Fuzzrabbit's thread (continued)

[Duke2Earl]

To Quatloosers:

As a general rule, I don't try to guess at the mental processes of idiots and delusional psychopaths.

It is due to demeaning, derogatory comments like the above from Dan that I really would rather go do something I enjoy than post here. He criticizes others, insults them and avoids answering inconvenient critiques like the one that I submitted beginning this exchange. That is a loss, I believe, for this site and your viewers. It's unfortunate, because I HAVE learned things here, even from him. You will now be condemned to an ever tightening circle of like-minded, abusive critics who have little to offer, and only focus on a mindless race to irrelevancy. You may want to engage in a little introspection.

Ever think that the "demeaning, derogatory comments" are well and truly deserved? Every single one of the delusional psychopaths that arrives here is fully aware that they have to pay income taxes. They truly and completely know that American citizens are required by law to pay taxes on their income. They know absolutely that Congress has enacted laws requiring them to pay taxes on income. They absolutely know that it is a crime not to pay taxes and that they can go to jail for not paying. They are completely aware that every court in the land agrees that income is taxable and that the tax laws are constitutional.

But despite all that they persist. They know they will lose but still they persist. They think it's all just a conspiracy. They ignore all vestiges of common sense. They have this one overwhelming "need".... they don't like paying and therefore they shouldn't have to. And their personal law they think they can apply to themselves overrules everything in the universe. Talk about your ego issues.

And us... you seem to think that we are some sort of public charity devoted to answering your dumb questions over and over and over again. You know something, by the time the several hundredth wacko comes in here screaming "The moon is made of green cheese" you get just a bit bored of it. Maybe if one of you brainwashed egomaniacs would say something a little different...but no... you just proceed like lemmings, brainwashed by your gurus, mouthing the same crap over and over and expect us to kindly discuss with you the symptoms of your delusions. I know it's fashionable in denier circles to call us all sheep, but it's quite interesting how the tax deniers all (coincidentailly, I'm sure) all sing the same discreditied, absurd nonsense songs. You seem to think a "discussion" would be useful... to who? Certainly not to us.

Dan has done a tremendous service. He has told you the answer to all your questions. He has responded to all the insanity. If you won't believe the truth, that is your problem, not Dan's... and not ours. Here's the real deal. Your income is taxable. It may not be fair. It may not even be a good idea. But it is the law. Get over it.

[SteveSy]

delusional psychopaths

ego issues.

you brainwashed egomaniacs

all the insanity

Nobody forced you to post this.

I'm surprised you're even dealing with their sewage fuzzy. They're not interested in helping anyone understand anything. Their only interest is in spreading negative propaganda against anyone asking questions or challenging the authority of the IRS to collect taxes. They’ll never answer your questions except by calling you names and quoting another source that explains nothing nor justifies its position but simply claims it frivolous.

I finally gave up and realized these guys have an agenda and nothing more.

Good luck.

[The Observer]

I finally gave up and realized these guys have an agenda and nothing more.

Good luck.

And you don't have an agenda?

[Imalawman]

Where you been Steve? We had a rip roaring good 861 thread, and you didn't show up. In fact, you haven't been around here lately. Compared to the loonies that have come here lately, you practically look like a normal person.

[rachel]

To Quatloosers:

As a general rule, I don't try to guess at the mental processes of idiots and delusional psychopaths.

It is due to demeaning, derogatory comments like the above from Dan that I really would rather go do something I enjoy than post here. He criticizes others, insults them and avoids answering inconvenient critiques like the one that I submitted beginning this exchange. That is a loss, I believe, for this site and your viewers. It's unfortunate, because I HAVE learned things here, even from him. You will now be condemned to an ever tightening circle of like-minded, abusive critics who have little to offer, and only focus on a mindless race to irrelevancy. You may want to engage in a little introspection.

Ever think that the "demeaning, derogatory comments" are well and truly deserved? Every single one of the delusional psychopaths that arrives here is fully aware that they have to pay income taxes. They truly and completely know that American citizens are required by law to pay taxes on their income. They know absolutely that Congress has enacted laws requiring them to pay taxes on income. They absolutely know that it is a crime not to pay taxes and that they can go to jail for not paying. They are completely aware that every court in the land agrees that income is taxable and that the tax laws are constitutional.

But despite all that they persist. They know they will lose but still they persist. They think it's all just a conspiracy. They ignore all vestiges of common sense. They have this one overwhelming "need".... they don't like paying and therefore they shouldn't have to. And their personal law they think they can apply to themselves overrules everything in the universe. Talk about your ego issues.

And us... you seem to think that we are some sort of public charity devoted to answering your dumb questions over and over and over again. You know something, by the time the several hundredth wacko comes in here screaming "The moon is made of green cheese" you get just a bit bored of it. Maybe if one of you brainwashed egomaniacs would say something a little different...but no... you just proceed like lemmings, brainwashed by your gurus, mouthing the same [crude scatalogical reference] over and over and expect us to kindly discuss with you the symptoms of your delusions. I know it's fashionable in denier circles to call us all sheep, but it's quite interesting how the tax deniers all (coincidentailly, I'm sure) all sing the same discreditied, absurd nonsense songs. You seem to think a "discussion" would be useful... to who? Certainly not to us.

Dan has done a tremendous service. He has told you the answer to all your questions. He has responded to all the insanity. If you won't believe the truth, that is your problem, not Dan's... and not ours. Here's the real deal. Your income is taxable. It may not be fair. It may not even be a good idea. But it is the law. Get over it.

Dan hasn't a clue to the meaning of 3401(a) "wages" yet, so its too early to be bowing down to stroke him.
So freak........get a life!

[LPC]

To Quatloosers:

As a general rule, I don't try to guess at the mental processes of idiots and delusional psychopaths.

It is due to demeaning, derogatory comments like the above from Dan that I really would rather go do something I enjoy than post here. He criticizes others, insults them and avoids answering inconvenient critiques like the one that I submitted beginning this exchange.

Hey Fuzzy, have you yet found any rationale for why compensation for services performed in the United States is not included in "taxable income from sources within the United States" despite the fact that sections 861(a)(3) and (b) clearly say that they are?

Your "inconvenient critique" was simply the same kind of vague and incoherent blather that is a waste of my time to try to decipher. But I've presented you with a simple question and clear statutory authority. Why do you keep ducking the question?

[rachel]

To Quatloosers:

As a general rule, I don't try to guess at the mental processes of idiots and delusional psychopaths.

It is due to demeaning, derogatory comments like the above from Dan that I really would rather go do something I enjoy than post here. He criticizes others, insults them and avoids answering inconvenient critiques like the one that I submitted beginning this exchange.

Hey Fuzzy, have you yet found any rationale for why compensation for services performed in the United States is not included in "taxable income from sources within the United States" despite the fact that sections 861(a)(3) and (b) clearly say that they are?

Your "inconvenient critique" was simply the same kind of vague and incoherent blather that is a waste of my time to try to decipher. But I've presented you with a simple question and clear statutory authority. Why do you keep ducking the question?

Why havent you answered my question about those involved in 3121(b) "employment" for 3121(a) "wages" being included in 3401(a) "wages" Dan?
Scared of the truth?

[LPC]

Why havent you answered my question about those involved in 3121(b) "employment" for 3121(a) "wages" being included in 3401(a) "wages" Dan?
Scared of the truth?

Your question is irrelevant.

As I explained in another thread, the definitions in sections 3121 and 3401 exist solely for purposes of withholding and FICA taxes, and have nothing to do with the definition of "gross income" in section 61.

As the Supreme Court so aptly put it: "The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). And the context might be helpful to you:

The income tax is imposed on taxable income. 26 U.S.C. 1. Generally, this is gross income minus allowable deductions. 26 U.S.C. 63 (a). Section 61 (a) defines as gross income "all income from whatever source derived" including, under 61 (a) (1), "[c]ompensation for services." The withholding tax, in some contrast, is confined to wages, 3402 (a), and 3401 (a) defines as "wages," "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash." The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income,[note 5] but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages. Interest, rent, and dividends are ready examples. And the very definition of "wages" in 3401 (a) itself goes on specifically to exclude certain types of remuneration for an employee's services to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service).

Footnote 5 might interest you also: "There are exceptions. E. g., 26 U.S.C. 911 (a)."

[rachel]

Why havent you answered my question about those involved in 3121(b) "employment" for 3121(a) "wages" being included in 3401(a) "wages" Dan?
Scared of the truth?

Your question is irrelevant.

As I explained in another thread, the definitions in sections 3121 and 3401 exist solely for purposes of withholding and FICA taxes, and have nothing to do with the definition of "gross income" in section 61.

As the Supreme Court so aptly put it: "The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). And the context might be helpful to you:

The income tax is imposed on taxable income. 26 U.S.C. 1. Generally, this is gross income minus allowable deductions. 26 U.S.C. 63 (a). Section 61 (a) defines as gross income "all income from whatever source derived" including, under 61 (a) (1), "[c]ompensation for services." The withholding tax, in some contrast, is confined to wages, 3402 (a), and 3401 (a) defines as "wages," "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash." The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income,[note 5] but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages. Interest, rent, and dividends are ready examples. And the very definition of "wages" in 3401 (a) itself goes on specifically to exclude certain types of remuneration for an employee's services to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service).

Footnote 5 might interest you also: "There are exceptions. E. g., 26 U.S.C. 911 (a)."

Ohh, so you must agree to some extent with Pete Hendrickson's interpretive fallacy meaning to 3401(a) wages? You are at least giving away you dont understand why 3401(a) deductions are deducted for section 1 liability for the common worker.
Its obvious you didnt even read the two sections to compare them?
Heres a little hint:

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

You are a little close and starting to barely touch the subject with your examples:

to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service)

These two examples are also exempted from 3121(b) "employment" as well.
Anything else missing from 3401(a) thats also exempt from 3121(b)?
Maybe these as well?

3401(a)
(9) for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order; or

3121(b) Employment
(8)
(A) service performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to service performed by a member of such an order in the exercise of such duties, if an election of coverage under subsection (r) is in effect with respect to such order, or with respect to the autonomous subdivision thereof to which such member belongs;

Hey!! Danny boy how about those paper delivery boys and those college kids mentioned in both sections?
It appears that those excluded from 3121(b) are also excluded from 3401(a).
This means what danny?
Of course, all of those individuals who are in 3121(b) employment are also included in 3401(a) "wages"....But a hey a self proclaimed expert like yourself would be fully be aware of this now wouldnt you....of course you would. Who really are you trying to fool here...Dan!
Danny come on.... your no real expert of anything are you. Your just taking the easy path by hiding behind court rulings without ever understanding why they are ruled the way they are.
You've been bitched slapped!

[Imalawman]

blah blah blah, I'm an idiot, blah....

Geez, you're turning into a raging lunatic. No one is even exactly sure what the hell you're talking about - including you. Please shut up and go away.

[rachel]

blah blah blah, I'm an idiot, blah....

Geez, you're turning into a raging lunatic. No one is even exactly sure what the hell you're talking about - including you. Please shut up and go away.

Another idiot that has no idea whats going on nor cares to take the time to study the law.
Just relying on someones else hearsay because a judge ruled it that way.
Why are you wasting time and bandwidth posting these post that shows your IQ?

[Nikki]

Rachel:

Could you please enlighten us as to how definitions, specific to one section ot the Tax code, magically jump free of their constraints and apply to any other section?

And, while you're at it, please try to remember that 26USC imposes several different kinds of taxes, such as income, estate, gift, wage, and so on. Please try to keep the distinctions straight.

[Cobalt Shiva]

Could you please enlighten us as to how definitions, specific to one section ot the Tax code, magically jump free of their constraints and apply to any other section?

Simple. Take any two definitions and put them in close proximity.

They become a breeding pair. Next thing you know, you've got definitions all over the damn place.

[Quixote]

Why are you wasting time and bandwidth posting these post that shows your IQ?

An excellent question, Rachel, but misdirected. Perhaps if you took the time to post a simple statement of the point you are trying to make, in English, with only one subject and one predicate in each sentence, with adjectives used as adjectives and adverbs used as adverbs, your posts would appear to be less a waste of time and bandwidth.

[LPC]

Why havent you answered my question about those involved in 3121(b) "employment" for 3121(a) "wages" being included in 3401(a) "wages" Dan?
Scared of the truth?

Your question is irrelevant.

As I explained in another thread, the definitions in sections 3121 and 3401 exist solely for purposes of withholding and FICA taxes, and have nothing to do with the definition of "gross income" in section 61.

As the Supreme Court so aptly put it: "The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages." Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978). And the context might be helpful to you:

The income tax is imposed on taxable income. 26 U.S.C. 1. Generally, this is gross income minus allowable deductions. 26 U.S.C. 63 (a). Section 61 (a) defines as gross income "all income from whatever source derived" including, under 61 (a) (1), "[c]ompensation for services." The withholding tax, in some contrast, is confined to wages, 3402 (a), and 3401 (a) defines as "wages," "all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash." The two concepts - income and wages - obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income,[note 5] but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages. Interest, rent, and dividends are ready examples. And the very definition of "wages" in 3401 (a) itself goes on specifically to exclude certain types of remuneration for an employee's services to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service).

Footnote 5 might interest you also: "There are exceptions. E. g., 26 U.S.C. 911 (a)."

Ohh, so you must agree to some extent with Pete Hendrickson's interpretive fallacy meaning to 3401(a) wages?

What? What are you talking about?

You obviously don't understand (or are evading) my point, which is that the definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

You are at least giving away you dont understand why 3401(a) deductions are deducted for section 1 liability for the common worker.

What? What are you talking about? There are no "3401(a) deductions." Do you mean exemptions or exclusions?

And you obviously don't understand (or are evading) my point, which is that the definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

Its obvious you didnt even read the two sections to compare them?

Why would I compare them?

The definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

Heres a little hint:

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed

(d) Employer
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employer” means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the employee of such person, except that—

You are a little close and starting to barely touch the subject with your examples:

to his employer (e. g., combat pay, agricultural labor, certain domestic service)

These two examples are also exempted from 3121(b) "employment" as well.
Anything else missing from 3401(a) thats also exempt from 3121(b)?
Maybe these as well?

3401(a)
(9) for services performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order; or

3121(b) Employment
(8)
(A) service performed by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry or by a member of a religious order in the exercise of duties required by such order, except that this subparagraph shall not apply to service performed by a member of such an order in the exercise of such duties, if an election of coverage under subsection (r) is in effect with respect to such order, or with respect to the autonomous subdivision thereof to which such member belongs;

Hey!! Danny boy how about those paper delivery boys and those college kids mentioned in both sections?
It appears that those excluded from 3121(b) are also excluded from 3401(a).m?

So what?

The definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

This means what danny?
Of course, all of those individuals who are in 3121(b) employment are also included in 3401(a) wages"....m?

So what?

The definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

But a hey a self proclaimed expert like yourself would be fully be aware of this now wouldnt you....of course you would. Who really are you trying to fool here...Dan!

Danny come on.... your no real expert of anything are you. Your just taking the easy path by hiding behind court rulings without ever understanding why they are ruled the way they are.
You've been bitched slapped!

I couldn't have been "bitched slapped" (as you like to say) because the definitions in sections 3401 and 3121 still have nothing to do with the meaning of "gross income" as defined by section 61.

[notorial dissent]

Nikki, Rachel is a member of that collective unconscious which believes that if you can find the words you want in some other law or legal definition then it magically replaces the already present definition in the law they are trying to obscure. That is what this all boils down to when you get past her rhetoric and defensiveness.

This is the same track of illogic that PH, or whoever it is, insists on using when he argues about people being Federal Employees because some other law insists on treating everyone else as “Federal Employees for the purpose of this act”, unfortunately I don’t remember which one it is, but that has been their feeble excuse for another equally tortured reading of reality, and it is pointless to try and get them to actually read the definition in the act they are arguing about because that would then destroy their argument.

Rachel refuses to accept the fact that the laws for SS might just be written a little, or even considerably differently than the Income Tax laws because they wanted to figure benefits differently than they did income, but that is too complex a thought for her to handle, she would rather look for explanations for tax liability in an unrelated statute. Pity she didn’t think of looking in something that doesn’t mention taxes at all and then could complain that there isn’t a any definition or law at all.

[Blackbeard]

Hey Dan, Do the definitions in 3401 and 3121 have anything to do with the definition of gross income in section 61?

Just curious.

[Neckbone]

Dan:

Allow me to ask one simple question, please:

Does the definition of gross income in section 61 have anything to do with the definition of wages in 3401?

I think this is an important question that needs an answer.


Neckbone

[LPC]

I'm not sure. Let's ask Rachel.

[Colonel_Buck]

When would wages not be income?