Fuzzrabbbit Speaks

[Joey Smith]

Too bad Dan never actually reads what Larken or Dr. Tom say

Who really cares, since it didn't work for either Mullet Boy or crazy Dr. Tom?

[silversopp]

[quote="fuzzrabbit] You should. If they jailed Larken, they could jail anyone. [/quote]

You mean that they could jail anyone who uses Larken's arguments. What else do you expect to happen when someone breaks the law?

I don't break the law, so I'm not worried about going to jail.

[Imalawman]

Still no response...

Its just that we've been over this soooo many times its just hard to care enough to post the same thing again.

[.]

Say, Fuzz, you're not reverting, are you?

You figured it out once, why are you inviting another thrashing?

[Brian Rookard]

If they jailed Larken, they could jail anyone.

Wrong.

Most Americans do not espouse idiot legal theories about how they can't be taxed. Larken is in jail for acting on his stupidity.

Larken's arguments have been trashed here and elsewhere before. The fact that you (or Larken) choose not to accept the replies you're given is not our problem.

[Brian Rookard]

soooo many times

I've never been convinced, just shaken.

That's because you *choose* not to be convinced. You have already made up your mind, and have fit and contorted the facts to your preconceived notions.

[LPC]

Oh? How about a response, instead of namecalling?

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#section861

[jg]

The court put it quite simply in the case of BRIAN G. TAKABA v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 119 T.C. No. 18

Petitioner relies on the 861 argument to defend against imposition of a section 6673(a)(1) penalty. The 861 argument is that the regulations under section 861 establish that petitioner's income in the form of remuneration for services and bank interest received from sources within the United States is not taxable income (or is not "non-exempt income"). The 861
argument is contrary to established law and, for that reason, frivolous. In Christopher v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, the taxpayer made a similar argument. We characterized the taxpayer's argument as "without factual or legal foundation", and addressed it as follows:

Section 1 imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States. Sec. 1.1-1(a)(1), Income Tax Regs. Section 61(a) provides that except as otherwise provided in subtitle A (income taxes) gross income includes "all income from whatever source derived," including compensation for services and interest. Secs. 61(a)(1), (4).

Ignoring these statutory provisions, petitioners argue that their compensation for services and interest do not constitute gross income because these items of income are not listed in section 1.861-8(f), Income Tax Regs. Their argument is misplaced and takes section 1.861-8(f), Income Tax Regs., out of context. The rules of sections 861-865 have significance in determining whether income is considered from sources within or without the United States. The source rules do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States. See, e.g., Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138-139 (2000) (rejecting claim that income is not subject to tax because it is not from any of the sources listed in sec. 1.861-8(a), Income Tax Regs.); Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40 (rejecting claim that the only sources of income for purposes of sec. 61 are listed in sec. 861); Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 477, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (1982) ("The determination of where income is derived or 'sourced' is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under section 1 and section 11, espectively, on their worldwide income.").

Full case is at http://www.laborlawtalk.com/showthread.php?t=5961

As the court stated, and as we have discussed, the statutes and regulations in sections 861-85 do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.

Hope this helps.

[Quixote]

Since you brought it up, Dan...:

Where? When? Dan hasn't played whack-a-mole on Larken recently.

By the government avoiding a real response to his charges our liberties are voided.

Larken made no charges. More to the point, he abandoned his 861 delusion when charges were filed against him. The government didn't have to address his 861 delusion because he abandoned it at trial in favor of trying to convince the jury that he had confused himself.

[silversopp]

What else do you expect to happen when someone breaks the law?

Well, you see, he didn't. The IRS did. He may have given a poor defense, but he was innocent.

I don't break the law, so I'm not worried about going to jail.

The law according to THEM. Let's go to the SC and see what they say... Well, on second thought, maybe not--Darth Vader (Scalia) is still there.

So you pretty much don't understand the role that the legislative, executive, and juducial branches play in our system.
To sum it up, the only laws that exist in the US are the ones according to 'THEM'.

[Imalawman]

That's because you *choose* not to be convinced. You have already made up your mind, and have fit and contorted the facts to your preconceived notions.

Again Brian, I wouldn't be here taking abuse (see thread title--with my moniker misspelled. And who put it here? I was answering Dan's self-serving thread intro mentioning his FAQ site, Quixote.) if I wasn't still probing for the truth. I have better things to do than listen to derisive comments.

It’s just that I, for one, don't believe that I could convince you of anything even if God himself came down and wrote it on stone tablets right in front of your face. In the end, you're buying into a theory that espouses that even though you live in the US, work in the US and are a US citizen you don't have to pay US income taxes. If you'll believe that, you have presuppositions that will override anything I tell you.

[grammarian44]

There is one thing you are definitely presupposing: You are presuppoing that others on this site have some sort of duty to show you where you are wrong about 861. That's not at all true. You have a duty to prove to us that we're wrong. After all, as of this moment no court or other authority has accepted your position on 861. You have the duty to change everyone else's mind. No one on this site has a duty to change your mind. Yet you persist in presupposing that we have that duty.

[Prof]

"THEM"

I liked the movie. I meant the silly court rulings so far on 861. I haven't seen one yet that spoke to Larken's position, instead of what someone thinks it is. I'll get to Takaba with jg, in a minute.

Let's see:

1. Larkin, Dr. Tom promote the "Sec. 861" position -- American citizens resident in the US do not owe taxes on wages earned in the US.

2. Larkin is indicted for crimes related to his failure to pay taxes. He does not assert that the 861 position means that he owed no taxes and therefore committed no crime. His defense is that he sincerely believed that the 861 position was correct and therefore he cannot be convicted of a crime. He never asserts that the 861 argument is correct; just that HE BELIEVED it was.

3. Dr. Tom is indicted. He apparently did try to use the 861 is correct defense; he was convicted.

4. Every lower court which has considered 861 has found that that sec. 861 does not excuse the liabilities created by sec. 1 and sec. 61.

What is left? EVEN LARKEN WOULD NOT ADVANCE THE TRUTH OF THE 861 POSITION AT TRIAL (although he still advocates the argument, now that he's out of jail).

So, if the leading proponent of the 861 argument will not use the argument to defend himself in a criminal case (and has not and cannot assert the truth of the position on appeal, having waived below), why would you ever expect that the Supreme Court would ever even have the opportunity to take up the issue?

Also, the argument is preposterous on its face. It seems premissed on a monumental mistake by Congress -- which could easily be corrected, for the 861 argument has no constitutional dimension as far as I know. The argument is impossible for educated folk to follow. I know I cannot see how Larkin gets the language of the IRC to support his position.

Finally, no one with any sense (or real money at risk) has ever picked up the argument. If it is true, why hasn't someone (like me) with an annual IRS bill in the six figures, ever taken the issue up? Complex tax avoidance schemes are advocated by the big CPA firms and law firms and sell for millions (see the Son of BOSS scandal which destroyed Jekins and Gilchrist, a large Dallas law firm, and cost KPMG over $400 million in fines paid to the IRS plus claims from its clients). If tax avoidance schemes are so profitable for big firms and KPMG that they go out on a limb, why wouldn't they pour equal resources into 861 and sell that to clients?

[Imalawman]

No, I understand that ONLY THE SC can "make" the law, by ruling. What IS their opinion on Larken's views? That would satisfy me. As long as those 4 who put Bush in office were in the minority.....

Always a caveat to accepting a court case... On a side note, I'll be meeting with one of those hated four tomorrow. I'll say hi for you.

[Lambkin]

I'm not pushing, I'm digging.

You are digging for diamonds in manure and when you don't find any, you latch onto anything shiny and ask if it's a diamond. Your detax holy grail just isn't in there, or anywhere else, but nobody is going to be able to prove that to you. A measure of your intelligence will be how long you keep at it. At the risk of proving myself a total nerd, I present this quote which will be familiar to all the nerds here.

All the "great secrets" under the mountains had turned out to be just empty night: there was nothing more to find out, nothing worth doing, only nasty furtive eating and resentful remembering.

To me it's a good summary of all detax "research".

[Cpt Banjo]

I always have thought Larken's argument was consistent with the Constitution

Actually, Rose's constitutional argument in support of his 861 theory is more inane than his analysis of the 861 regulations. See, he has to come up with a reason why Congress didn't allegedly tax domestic income, so he tries to invent a reason why it couldn't do so under the Constitution. He basically says that Congress can't impose an income tax on income earned from intrastate activites (which has never been the law), and that although Congress can indeed regulate interstate commerce, it can't tax income earned from interstate transactions either because once the transaction concludes within a state, it's really an intrastate event. If you buy that, I have a certain bridge for sale...

[Cpt Banjo]

Larken wouldn't defend 861: I understand he was not allowed to argue the law. Rightly, perhaps.

He couldn't argue the law to the jury. He could, however, have argued his view of the law to the judge, but both he and Clayton chose not to do so, which makes one wonder whether they really believe in the guff they sold to others.

The Constitutional restriction on intrastate regulatory power is the HEART of the argument. Larken's explanation of that is a inspired and inspiring. (Not here, I'm sure.) I can follow it well enough, I have a college education (shouldn't be necessary).

Then you need to understand that Congress' power to tax is not dependent upon its power to regulate interstate commerce, any more than it's dependent on Congress' power to establish post offices, enact uniform bankruptcy laws, grant patents, or raise armies and navies. The power to tax and the power to regulate are two different things, and the Supreme Court has consistently held that the former is independent of the latter and that Congress may tax things that is might not be able to regulate otherwise. You might want to start by reading the following: The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866); Sonzinsky v. U.S., 300 U.S. 596 (1937); U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (1950); U.S. v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22 (1953).

[grixit]

By "THEM" do you men the 535 Congresspeople and 100 Senators? Remember kids, they send a lot of laws to the president, which get signed and never, ever get debated in the courts.

Or did you mean the giant, radioactively mutated ants of the American southwest featured in the 1950s movie entitled "Them"?

Hey those ants at least knew to eat the sugar and not the sacchrine.

[grammarian44]

The duty isn't mine OR yours, but the GOVERNMENT'S, to show clearly under Gould v. Gould where I am responsible to them.

You've completely misread and misunderstood Gould v. Gould. That case does not stand for the proposition that the federal government has an independent duty to prove to you to your satisfaction that the taxing statutes impose a tax on citizens.

Look closely at the relevant quote:

In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen.

Notice that it says, "in case of doubt." Doubt is a subjective mental state. Only individual persons can have doubt.

Whose doubt is Justice McReynolds' talking about? Yours? Any citizen's? Obviously not.

Justice McReynolds is talking about the doubt of the person or persons who are deciding how the statutes should be interpreted. In tax litigation, who decides how the statutes should be interpreted? I believe that would be the judge or judges who are deciding the case.

In other words, Justice McReynolds was saying that when the judge or judges doubt the meaning of a tax statute, then the statutes should be construed most strongly against the government. And I would agree.

But the fact that you personally have doubts about the law does not implicate the Gould v. Gould rule. That's obvious. If Gould v. Gould means what you think it means, then every time an individual taxpayer experiences "doubt," that person could put the burden on the government to prove an interpretation that disfavors the taxpayer.

Moreover, in general when there is a consensus within the judiciary as to the interpretation of a statute--as there is with section 861--then it remains your burden to try to prove that this interpretation is wrong. Courts have always operated that way, whether the laws in question are tax laws or any other kind of law. When there is a consensus, it's up to the person who holds a dissenting view to make the case that the consensus is wrong. Otherwise, we would have to reinvent the law every time a new legal issue arises.

[Nikki]

Fuzz is missing the most significant point about the "861 argument."

Although it is perfectly permissible for American citizens who line within the continental United States (plus certain additional territories) to use the rules and calculations conained in 861 et seq, they, for the most part, won't come up with any different result in their tax calculations than if they ignore it.

It is only by an intentionally warped interpretation of language within those sections that Rose and others were able to convince themselves that they didn't owe income taxes.

They first come up with a different meaning of "includes" than is explicitly specified in the tax code, and then they warp the meaning of source to fit their needs.

They conveniently ignore simple words like "whatever source" to build a sand castle of arguments which end up justifying their intended result.

Unfortunately, they also ignore a sucession of IRS rulings and decisions by every court that has ever tested the issue which consistently state that the "861 argument" has absolutely no basis in law.