Nobody at losthorizons can answer a simple question

[Famspear]

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

There is a statute requiring Americans -- and others -- to file federal income tax returns. Statutes don't have to mention the specific form number. Your understanding of how law works is flawed.

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

Filing tax returns is "voluntary" only in the sense that the federal INCOME tax system is voluntary -- you are expected to file a return to report your income, deductions, credits, taxes withheld, tax liability, etc.

Further, imposing criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file a federal income tax return does not, in and of itself, violate the Fifth Amendment -- EVEN IF INFORMATION IN THE RETURN COULD INCRIMINATE YOU. Read the preceding sentence again. Think. (I'll explain what it means later.)

Filing of federal income tax returns is required by statute and related regulations, and there are both civil monetary penalties and criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file returns.

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

Anyone can earn wages which are subject to the tax because the federal income tax is imposed on compensation for services (and lots of other kinds of income). See IRC section 61.

Stay tuned for more citations later.....

[AndyK]

...
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.

....

With respect to your "rule" #2: The only instances where an Appellate court of Supreme Court decision is available are when a specific issue has been itigated to either of those levels and (in the case of the Supreme Court) has been selected for argument before the Court.

So, if a particular, significant section of 26USC has never been challenged and litigated to either of those levels, no opinion will exist.

For example, if no one has ever argued that their interpretation of MARRIED (and the tax effects) differs from the government's position, no opinion will exist. However, that does NOT mean that the Government's position is incorrect.

Thus, your "rule" is meaningless.

[AndyK]

Stija:

Before you decide to further pursue your theories, please remember the following:

You are not an attorney or a tax law specialist. You have garnered all of your tax law knowledge from various Internet sites.

On the other hand, the residents of Quatloosia have (collectively) many advanced degrees in Law, Taxation, etc. They have (collectively) hundreds of years of experience dealing with taxation and the IRS -- from both sides of the issue and from both sides of the Courtroom bench. They have a vast amount of experience dealing with tax evaders, tax protestors, and tax evaders and a wide range of their arguments.

Just be careful that you are not walking into a gun fight holding only a dull knife.

[Famspear]

...
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.

....

With respect to your "rule" #2: The only instances where an Appellate court of Supreme Court decision is available are when a specific issue has been itigated to either of those levels and (in the case of the Supreme Court) has been selected for argument before the Court.

So, if a particular, significant section of 26USC has never been challenged and litigated to either of those levels, no opinion will exist.

For example, if no one has ever argued that their interpretation of MARRIED (and the tax effects) differs from the government's position, no opinion will exist. However, that does NOT mean that the Government's position is incorrect.

Thus, your "rule" is meaningless.

Yes, Stija has been reading the typical tax protester garbage. A misconception among many tax protesters is that something isn't really "the law" unless the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it to be the law, or unless some other appellate court has ruled it to be the law -- and indeed many tax protesters claim to believe that only the Supreme Court decisions really "count." This is one example of the countless manifestations of the "imaginary rules" that these gullible people claim to believe.

[stija]

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.

1. The term includes is a term of enlargement in two ways. First, it obviously enlarged the term round to include balls, marbles and apples. Thus it enlarged it by 3 things. Secondly, it enlarges the term only to other things within the general class of the term defined. Therefore, if 'employee' includes US public officials, you cannot include things that are not in the same general class.

2. Irrelevant. Neither you nor Congress can define private property.

3. I agree. Did i ever say that it applied somewhere else? Did i use any other chapters of Title 26 in my explanation of 3401 and 3402?? What are you on?

4. So Arizona has concurrent jurisdiction over District of Columbia in complete contradiction to the clear language in 1:8:17? You have not a clue what concurrent refers to.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

What's my argument?? I bet you did not even understand it, yet you claim many like me have failed.

In the meantime google definition of "exclusive."

[stija]

"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."

Are you suggesting that Congress just legislates in a legislative capacity, irregardless of the territory or subject matter?

I agree otherwise with your concept of territorial jurisdiction 100%. What do you call all those "subjects" over which Congress was given powers in 1:8:1-17 for example?? Legislative jurisdiction?

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).
It's a matter of context. In the context of American citizens it is an excise, in the context of income it is a direct tax. Depends in relation to what they are talking, but i agree 100%.

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.

So to tax is not to regulate?? You should read some SCOTUS case law that proves otherwise. In fact, to tax is the ultimate power of regulation my friend. You failed on this one. Imposition, regulation, taxation, it's all the same and irrelevant. I never argued that the laws are not sound. They are 100% sound and constitutional whether imposed, legislated, regulated or whatever. Irrelevant what you call it.

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

I did not impulseboi. Those were the rules set by the original poster.

There is a statute requiring Americans -- and others -- to file federal income tax returns. Statutes don't have to mention the specific form number. Your understanding of how law works is flawed.

Oh ya? Americans? Which one?

I do not argue that there is no requirement for anyone to file anything. I argue that one, usually an American citizen, who works for USPS or Microsoft does not have to do anything. Legislative recourse in 26 USC 6331. What about that confuses you?

Filing tax returns is "voluntary" only in the sense that the federal INCOME tax system is voluntary -- you are expected to file a return to report your income, deductions, credits, taxes withheld, tax liability, etc.

Further, imposing criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file a federal income tax return does not, in and of itself, violate the Fifth Amendment -- EVEN IF INFORMATION IN THE RETURN COULD INCRIMINATE YOU. Read the preceding sentence again. Think. (I'll explain what it means later.)

Filing of federal income tax returns is required by statute and related regulations, and there are both civil monetary penalties and criminal penalties for willful failure to timely file returns.

Did i suggest that paying income taxes is voluntary? Or merely that one can not file a 1040 and thus reap the IRS wrath on his wages when they levy them through 6331? You need to comprehend what you read.

Thus, your "rule" is meaningless.

Not my rule. IRS rule. They actually say that, here read it for yourself fool:

IRS Internal Revenue Manual IRM: 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
Importance of Court Decisions
1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

Therefore, unless there is my name in the District Court ruling and it was litigated in 2013, IRS and I do not care.

Yes, Stija has been reading the typical tax protester garbage. A misconception among many tax protesters is that something isn't really "the law" unless the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it to be the law, or unless some other appellate court has ruled it to be the law -- and indeed many tax protesters claim to believe that only the Supreme Court decisions really "count." This is one example of the countless manifestations of the "imaginary rules" that these gullible people claim to believe.

Where did i say that:

a) Title 26 is not law?
b) I disagree with Title 26 in any way?
c) Read IRS IRM rules YOU are NOT aware of.

I repeat what IRS spews. You know, that same agency that comes to collect.

[stija]

On the other hand, the residents of Quatloosia have (collectively) many advanced degrees in Law, Taxation, etc. They have (collectively) hundreds of years of experience dealing with taxation and the IRS -- from both sides of the issue and from both sides of the Courtroom bench. They have a vast amount of experience dealing with tax evaders, tax protestors, and tax evaders and a wide range of their arguments.

Just be careful that you are not walking into a gun fight holding only a dull knife.

Challenge taken. Just bring some legal evidence of what you claim, not personal beliefs ok?

Also, please do not be like other fools and jump to conclusions. Read and comprehend what i am saying.

Did my post ever suggest that Income taxes are illegal or that i have any problem whatsoever with the code?? Also, i expect you to be respectful in that when you say that my argument is frivolous, you allege my argument first. I say this because i am sure that you people will presume that i said or alleged something which i have not.

Let me have it....

[Pottapaug1938]

stija said: "4. So Arizona has concurrent jurisdiction over District of Columbia in complete contradiction to the clear language in 1:8:17? You have not a clue what concurrent refers to."

Sorry; but it is YOU who does not have a clue. No one claimed that Arizona or any other state has concurrent jurisdiction over the District of Columbia; rather, they pointed out that the FEDERAL government has concurrent jurisdiction over the 50 states, with the Constitution defining the limits thereof.

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And...."

"In the meantime google definition of 'exclusive.'"

I don't know of any legal or tax professional who would ever use a Google definition in a court proceeding or appellate brief. They would look to the definitions as set forth in appellate court decisions. Those decisions have interpreted the clause you quote as meaning that, in the named areas, only Congress can pass legislation affecting them; but in other parts of the United States, Congress can pass legislation affecting those other parts if there is Constitutional authority to do so. Your purported definition is just another version of the shopworn argument over the meaning of the word "includes", which tax deniers, sovruns and others passionately want to mean "is limited to."

If you want court cases to review, then all you need to do is review past Quatloos threads on this subject. You will find all the legal authority for which you could ever ask.

And, by the way, you are playing word games with your quote about the IRS following Supreme Court decisions. The section 1 which you so nicely cite for us makes clear that lower court decisions may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position; and all section 2 means is that, once the Supreme Court has spoken on a legal issue, that issue is conclusively settled (unless the Court later chooses to revisit it).

[stija]

Sorry; but it is YOU who does not have a clue. No one claimed that Arizona or any other state has concurrent jurisdiction over the District of Columbia; rather, they pointed out that the FEDERAL government has concurrent jurisdiction over the 50 states, with the Constitution defining the limits thereof.

Ok fair enough.

So who has jurisdiction over 'trade or business' from Title 26? Is it exclusively Congress or is it concurrent with someone else? Let's start there.

Those decisions have interpreted the clause you quote as meaning that, in the named areas, only Congress can pass legislation affecting them; but in other parts of the United States, Congress can pass legislation affecting those other parts if there is Constitutional authority to do so.

Agreed. Which other parts are you referring to?

Your purported definition is just another version of the shopworn argument over the meaning of the word "includes", which tax deniers, sovruns and others passionately want to mean "is limited to."

And what's yours? Includes everything not mentioned plus what is mentioned? Is that a correct assessment of your definition of term includes?

I don't know of any legal or tax professional who would ever use a Google definition in a court proceeding or appellate brief.

Sorry my highness, did not know you were a professional and possessed access to appellate case law.

And, by the way, you are playing word games with your quote about the IRS following Supreme Court decisions. The section 1 which you so nicely cite for us makes clear that lower court decisions may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position; and all section 2 means is that, once the Supreme Court has spoken on a legal issue, that issue is conclusively settled (unless the Court later chooses to revisit it).

True true. You can actually use any lower case law to support a position, even the wrong one, since there is no authoritative decision that was made and no one knows if its good or bad. But yea, you can use it to support any argument. God know there is loads of it out there, i am sure we can find enough to support both sides

[AndyK]

1. The term includes is a term of enlargement in two ways. First, it obviously enlarged the term round to include balls, marbles and apples. Thus it enlarged it by 3 things. Secondly, it enlarges the term only to other things within the general class of the term defined. Therefore, if 'employee' includes US public officials, you cannot include things that are not in the same general class. Wrong. The 'general class' at issue is EMPLOYEES, not US public officials. That specific language was added to the tax laws to remove any uncertainty that public officials might not be treated as all other employees were.

2. Irrelevant. Neither you nor Congress can define private property. Wrong on two counts. First, the definitions of taxable income ARE relevant. Second, where necessary, legislation CAN, in fact, define private property as distinct from other property. Doubt me? Take a look at laws regarding eminent domain, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes.

3. I agree. Did i ever say that it applied somewhere else? Did i use any other chapters of Title 26 in my explanation of 3401 and 3402?? What are you on? You threw in a red herring. As do so many other logic-challenged individuals, you attempted to slip one by.

4. So Arizona has concurrent jurisdiction over District of Columbia in complete contradiction to the clear language in 1:8:17? You have not a clue what concurrent refers to. Your dull knife blade is showing. I said the Federal government has concurrent jurisdiction. NOT that any other governmental entity does (except that states usually have concurrent jurisdiction with their contained counties, municipalities, etc. Your comment regarding Arizona is inane. Also, your form of legal citation leaves a lot to be desired. What does 1:8:17 mean? Is it a verse from the Bible; the ratio of caffine, caramel, and water in Coca Cola; or are you attempting to cite some perticular section of a document? If the latter, it is customary among people who have some experiencing in discussing legal matters to use an unambiguous form of citation. For example, my references to 26USC leave no question in the mind of an experienced reader. He knows that I am referring to Chapter 26 of the United States Code. 1:8:17 is meaningless and exhibitive of your ignorance.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

What's my argument?? I bet you did not even understand it, yet you claim many like me have failed.

In the meantime google definition of "exclusive." Not necessary. The term 'exclusive' in this perticular case is not limiting. It does not mean that the federal government's juridistiction is limited to the specific areas cited. It means that the jurisdiction over those areas is limited to the federal government. Understand?

We now return you to the troll of the day.

[AndyK]

So who has jurisdiction over 'trade or business' from Title 26? Is it exclusively Congress or is it concurrent with someone else? Let's start there.

Good place to start -- with a totally stupid question.

Let's try to make this simple enough so that even you can understand.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the entire United States AND over US Citizens abroad.
That was established by the Constitution, legislation, regulations, and various interpretive court decisions.

This jurisdiction is shared, in some matters, with the various states.

26USC applies to the entire United States, territories, possessions, and US citizens abroad.

Thus, with respect to the trade or business activities addressed within 26USC, the Federal government has jurisdiction.

Other trade or business activities not addressed in 26USC (or other federal laws) [for example; operating a retail liquor store in New Jersey] fall under other jurisdictions.

Despite this simple explanation, I'm sure you will neither be satisfied nor deterred from your attempt to count coup.

[stija]

1. The term includes is a term of enlargement in two ways. First, it obviously enlarged the term round to include balls, marbles and apples. Thus it enlarged it by 3 things. Secondly, it enlarges the term only to other things within the general class of the term defined. Therefore, if 'employee' includes US public officials, you cannot include things that are not in the same general class. Wrong. The 'general class' at issue is EMPLOYEES, not US public officials. That specific language was added to the tax laws to remove any uncertainty that public officials might not be treated as all other employees were.

So are you suggesting that Congress can legislate, impose, regulate, whatever for Alabama public employees under Title 26?

2. Irrelevant. Neither you nor Congress can define private property. Wrong on two counts. First, the definitions of taxable income ARE relevant. Second, where necessary, legislation CAN, in fact, define private property as distinct from other property. Doubt me? Take a look at laws regarding eminent domain, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes.

Yes, I agree on both counts. What does that have to do with income taxes under 1:8:1?? Are income taxes the same as eminent domain, real estate taxes, and personal property taxes?

3. I agree. Did i ever say that it applied somewhere else? Did i use any other chapters of Title 26 in my explanation of 3401 and 3402?? What are you on? You threw in a red herring. As do so many other logic-challenged individuals, you attempted to slip one by.
Red herring?? What are you on? I said that 'employees' include public officials of United States, does it not??

4. So Arizona has concurrent jurisdiction over District of Columbia in complete contradiction to the clear language in 1:8:17? You have not a clue what concurrent refers to. Your dull knife blade is showing. I said the Federal government has concurrent jurisdiction. NOT that any other governmental entity does (except that states usually have concurrent jurisdiction with their contained counties, municipalities, etc. Your comment regarding Arizona is inane. Also, your form of legal citation leaves a lot to be desired. What does 1:8:17 mean? Is it a verse from the Bible; the ratio of caffine, caramel, and water in Coca Cola; or are you attempting to cite some perticular section of a document? If the latter, it is customary among people who have some experiencing in discussing legal matters to use an unambiguous form of citation. For example, my references to 26USC leave no question in the mind of an experienced reader. He knows that I am referring to Chapter 26 of the United States Code. 1:8:17 is meaningless and exhibitive of your ignorance.

Ok, i apologize for my ignorance. US Constitution Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 17 from now on (1:8:17) which you knew, but ok. So who regulates for local business in Arizona and income earned from trade or businesses legislated, crafted, defined, imposed or whatever by Arizona in Arizona?

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

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.

What's my argument?? I bet you did not even understand it, yet you claim many like me have failed.

In the meantime google definition of "exclusive." Not necessary. The term 'exclusive' in this perticular case is not limiting. It does not mean that the federal government's juridistiction is limited to the specific areas cited. It means that the jurisdiction over those areas is limited to the federal government. Understand?

Yes, and i agree. You are jumping to conclusions. I was talking about territorial jurisdiction. Are you suggesting that United States has concurrent territorial jurisdiction over all of the union? If so, where is the evidence? 40 USC 3112 think otherwise, if that is what you are suggesting.

We now return you to the troll of the day.

[Famspear]

Are you suggesting that Congress just legislates in a legislative capacity, irregardless of the territory or subject matter?

I agree otherwise with your concept of territorial jurisdiction 100%. What do you call all those "subjects" over which Congress was given powers in 1:8:1-17 for example?? Legislative jurisdiction?

You're hung up on the word "jurisdiction." Congress has legislative power -- the power to enact laws we call "statutes."

So to tax is not to regulate?? You should read some SCOTUS case law that proves otherwise.

No, I don't need to read any "SCOTUS case law" that "proves otherwise." I am pretty confident I have studied more U.S. Supreme Court decisions than you can imagine. I am also confident that I know the law and that you don't.

The power to tax and the power to regulate are separate powers under the Constitution.

In fact, to tax is the ultimate power of regulation my friend. You failed on this one....Imposition, regulation, taxation, it's all the same and irrelevant....

No. Taxation and regulation are two separate concepts. You failed on this one.

Here's one for you: Every human on the face of the Earth -- even a Tibetan monk who is not a U.S. citizen and has never been to the U.S., is potentially "subject to" the U.S. Federal income tax, and is therefore potentially a "taxpayer" under the Internal Revenue Code.

How does that grab you?

I do not argue that there is no requirement for anyone to file anything. I argue that one, usually an American citizen, who works for USPS or Microsoft does not have to do anything. Legislative recourse in 26 USC 6331. What about that confuses you?

Nothing about it confuses me. It's incorrect.

By the way, the phrase "legislative recourse in 26 USC 6331" is gibberish.

Did i suggest that paying income taxes is voluntary? Or merely that one can not file a 1040 and thus reap the IRS wrath on his wages when they levy them through 6331? You need to comprehend what you read.

Yes, you suggested that paying income taxes is voluntary, and I corrected you.

Not my rule. IRS rule. They actually say that, here read it for yourself fool:

IRS Internal Revenue Manual IRM: 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006)
Importance of Court Decisions
1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.
2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.
3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers.

Oh, you discovered the Internal Revenue Manual. How impressive.

Do you have any idea how many times I have read this provision? Do you understand that this provision has previously been discussed right here in this forum?



I'm not a fool, bozo.

Tax protesters have cited this IRM provision over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER. You're not the first to misunderstand this passage.

Therefore, unless there is my name in the District Court ruling and it was litigated in 2013, IRS and I do not care.

Yes, you do care, and yes, the IRS does care as well. Despite what the IRS states in the above passage, if the IRS has case law in say, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ("Bankr SD Texas"), that contradicts an IRS position on a point of law, the IRS effectively bound by that "Bankr SD Texas" decision. The IRS can argue a contrary position all day long in a subsequent case in that court, but if the facts of a subsequent case are directly on point to the holding in the earlier decision, the IRS knows that it may well be wasting its time.

By the way, I deal with IRS attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (you know, those people who decide which cases to litigate for the IRS in the federal courts????). I think I have a little better idea of how the IRS approaches that IRM passage than you do. While the passage in the IRM you quoted (and tax protesters love to quote it) is technically correct, it doesn't really mean quite what you seem to think it means.

Where did i say that:

a) Title 26 is not law?
b) I disagree with Title 26 in any way?
c) Read IRS IRM rules YOU are NOT aware of.

That's not what I said. You asked that we cite only Supreme Court and other appellate decisions in our answers. I explained that you do not get your wish. Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) (and other provisions) may be cited as well.

I repeat what IRS spews.....

Yeah, and that may be part of your problem. Instead of spewing what the IRS spews, you need to "spew" some law. The IRS doesn't make the law. Technically, even Treasury Regulations (which can be law) are not issued by the IRS itself.

[Pottapaug1938]

Those decisions have interpreted the clause you quote as meaning that, in the named areas, only Congress can pass legislation affecting them; but in other parts of the United States, Congress can pass legislation affecting those other parts if there is Constitutional authority to do so.

Agreed. Which other parts are you referring to?

The 50 states and the US territories, for starters.

Your purported definition is just another version of the shopworn argument over the meaning of the word "includes", which tax deniers, sovruns and others passionately want to mean "is limited to."

And what's yours? Includes everything not mentioned plus what is mentioned? Is that a correct assessment of your definition of term includes?

I don't know of any legal or tax professional who would ever use a Google definition in a court proceeding or appellate brief.

Sorry my highness, did not know you were a professional and possessed access to appellate case law.

I am a retired attorney; but there are active attorneys on this list whose abilities far exceed mine. I'm sure that you will hear from them in due course.

And, by the way, you are playing word games with your quote about the IRS following Supreme Court decisions. The section 1 which you so nicely cite for us makes clear that lower court decisions may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position; and all section 2 means is that, once the Supreme Court has spoken on a legal issue, that issue is conclusively settled (unless the Court later chooses to revisit it).

True true. You can actually use any lower case law to support a position, even the wrong one, since there is no authoritative decision that was made and no one knows if its good or bad. But yea, you can use it to support any argument. God know there is loads of it out there, i am sure we can find enough to support both sides.

False false. There are plenty of authoritative decisions regarding the issues you raise; and as I said earlier you can find them quoted in earlier threads of Quatloos. We know that these decisions are good, because they have not been overturned by a higher court, which is why we can rely on unreversed lower court decisions. And no, you will not be able to "find enough to support both sides", because no decision which has ever supported "the other side", if any, has ever withstood appellate review.

[stija]

You're hung up on the word "jurisdiction." Congress has legislative power -- the power to enact laws we call "statutes."

Ok. Now these legislative powers, they do come from the US Constitution right? And are explicitly enumerated right?

So when Congress legislate, it just legislates, irregardless of territory or subject matter, the powers are the same??

The power to tax and the power to regulate are separate powers under the Constitution.

So if i impose a tax on cigarettes of 100$ per packet, i am not indirectly regulating such activity? I guess it depends on how your Black's defines "regulate."

Here's one for you: Every human on the face of the Earth -- even a Tibetan monk who is not a U.S. citizen and has never been to the U.S., is potentially "subject to" the U.S. Federal income tax, and is therefore potentially a "taxpayer" under the Internal Revenue Code.

How does that grab you?

Fine because i know that. Contract knows no place brother - Title 26 is franchise/contract law. But you fail to see that. Thus territorial or geographical residency/location irrelevant.

Did i suggest otherwise for you to tell me that?

By the way, the phrase "legislative recourse in 26 USC 6331" is gibberish.

Call it what you want, US has recourse to their property at the source through 6331, thus an employee needs to do nothing and IRS still collects. That's a fact, and you know it.

Yes, you suggested that paying income taxes is voluntary, and I corrected you.

Where? Read again. I explained that participation in income tax games is voluntary, anyone can participate. You said it yourself, a guy from Tibet can participate if he wants to.

Why are you slandering me when you are contradicting yourself?

Yes, you do care, and yes, the IRS does care as well. Despite what the IRS states in the above passage, if the IRS has case law in say, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ("Bankr SD Texas"), that contradicts an IRS position on a point of law, the IRS effectively bound by that "Bankr SD Texas" decision. The IRS can argue a contrary position all day long in a subsequent case in that court, but if the facts of a subsequent case are directly on point to the holding in the earlier decision, the IRS knows that it may well be wasting its time.

By the way, I deal with IRS attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (you know, those people who decide which cases to litigate for the IRS in the federal courts????). I think I have a little better idea of how the IRS approaches that IRM passage than you do. While the passage in the IRM you quoted (and tax protesters love to quote it) is technically correct, it doesn't really mean quite what you seem to think it means.

Wow....real US Attorneys? Pat on the back....now go potty. Gooooood boi...

That's not what I said. You asked that we cite only Supreme Court and other appellate decisions in our answers. I explained that you do not get your wish. Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code (and other provisions) may be cited as well.

I never meant to exclude Title 26, my apologies. You can do whatever you want man, it was not an order, don't get your panties in a....

Yeah, and that may be part of your problem. Instead of spewing what the IRS spews, you need to "spew" some law. The IRS doesn't make the law. Technically, even Treasury Regulations (which can be law) are not issued by the IRS itself.

26 USC 6041 is law right? What are the determining factors for triggering a return? Can Congress create a trade or business within Alabama to tax it?

Relax buddy, instead of slandering me maybe YOU should quote some law that suggests what you say instead of saying that there is mountains of case law out there that supports your position. Which is.....?

[stija]

Those decisions have interpreted the clause you quote as meaning that, in the named areas, only Congress can pass legislation affecting them; but in other parts of the United States, Congress can pass legislation affecting those other parts if there is Constitutional authority to do so.

Agreed. Which other parts are you referring to?

The 50 states and the US territories, for starters.

Ok....so let me get this straight. You are saying Congress can pass legislation affecting the 50 states and US territories if there is constitutional authority to do so? That's lawyer talk for nothing. It's like saying i can do whatever i want if there is authority for me to do so. But I agree 100% so lets move on. Where does this legislative authority come from for Income Taxes under Title 26. I suggest 1:8:1, what do you suggest?

Your purported definition is just another version of the shopworn argument over the meaning of the word "includes", which tax deniers, sovruns and others passionately want to mean "is limited to."

And what's yours? Includes everything not mentioned plus what is mentioned? Is that a correct assessment of your definition of term includes?

I don't know of any legal or tax professional who would ever use a Google definition in a court proceeding or appellate brief.

Sorry my highness, did not know you were a professional and possessed access to appellate case law.

I am a retired attorney; but there are active attorneys on this list whose abilities far exceed mine. I'm sure that you will hear from them in due course.

Can't wait!

And, by the way, you are playing word games with your quote about the IRS following Supreme Court decisions. The section 1 which you so nicely cite for us makes clear that lower court decisions may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position; and all section 2 means is that, once the Supreme Court has spoken on a legal issue, that issue is conclusively settled (unless the Court later chooses to revisit it).

True true. You can actually use any lower case law to support a position, even the wrong one, since there is no authoritative decision that was made and no one knows if its good or bad. But yea, you can use it to support any argument. God know there is loads of it out there, i am sure we can find enough to support both sides.

False false. There are plenty of authoritative decisions regarding the issues you raise; and as I said earlier you can find them quoted in earlier threads of Quatloos. We know that these decisions are good, because they have not been overturned by a higher court. And no, you will not be able to "find enough to support both sides", because no decision which has ever supported "the other side", if any, has ever withstood appellate review.

What issues do I raise???? You have no clue yet you keep dissenting. You are PRESUMING my issues. And if we are using a lower court decision that did not make it to appellate review, than there can't be such a review brother. That was my point. I don't WANT to use decisions that have not been reviewed. Your butt-buddy there is the one who wanted to use such decisions that havent been reviewed.

But please go ahead.....tell me what arguments is it that i am raising that have been declared frivolous by multiple courts.

[stija]

Your purported definition is just another version of the shopworn argument over the meaning of the word "includes", which tax deniers, sovruns and others passionately want to mean "is limited to."

To define something is to limit it to the definition. So 'trade or business' is not limited to public office but includes everything and public office as well?

Your proposition:
1) that to define does not limit something is ridiculous
2) that the defined term means everything plus what's included is utterly ridiculous too

Try again. All these people who you talk about that argued about words of include and including probably:
a) appeared in statutory court under title 26 in a privileged capacity
b) probably claimed that their wages or salaries are not income because
i) they are sovereign
ii) their wages are earned through labor
iii) any other nonsense

If you play the game of income taxes and enter their court to claim that wages (a term THEY defined to be includible in income) under Title 26 you earned are somehow excluded from income, without legal evidence of such claim in Title 26, you lose no matter what else you claim.


Let's play a game. Name of game You Lose. One rule says 'cars' are taxable. Another rule says if you argue rules you argue in You Lose Court. You start playing. Then one day you want to challenge rules. You enter You Lose Court and claim that you have a car. You also then claim that your car is not taxable for whatever irrelevant reason. You Lose Court plays by You Lose rules. One rule says 'cars' are taxable. No rule says 'your car' not taxable. You lose. I dont explain why. If you think you smart enough to play in my court you should read rules.

So anyone who enters Title 26 court to claim that Title 26 wages are not income or taxable better have evidence from SAME title to prove it. It is THEIR term, THEIR court, THEIR rules.

[Famspear]

You're hung up on the word "jurisdiction." Congress has legislative power -- the power to enact laws we call "statutes."

Ok. Now these legislative powers, they do come from the US Constitution right? And are explicitly enumerated right?

Yep. However, the power to tax is the power to tax for the GENERAL WELFARE. U.S. Const., Article I, sec. 8, clause 1. By contrast, the power to regulate (to enact laws that regulate) is more limited. See generally clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, and so forth of the same section 8.

So when Congress legislate, it just legislates, irregardless of territory or subject matter, the powers are the same??

No. As noted above the power to REGULATE is limited by clauses 3 et seq. By contrast, the power to TAX is far less limited -- taxing has to be for the "general welfare." There are a few other provisions of the Constitution that limit the taxing power, but we can discuss those later if you like.

So if i impose a tax on cigarettes of 100$ per packet, i am not indirectly regulating such activity?

That may depend on how the courts interpret the law. The question, more properly phrased, however, would be something like: Could such a cigarette tax be upheld as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax even though a major effect -- or even a major purpose -- of the law would be to REGULATE? And the definition of "regulate" for this purpose may or may not be one of the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary.

Contract knows no place brother - Title 26 is franchise/contract law. But you fail to see that.

Wrong again. Title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) is not "franchise/contract law." And taxation is not a "contract."

Not only that, but under the U.S. Constitution, Congress can UNILATERALLY change the tax law that applies to you WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, and can validly make the change retroactive.

THE TAX LAW IS NOT A CONTRACT.

"Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process [ . . . ]"

---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938) (bolding added).

.....US has recourse to their property at the source through 6331, thus an employee needs to do nothing and IRS still collects. That's a fact, and you know it.

The power under section 6331 is not limited to collecting from an "employee," if that's what you're driving at.

Why are you slandering me when you are contradicting yourself?

I'm not contradicting myself, and I am not "slandering" you. You really don't understand the legal terms you're using.

Wow....real US Attorneys? Pat on the back....now go potty. Gooooood boi...

Get it straight, bozo. I may well have been studying tax law when you were in diapers. Or, are you still in diapers?

See, I can do it too, kiddo.

26 USC 6041 is law right? What are the determining factors for triggering a return? Can Congress create a trade or business within Alabama to tax it?

Yes, 6041 is law. You figure out what the "determining factors" are, Einstein.

Congress doesn't need to "create" a trade or business in order to tax a trade or business -- in Alabama or anywhere else. And the taxing power of Congress is not limited to taxes on a "trade or business" either.

Relax buddy, instead of slandering me maybe YOU should quote some law that suggests what you say instead of saying that there is mountains of case law out there that supports your position. Which is.....?

Relax buddy, you should look up the definition of "slandering." You've used a form of that word twice, and you obviously are no better with this legal term than you were with "subject matter jurisdiction."



I'll cite case law when I decide it's appropriate, bozo. I'm not here to persuade you or convince you.

I'm here to teach.

[stija]

Yep. However, the power to tax is the power to tax for the GENERAL WELFARE. U.S. Const., Article I, sec. 8, clause 1. By contrast, the power to regulate (to enact laws that regulate) is more limited. See generally clauses 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, and so forth of the same section 8.

First, I agree on 1:8:1. General welfare is irrelevant and your personal gibberish. Gibberish is defined to include personal religious beliefs. The power to tax is exercised to generate revenue for gov't operations, you can call it general welfare or gov't welfare, that is irrelevant.

Second, are you implying that to tax is not to enact laws and regulate? If so, gimme a reference to case law that says that.

No. As noted above the power to REGULATE is limited by clauses 3 et seq. By contrast, the power to TAX is far less limited -- taxing has to be for the "general welfare." There are a few other provisions of the Constitution that limit the taxing power, but we can discuss those later if you like.

Ok, i see how YOU define to REGULATE. I can agree with that, i will adopt your definition and use if from now on. REMEMBER how you defined it. Your rules.

So Income Tax laws are legislated from 1:8:1 right? Do you agree? There are other grants but this is the one for income taxes. Two taxes, direct and indirect and two rules, apportionment and uniformity.

That may depend on how the courts interpret the law. The question, more properly phrased, however, would be something like: Could such a cigarette tax be upheld as a valid exercise of the Congressional power to tax even though a major effect -- or even a major purpose -- of the law would be to REGULATE? And the definition of "regulate" for this purpose may or may not be one of the definitions in Black's Law Dictionary.

Ok, i can buy what you're selling. Now, what are the rules for deciding when to use which REGULATE and how many of them are there totally? Put them out all on the table now, so i can learn and ALSO so that you cannot flip flop later again. So far we've got two distinct terms 'regulate". One pertaining to 1:8:3-17 from the Black's and another one not from Black's right? How many more?

Wrong again. Title 26 of the United States Code (the Internal Revenue Code) is not "franchise/contract law." And taxation is not a "contract."

Not only that, but under the U.S. Constitution, Congress can UNILATERALLY change the tax law that applies to you WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT, and can validly make the change retroactive.

THE TAX LAW IS NOT A CONTRACT.

"Taxation is neither a penalty imposed on the taxpayer nor a liability which he assumes by contract. It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens. Since no citizen enjoys immunity from that burden, its retroactive imposition does not necessarily infringe due process [ . . . ]"

---from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Welch v. Henry, 305 U.S. 134 (1938) (bolding added).

It is, you just don't get it. Your proposition holds true only for privileges that were taxable all along and Congress changed the laws retroactively. Read on Welch v. Henry at page 147-148:

But there are other forms of taxation whose retroactive imposition cannot be said to be similarly offensive, because their incidence is not on the voluntary act of the taxpayer. And even a retroactive gift tax has been held valid where the donor was forewarned by the statute books of the possibility of such a levy, Milliken v. United States, supra. In each case it is necessary to consider the nature of the tax and the circumstances in which it is laid before it can be said that its retroactive application is so harsh and oppressive as to transgress the constitutional limitation.

Property taxes and benefit assessments of real estate, retroactively applied, are not open to the objection successfully urged in the gift cases. See Wagner v. Baltimore, 239 U.S. 207; Seattle v. Kelleher, 195 U.S. 351; 148*148 compare Citizens National Bank v. Kentucky, 217 U.S. 443, 454; Billings v. United States, 232 U.S. 261, 282. Similarly, a tax on the receipt of income is not comparable to a gift tax. We can not assume that stockholders would refuse to receive corporate dividends even if they knew that their receipt would later be subjected to a new tax or to the increase of an old one. The objection to the present tax is of a different character and is addressed only to the particular inconvenience of the taxpayer in being called upon, after the customary time for levy and payment of the tax has passed, to bear a governmental burden of which it is said he had no warning and which he did not anticipate.

Rememer the word "CHARACTER" as we will come back to it. How many different terms "voluntary" are there? I know of one so far.

The power under section 6331 is not limited to collecting from an "employee," if that's what you're driving at.

Read the section, it is self explanatory who it applies to. Plain meaning rule. You are assuming again things i do not say.

I'm here to teach.

Lol. Made me laugh hard. I did learn that there are two "REGULATES", one from Black's and at least another one which may or may not be from Black's. So yea, you're teaching me alright.

Now, let's talk character. What do you make of that word from above S.Ct. case and what do you think it refers to?

[LPC]

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

Do they have a field manual for trolls? I mean, is there a formula or template that they are given?

I guess I shouldn't complain, because it makes them easier to spot, but it's really too easy.

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.

Not really, because the Constitution itself didn't give the federal government any authority over any land. Whether any land was to be ceded to the federal government was to be decided later. The Constitution only established a legal framework for dealing with land that might be ceded.

But you're close, and that counts for something.

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

More troll template stuff.

Now, United States, or any government, can have two jurisdictions: territorial, and subject matter.

No, not really.

The "any government" is all wrong, because the U.S. Constitution is really somewhat odd and unusual, and so "stija" is extrapolating from Constitution to all governments everywhere, and it really doesn't work.

All governments are necessarily limited by geography. The government of France can't legislate within the United States for the same reason that the United States can't legislate within France.

What is confusing to self-taught theoreticians like stija is that the federal government has two kinds of legislative powers: specified (and limited) legislative powers throughout the states of the United States, and general (unlimited) legislative powers in certain areas (the District of Columbia and federal forts and territories).

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.

More troll templates.

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:

What the hell? Section 6041? Information reporting? Forget that.

(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.

God, more "includes" illiteracy? Is that what this is all about?

What a disappointment. I thought we might be getting an interesting or original troll.

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.

Quotation from the License Tax Cases. And the only truly correct thing quoted so far.

Well, what public office do you suggest Congress can regulate??

Which demonstrates that stija totally missed the point of the License Tax Cases.

Now your initial question was "how do we know that Title 26 regulates only federal payments?"

No, that was not the initial question. The initial question did not use the word "regulates" at all.

The initial question was: Where is the language in the Constitution or a statute that says that for income to be taxable, it must have "some nexus to the federal government's powers specified by the Constitution"?

And nothing that stija cited or quoted was responsive to that question.