Determination of the scope of "gross income"

A collection of old posts from all forums. No new threads or new posts in old threads allowed. For archive use only.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

John J. Bulten

Post by John J. Bulten »

jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?
I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.
Randall
Warden of the Quatloosian Sane Asylum
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: The Deep South, so deep I'm almost in Rhode Island.

Post by Randall »

John J. Bulten wrote:
jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?
I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.
Which you failed to do. You did not answer the question. You had some rambling nonsense about not wanting to type an answer. It would have been quicker to type the answer, but then you would have to have an answer.
Brian Rookard
Beefcake
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:09 am

Post by Brian Rookard »

CaptainKickback wrote:As a professional hockey player, I am sure Satan has shopped for ice skates....

http://lsihockey.no/images/nyheter/Miro ... 28960a.jpg

Image

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice one.
David Merrill

Post by David Merrill »

John J. Bulten wrote:
jg wrote:Please cut to the chase: Why is your work for pay (since it increases your wealth, when realized and is under your dominion) not included in "gross income" of section 61?
I will respond on the thread "Once More Into the Breach", God willing.


I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.


Regards,

David Merrill.
Cpt Banjo
Fretful leader of the Quat Quartet
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Usually between the first and twelfth frets

Post by Cpt Banjo »

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

Hubert H. Humphrey
"Run get the pitcher, get the baby some beer." Rev. Gary Davis
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
Does he also have a "right" to be considered to be correct, even when he is wrong?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
John J. Bulten

Post by John J. Bulten »

David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.

Did you notice how Dan arrogates to himself the right to judge others wrong? And that after I taught him how to spell "Francois Rene de Chateaubriand", you know, the guy who said "One is not superior."
Quixote
Quatloosian Master of Deception
Posts: 1542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:00 am
Location: Sanhoudalistan

Post by Quixote »

John J. Bulten wrote:
David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.

Did you notice how Dan arrogates to himself the right to judge others wrong? And that after I taught him how to spell "Francois Rene de Chateaubriand", you know, the guy who said "One is not superior."
No, John. He is espousing the doctrine that you have a right to be heard. He's wrong, of course. You have a right to speak, but no one is required to listen. Of course, if you started defending your bizarre positions with something other than insults and sophistry, people would probably listen.
"Here is a fundamental question to ask yourself- what is the goal of the income tax scam? I think it is a means to extract wealth from the masses and give it to a parasite class." Skankbeat
Brian Rookard
Beefcake
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:09 am

Post by Brian Rookard »

John J. Bulten wrote:
David Merrill wrote:I prefer the concept that since John J. Bulten says the pay is not taxable income, it is not. I think he has a right to be heard.
You go David!

Of course (mock humility), you're not espousing the doctrine that Bulten gets to characterize the transaction, but the doctrine that a party to the transaction gets to characterize it.
So the guy John loaned the money to, since he was a party to the transaction, can turn around and say "it wasn't a loan, it was a 'gift', and so I don't owe John the money" ... and we'll just accept his characterization since he was a party to that transaction ... all the while, John sits and protests that it was a 'loan' and that he's entitled to be repaid.

And of course, all one needs to do is watch Judge Judy in the afternoon to see that this is a very real-life situation.

And of course, there can be the situation where both parties are in the fraud and are trying to cheat society ... both parties *claim* that the transaction was such-and-such ... while the facts show otherwise (despite the "characterization" of the parties.) I guess two robbers can agree that the bank heist was not *really* a robbery ... they were taking out a "loan" from the bank ... and society of course must accept the perp's word for it.

John, get real.
John J. Bulten

Post by John J. Bulten »

If two parties to a transaction argue whether it was a gift or a loan, they can go to court.

If two alleged robbers and a bank argue over whether it was a loan or a robbery, the same.

If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.

Someday, Brian, you will stop ridiculing people as if they're not being real when they are.
Joey Smith
Infidel Enslaver
Posts: 895
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:57 pm

Post by Joey Smith »

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.
No, because it violates a criminal statute. If you don't like it, please write your Congressperson. In the meantime, it is a felony by the both of you.
- - - - - - - - - - -
"The real George Washington was shot dead fairly early in the Revolution." ~ David Merrill, 9-17-2004 --- "This is where I belong" ~ Heidi Guedel, 7-1-2006 (referring to suijuris.net)
- - - - - - - - - - -
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

John J. Bulten wrote:If two parties to a transaction argue whether it was a gift or a loan, they can go to court.

If two alleged robbers and a bank argue over whether it was a loan or a robbery, the same.

If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same.

Someday, Brian, you will stop ridiculing people as if they're not being real when they are.
The payor has a choice: wages or non-wage compensation.

Depending on the situation, the IRS may challenge the payor's determination because of the impact on SS payments, withholding, and other issues.

Irrespective of those issues, the monies paid from the payor to the payee, YOU, are considered income for taxation purposes.

If you disagree with this, please demonstrate how compensation paid to you for personal services are not income..
John J. Bulten

Post by John J. Bulten »

Thanks, Joey, let me make a slight correction to my hasty comment:

If I and my payor agree that it wasn't wages but the IRS thinks it can find other firsthand evidence that it was, the same [they or I can go to court].

Nikki, see the thread I started previously on your topic.
Anti-861

Post by Anti-861 »

No, nitwit. A notice of deficiency has the presumption of correctness and the burden generally rests with the taxpayer to prove that it's not.
Nikki

Post by Nikki »

John:

What notices have you received from the IRS so far, and how have you responded to them?
.
Pirate Purveyor of the Last Word
Posts: 1698
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 2:06 am

Post by . »

None.

They weren't properly addressed to John-J: Bulten.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
LPC
Trusted Keeper of the All True FAQ
Posts: 5233
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:38 am
Location: Earth

Post by LPC »

John J. Bulten wrote:If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, the same.
There is a court with jurisdiction over meaningless semantics?
Dan Evans
Foreman of the Unified Citizens' Grand Jury for Pennsylvania
(And author of the Tax Protester FAQ: evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html)
"Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
John J. Bulten

Post by John J. Bulten »

My examples were not about NOD, because CtC filers who file properly and timely, and respond to IRS tactics properly and timely, seldom see NODs. But in that case the equation would be: If I and my payor argue over whether it was wages or pay, and the IRS agrees with the payor, we can go to court.

However, I was a nonfiler from 8/15/00 to 2/2/05, and am happy to admit my mistake (and even join with you in encouraging nonfilers to file, as Pete does). So I've seen most of the notices and in the past 2 years have learned to respond more effectively. My latest notice from the IRS admits I had zero income for 2006, but tries to pretend I had zero withholding too.

My full history used to be available at LH and I hope to repost it with updates. But the short version is, for your edification:

-98: normal mistaken filings
99-02: all filed 2/2/05, disallowed only recently; writing appeal
03-04: no info returns, filed in 05, no income, no dispute
05: info returns again, timely CtC filing and full refund credit
06: info returns, IRS stalls as above; writing rebuttal

Anything more specific you want? Do you want it so you can use it in your own case, or so you can call Ogden and slam me?
Lambkin
Warder of the Quatloosian Gibbet
Posts: 1206
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 8:43 pm

Post by Lambkin »

So do you actually think your efforts will result in eliminating your tax liability, or do you hope for martyrdom? Tactically, your best bet is probably the latter. I know it must be galling to have wasted so much effort, but what you are doing is like throwing good money after bad.

I think (hope?) most would agree that when there is no happy ending, it's best to get to the ending ASAP. Thankfully the IRS is remarkably impersonal when it comes to changing your mind; they'll forget all the bollocks you've sent them if you just go straighten it out. Since I'm an optimist I'll assume you know what I'm talking about.