywhere can earn wages which are subject to the tax.

Now, any one of you are not only welcome, but strongly urged to dispute anything i said so far in this post, but abide by the following rules:

1. Do not argue something you cannot support with clear and unequivocal statutory language, or

2. Do not argue something you cannot support with an appellate or SCOTUS decision.

Sorry, but you don't get to impose the rules.

We will explain the law to you. When we deem it appropriate, we will cite to sources. Supreme Court decisions, and other appellate decisions, are important sources of the law. They are not the only sources.

Stay tuned.....