Weston has questions

[Quixote]

Weston White has questions for the Commissioner. The commisioner's response may be a while in coming, so I thought we might help Weston out by providing him with answers.

Dear Commissioner Douglas Shulman,

I respectfully would like to request an answer to the following twelve questions pertaining to the Federal Income Tax. Specifically, in regards to individuals whom are either citizens or permanent residents of the United States of America and are both living and working within the 50-states of the Union for non-federally connected public or private companies (including corporations and incorporations) and of whom do not desire to receive or benefit from federally connected programs such as: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, [FICA Programs] or Unemployment Compensation [FUTA Programs].

It is currently my personal understanding after reviewing Title 26 of the U.S.C. and related Regulations that the Internal Revenue Code does not address a ‘Direct Tax’ upon the non-privileged/non-federal remuneration of either public or private labors and workers and that therefore such remuneration is not taxable under the established provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Thank you in advance for any enlightenment you are able to provide.


1. Are non-federally connected businesses and corporations, regardless if public or private, legally required to enforce 26 CFR 1.3402(a)-1 in regards to IRS W-4 ‘wage’ withholdings, with exception to when entering into a voluntary withholding agreement under 26 CFR 31.3402(p)-1(a)?

No, they are not required to enforce the regulations. They are, however, required to comply with the regulations.

2. Does “Gross income” as defined within 26 U.S.C. Section 61 include the remuneration of non-federally connected laborers and workers whom are both living and working within the 50-states of the Union or more specifically within the State of California?

Yes, as is obvious to anyone even remotely literate.

3. Does the IRS recognize and respect that a tax imposed upon the remuneration of non-privileged laborers and workers is by definition a ‘Capitation Tax’ and is thereby only taxable as a ‘Direct Tax’?

The IRS has no position on that question, but will no doubt develop one if Congress ever imposes such a tax.

4. Are individuals as described in above paragraph (1) required to participate in FICA and FUTA Programs against their desire or freewill and regardless if the individual possess a valid Social Security Number or not?

Yes and no. An employer's participation in FUTA consists solely of paying the required tax. That participation is required by law. (Non-employers, of course, do not participate in FUTA at all.)

An individual will receive old age benefits only if he applies for them. Opting out is therefore easily accomplished by never applying. He would, however, still be required to pay FICA tax.

5. Does the IRS recognize and respect that ‘incomes’ as used within the 16th Amendment of the Bill of Rights includes only 'gains' and 'profits' of which are derived from federally connected commercial and investment [corporate] activities as was established within the 1909 Corporate Excise Tax Act?

The IRS does not accept that fantasy as fact. It does not even accept the fantasy that the 1909 Corporation Excise Tax Act established anything about the words "income" or "incomes".

6. Does the IRS recognize and respect that the 16th Amendment of the Bill of Rights authorized a tax upon the ‘fruits’ of ones ‘income’ ‘from whatever source derived’, but not the literal ‘source’ [capital] of ones ‘income’; or more specifically does the IRS recognize and respect that the use of ‘from whatever source derived’ within the 16th Amendment of the Bill of Rights is not a direct reference to the actual or literal source of ones ‘income’ itself but is a reference to the allowance for the measurement of ‘incomes’ [being ‘gains’ and ‘profits’] from any qualifying and underlying source of which such ‘income’ is derived from?

The last time the IRS checked, the Bill of Rights contained only 10 amendments. The IRS is unaware of any amendment to the constitution specifically regarding the taxing of "fruits". The IRS has no idea what you are asking in the rest of that paragraph nor why you imagine that the 16th amendment to the constitution does not mean exactly what it says.

7. Does the IRS recognize and respect that while the Internal Revenue Code depends upon Subtitle C of 26 U.S.C. as a collecting and withholding mechanism, Subtitle A of 26 U.S.C. is in actuality an Excise [‘Privilege’] Tax placed upon federally connected ‘incomes’ and not non-federally connected ‘incomes’?

No. The IRS recognizes that Subtitle A is not a tax, but rather imposes several taxes, the first one being a tax on the income of individuals, regardless of the source.

8. Has Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-01 establishing ‘Internal Revenue Districts’ been cancelled by Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-02(1?

Maybe. Maybe not. Who gives a rat's ass?

9. Has a replacement Treasury Order been issued to maintain the operation of the ‘Internal Revenue Districts’ previously created under Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-01 and as required by 26 U.S.C. 7621 [Executive Order No. 10289]?

See above.

10. Is it not true that if a Regulation pertaining to a Title of the United States Code has not been enacted into ‘Positive Law’ such as 26 U.S.C. and is not Codified within the Federal Register and is subsequently not listed within the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules, then such a Regulation has no applicability exterior to the Seat of the federal government, meaning within 10-square miles of The District of Columbia?

It better not be, because no regulation has ever been enacted into positive law. Your example of positive law, 26 USC is a title within the United States Code, not a regulation.

11. Is it not true that if a Regulation pertaining to a Title of the United States Code has not been enacted into 'Positive Law' such as 26 U.S.C. and has as fact been Codified within the Federal Register and subsequently does list the specific Part(s) of the respective Regulation within the Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules (of which have been Codified within the Federal Register), then those and only those enumerated Part(s) of their respective United States Code Title(s) are to be additionally applied (or extended) to the population at large, meaning those non-federally connected individuals whom are residing and working within the 50-states of the Union?

Again, regulations are not "enacted into positive law", so your question is unclear at best.

12. Is it not true that every state of the Union bases its own requirements for its residents to file individual State Income Tax returns with their own state’s Franchise Tax Board upon the requirements as established by Congress for individuals to file Federal Income Tax returns; meaning that an individuals requirement to file a State Income Tax return is wholly dependent upon the individual meeting or exceeding the established “Gross income” as defined within 26 U.S.C. Section 61 and that the Revenue and Taxation Codes of all 50-states of the Union or more specifically of the State of California, are completely and utterly reliant upon the language established within and throughout 26 U.S.C.?

Yes, it is not true. Several states have no income tax. Those states wisely do not require their residents to file state income tax returns. Some states with income taxes do not have Franchise Tax Boards. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue, for example, would probably confuse people if they required tham to file returns with the non-existent Wisconsin Franchise Tax Board. Additionally, not all states tie the filing requirement for the state form to federal gross income.

Commissioner Shulman, I would like to thank again for taking your time in addressing these matters and for stepping up to the challenge of upholding a public office, thereby making your vast expertise, experience, and aid available to the general public so that we might all become more knowledgeable in the laws that serve to balance and sustain our Nation.


Sincerely, ...

[Famspear]

From above:

Has Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-01 establishing ‘Internal Revenue Districts’ been cancelled by Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-02(1? [sic]

[Maybe. Maybe not. Who gives a rat's ass?]

9. Has a replacement Treasury Order been issued to maintain the operation of the ‘Internal Revenue Districts’ previously created under Treasury Order [T.O.] 150-01 and as required by 26 U.S.C. 7621 [Executive Order No. 10289]?

Section 7621 provides:

Sec. 7621. Internal revenue districts

(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND ALTERATION. --The President shall establish convenient internal revenue districts for the purpose of administering the internal revenue laws. The President may from time to time alter such districts.

(b) BOUNDARIES. --For the purpose mentioned in subsection (a), the President may subdivide any State, or the District of Columbia, or may unite into one district two or more States.

For those giving any body parts at all with respect to any rodents anywhere, nothing in that language "requires" the issuance of a "replacement" Treasury order. Further, Treasury Order 150-01 and Treasury Order 150-02 might or might not even be currently effective (i.e., they are not found in the list of current Treasury Orders on the U.S. Treasury Department's web site.)

Here's one that we know is good, though:

BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY

TREASURY ORDER: 150-10

DATE: April 22, 1982

SUNSET REVIEW: TBD

SUBJECT: Delegation--Responsibility for Internal Revenue Laws

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Secretary of the Treasury, including the authority in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Reorganization Plan No. 26 of 1950, it is hereby ordered:

1. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws.

2. Commissioner Order No. 190 and General Counsel Order No. 4 state the powers delegated to the Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.

3. All outstanding orders and delegations of authority relating to the above are modified accordingly.

This Order supersedes Treasury Department Order No. 150-37 dated March 17, 1955.

Donald T. Regan

Secretary of the Treasury

http://www.treas.gov/regs/to150-10.htm

[Quixote]

It isn't at all clear to me that IRC §7621 is even relevant anymore. For whose convenience were the internal revenue districts to be established? Returns are filed electronically or, in the case of dinosaurs such as I, by mail to submissions processing campuses in distant cities. Sit down audits are conducted in a location convenient to the taxpayer, or more commonly, convenient to his representative, whose office may be hundreds of miles away from the taxpayer's home.

The 1998 restructuring act did away with internal revenue districts as administrative units. The immediate supervisor of the revenue agent or revenue officer a taxpayer is dealing with might be in the same city, but it is a safe bet that the boss's boss is in another state.

[notorial dissent]

And one should really care why if at all???????

[Imalawman]

Dear Commissioner Douglas Shulman,

12. Is it not true that every state of the Union bases its own requirements for its residents to file individual State Income Tax returns with their own state’s Franchise Tax Board upon the requirements as established by Congress for individuals to file Federal Income Tax returns; meaning that an individuals requirement to file a State Income Tax return is wholly dependent upon the individual meeting or exceeding the established “Gross income” as defined within 26 U.S.C. Section 61 and that the Revenue and Taxation Codes of all 50-states of the Union or more specifically of the State of California, are completely and utterly reliant upon the language established within and throughout 26 U.S.C.?

You are so wrong its not even close. First, as has been pointed out, some states don't have income taxes and some states don't base net income off the federally determined gross income. However, here's also where you're going wrong. States are not required to accept that federal return as final. Many times, the states are the first to catch an error and they can decide a federal issue without any word on the subject by the IRS. In some cases, they can even come to a different conclusion than the IRS. So, while a state revenue code might start with a federal gross income figure, it is not bound by that number. When I was in the state enforcement side, I saw this mistake many, many times. They were shocked and dismayed to find out that even though their federal return had slipped through the cracks, the state didn't care and they had to pay the piper. Then, somehow the feds found out and they were forced to return their refunds plus fraud penalties. But keep it up there big guy.

[ClobberroTestii]

From http://losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic ... b7c13#8082:

No the IRC itself makes that federal-connect distinction the term "incomes" as defined within Amendment XVI, referred to as previously meant within the 1909 Act prior mentioned. Though this term was used much earlier then that, I saw it used in an 1800's SCOTUS case, though I do not think it was ever used by our Nation's Framers, but I might be wrong on that, nothing that I have come across as of yet though.

I am starting to believe that the reason the IRC places the federally connected requirement within it is because of their limited taxing powers. I have been looking through Article I Sections 8 and 9 of the U.S. Constitution and I am realizing that makes reference in some enumerations or clauses as the ‘several States’ or the ‘states’ and as the ‘United States’ in other enumerations or clauses. So clearly a distinction or limiter was set into place (for obvious reasons).

Though I am still confused on this new theory of mine, though I feel like it has actual substance to it.

[notorial dissent]

I’m sorry, was this actually intended to make any kind of sense in any of several languages, since English is obviously not the one being attempted here? I would put this down to authentic TP gibberish, but it doesn’t rise to that level of nonsense. I think D - for effort, and 0 for originality.

[webhick]

Though I am still confused on this new theory of mine, though I feel like it has actual substance to it.

Translation: I still can't set the clock on my VCR, but I know I'm onto something when I randomly push the buttons.

Stay tuned for our next chapter when the clock changes from blinking "12:00" to blinking "12:01" and his "theory" is proven right.

Welcome to Quatloos, Clobberro!

[ClobberroTestii]

I’m sorry, was this actually intended to make any kind of sense in any of several languages, since English is obviously not the one being attempted here?

For clarification you'll have to consult with Mr. White.

I would put this down to authentic TP gibberish, but it doesn’t rise to that level of nonsense. I think D - for effort, and 0 for originality.

I agree.

[ASITStands]

Welcome to Quatloos, 'ClobberroTestii!'

Presuming this is your latest post on Lost Horizons regarding frivolous penalties.

Some here have been banned from Lost Horizons. I see you're not.

Where'd that screen name come from?

[ClobberroTestii]

Welcome to Quatloos, 'ClobberroTestii!'

Presuming this is your latest post on Lost Horizons regarding frivolous penalties.

Some here have been banned from Lost Horizons. I see you're not.

Where'd that screen name come from?

What's your point?

[grixit]

Latin for "ball buster", i'd guess.

[ClobberroTestii]

Latin for "ball buster", i'd guess.

Ahhhhhh..... a man of distinction in that he displays a flair for the obvious!

[ASITStands]

Since I'm not as 'educated in the profane' as many of the others, I presumed it was a fair question. Sorry to have offended. I'll not make any further attempt at congeniality.

[Anti-861]

Latin for "ball buster", i'd guess.

Ahhhhhh..... a man of distinction in that he displays a flair for the obvious!

It's actually a colloquialism for "troll."

[ASITStands]

Latin for "ball buster", i'd guess.

Ahhhhhh..... a man of distinction in that he displays a flair for the obvious!

It's actually a colloquialism for "troll."

I wondered that.

That's why I made what was apparently a feeble attempt to make small talk. I had hoped there might be some discussion on 'Clobberro's' position on frivolous penalties. Maybe not.

Oh, well! You wins some, you lose some.

[jg]

Oh, well! You wins some, you lose some.

And the rest get rained out !

[ASITStands]

"... but you gotta suit up for them all!"

[ClobberroTestii]

Since I'm not as 'educated in the profane' as many of the others, I presumed it was a fair question. Sorry to have offended. I'll not make any further attempt at congeniality.

Suit yourself, but I'll ask again- what's your point?

[ClobberroTestii]

I wondered that.

That's why I made what was apparently a feeble attempt to make small talk. I had hoped there might be some discussion on 'Clobberro's' position on frivolous penalties. Maybe not.

Oh, well! You wins some, you lose some.

.....as opposed to no flair at all.