I want to title my own thread, thank you

[LPC]

If you don't like the title of the other thread, why don't you change it?

[The Observer]

If it is true that someone else changed the topic for fuzzrabbit's thread, the real question to ask is how did that happen and the follow-up question is why is that allowed? I woud hate to think that Quatloos is starting to emulate Sui Juris.

[Demosthenes]

Wasn't me.

[LPC]

If it is true that someone else changed the topic for fuzzrabbit's thread, the real question to ask is how did that happen and the follow-up question is why is that allowed? I woud hate to think that Quatloos is starting to emulate Sui Juris.

It was me.

Fuzzrabbit started his 861 nonsense in what I thought was an inappropriate thread, and so I spun it off into a separate thread. I was in a bad mood, so I gave the new thread a title I thought was appropriate, thinking that Fuzzrabbit would change it as soon as he saw it, but apparently he hasn't yet figured out that, if he edits the first message in the thread and changes the title to that thread, it changes the title of the entire thread.

I'm not real proud of the title, and have now changed it to something more neutral.

[Nikki]

Is "all income from whatever source" specific enough for you?

[wserra]

Is "all income from whatever source" specific enough for you?

No. AGAIN--for WHO and WHERE is the transaction? YOU don't know Larken's argument.

That's right, Nikki. For very subtle, sophisticated, complicated reasons, Rosie's multifaceted argument is that "all" doesn't mean "all", and "whatever" doesn't mean "whatever".

It takes much reading and study to understand it. After all, at first glance it's nonsense.

[LPC]

Larken's central argument is that taxes must be specific: No one says the gov't doesn't have taxing power,

Larken does.

[.]

And the instructions for 1040 starting with foreign income not ever mentioning domestic.

You mentioned that way back when. I gave you my opinion on it, which remains the same. The people who wrote the instructions were aware that virtually everyone knows that domestic income is reportable. They were also aware that a relatively large number of people don't know that foreign income is also reportable. In the interest of keeping verbiage to a minimum they prominently mentioned only the item that isn't so well known.

I agree that in this case two more words wouldn't be unduly burdensome to the public and might make it seem more logical to some. As for clear, it would detract from the emphasis they apparently wanted to put on foreign income being reportable.

Not that anything in the instructions would have any effect whatsoever on the average TP.

[silversopp]

I just find it fascinating that so many suspicious-looking tidbits add up to a BIG question for me.

Maybe you don't fit the mold of the typical TP, but it is much more common for these people to come up with an answer, and then look for tidbits to back themselves up.

Go check out Dan's TP FAQ. Look at all the different arguments used to get out of paying taxes. That is the result of people reaching an answer and then looking desperately for something to make their answer real.

The government, and all the other parties involved in this grand conspiracy, clearly want to tax our income. There is nothing in the Constitutional that limits their power to tax income. Why on earth would they have to create a conspiracy and fill the courts with corrupted judges who all happen to misread the law exactly the same way?

[Dr. Caligari]

Cap'n Banjo says Loughborough shows intrastate taxation. No one says it is prohibited--just for WHO?

Reg. section 1.1-1 tells you-- all U.S. citizens and residents.

Income should have to be international (or interstate-maybe-for tax).

Why?
The power to tax and the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce are two separate powers in the Constitution. Why should one be limited by the other? You might as well say that, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to punish piracy, only pirates owe income tax. The argument would be just as silly.

Jefferson maybe shoud have "reflected" a little longer.

Maybe you should.

Gov't doesn't need all THAT much to get by on. Give 'em too much and you get Vietnam and Iraq...

I actually agree with you, but you are now talking about what the law should be, not what the law is.

[Nikki]

Is "all income from whatever source" specific enough for you?

No. AGAIN--for WHO and WHERE is the transaction? YOU don't know Larken's argument.

Wrong. Both at you and Rose's argument.

Rose ignores the clear statement of "whatever source" and argues that whatever doesn't mean whatever because whatever isn't specifically defined so that he can invent his own definition of sources.

Rose's argument (which isn't his because he's around the 3rd generation of evaders to use it) was discredited in court before he ever drank the koolaid.

Check Dave Bossett for historical precedence.

[Florida]

Nikki:

Wrong. Both at you and Rose's argument.

Rose ignores the clear statement of "whatever source" and argues that whatever doesn't mean whatever because whatever isn't specifically defined so that he can invent his own definition of sources.

Rose's argument (which isn't his because he's around the 3rd generation of evaders to use it) was discredited in court before he ever drank the koolaid.

Check Dave Bossett for historical precedence.

Source is never defined, but IS determined for taxpayer in 861. Subchapter N: Determines sources of taxable income from within and without the U.S. Do you know of any other kind?

Who is Bossett? Tell me more.

So what about 861(b) and 861(a)(3) fuzz?

[Florida]

Florida:

So what about 861(b) and 861(a)(3) fuzz?

What do they say? I no longer have a copy of the Code (Looking for one--anyone know where I can get a reasonably priced --*free*-- copy?).

So you are sold on the 861 argument, yet you don't know about 861(a) and 861(b)?

Interesting. Very....interesting.

[Florida]

I'll be biking Arroyo Seco tomorrow, back to the thread later!

"well isn't that convenient..."

[.]

That's the lamest thing I've read here yet.

That's funny, a year ago (or whenever it was) when you read the same answer you agreed with it. But, that was back when you were thinking more clearly.

Think about it. The instructions aren't a regurgitation or recitation of the code. They're trying to be helpful while using limited space. They want to call attention to things which many people miss or are unaware of.

That they did so without mentioning the obvious somehow comprises some sort of argument is insipid. Just as it was the first time you brought it up and then abandoned it.

[Demosthenes]

The IRC:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... 01_26.html

Section 861, of course, is found under "SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... _40_I.html

[Paul]

Source is never defined, but IS determined for taxpayer in 861. Subchapter N: Determines sources of taxable income from within and without the U.S. Do you know of any other kind?

Not quite. Subchapter N tells you whether your income is from a source within the US or from a source outside the US. It does not purport to define the sources themselves, it just gives you the principles for locating the income geographically.

And, as to addressing Larken's specific arguments, as I recall they boil down to two points. The first is that the 861 regs refer to "gross income" that is exempt from taxation, from which he infers that not everything included in "gross income" under Section 61 is in fact taxable (even though that is contrary to the express language of Section 63, which defines taxable income as gross income minus deductions), and from which he further infers on no basis whatsoever that wages of citizens are included in the category of things that are included in gross income but are nevertheless exempt. Hell of a long stretch of "logic", especially if you were to read the 861 regulations and realize that what they are doing is telling you how to divide your gross income into two piles -- within and without the US -- and then how to compute taxable income (gross income minus deductions, remember?) for each pile. In order to do that, you have to somehow attribute every deduction to some kind of income in order to deduct it from the right "pile." In making the allocations, the 861 regs quite reasonably take into account the fact that some expenses are properly attributable to income that is excluded from gross income, and thus should not be deducted from either pile because those amounts are not deductible (see Section 265). Larken misreads the provisions telling you how to determine which of your expenses belong to the "attributable to exempt income and not deductible at all" as meaning that there are some hidden exemptions, on no basis whatsoever.

His second point is that regulation 1.861-8(f)(1) lists the "operating sections" to which the rules for dividing your gross income and taxable income into the within-and-without the US piles are necessary. He notes that determining the taxable income of a US citizen is nowhere on the list, and from that concludes on no basis that income of US citizens is not taxed. This is nonsense, because all the 861 regs do is tell you how to divide your income into two piles. Since (under the plain language of Section 61, and as pointed out in regulation 1.1) citizens are taxed on all income in both piles, there is no point to a citizen using the 861 regs in determining his taxable income. Accordingly, 1.861-8(f)(1) doesn't mention this situation. It does mention the situations of nonresident aliens and foreign corporations, which do have to divide their income into two piles because they are taxed only on the "within the US" pile under 871 and 881. And it mentions how US citizens may need to do so in order to compute the limitation on their foreign tax credits in 904. But to compute their taxable income? It would be a waste of time.

[.]

You'd have to show (where's the archives?) where I agreed with that. I don't believe I ever did.

I remember it like it was yesterday. In fact, I was surprised that you saw the logic of it. And, further down the same thread, that you concluded that Larken was full of it, as he most certainly is.

Perhaps Demo knows how to access any archive, if it exists. Google or the Wayback Machine (archive.org) may also have it. I really don't care, I recall what you said without the need to consult an archive.

[Cpt Banjo]

Dr. C:

The power to tax and the power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce are two separate powers in the Constitution. Why should one be limited by the other?

Because the SC said so: Taxation of guns in school zones amounts to a regulation of it.

Good grief, you don't even know the facts of the case you're relying on. The Lopez decision, which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, did not involve a tax of any kind. It was a criminal statute, pure and simple.

[.]

Good grief

Actually, this should not be surprising. Like taste, there's no accounting for the intellectual variability or plasticity of TPs or semi-TPs.