Ex-ctc'er to CtCer's

[dude101]

Classic. A thread started by one ridiculous troll is hijacked by another ridiculous troll.

Hay numb---s, the thread was not started by a ctc'er...but by one of your very own oligarchy shills. Or as you would say, a Quatloo troll!

Enjoy disembeling and spreading the slime!

[Red Cedar PM]

I never put the word only in the quote, ass.

Certainly made it pretty damn misleading though. 3401(c) never says that employees are only officers... etc.

It is not more complicated than this - section 3401(c) defines "employee" as only including 'an officer, employee...

Then you should be more than able to provide a citation to a court case involving tax law where what you claim is vindicated.

I did in the same post - again, you guys just love to get it wrong on purpose.
Willful ignorance. WOW, what a concept.

And in Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151 (1917) that,

"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."

From Dan's FAQ:

A generality frequently cited by tax protesters is the following statement by the Supreme Court:

“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.”
Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 152 (1917).

The actual issue in Gould v. Gould was whether alimony is a kind of income subject to tax, and the court held that it was not. (The Internal Revenue Code has since been amended to make it clear that alimony is deductible by the payor and income to the recipient.) But tax protesters continue to trot out this “one size fits all” generality in support of just about any kind of claim, including the claims that wages are not income, or that the Internal Revenue Code must identify the “source” of their income, even though I.R.C. section 61(a) is clear that gross income includes all income “from whatever source derived” and that “compensation for services” (such as wages and salaries) is included in gross income, so there is no “case of doubt” to be construed.

To the extent that the Gould case (in 1917) represents a restrictive view of the scope of the tax laws, that view was over-ruled by Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430-431 (1955), in which the Supreme Court declared that it "has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology [defining "gross income"] in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted.” And the Supreme Court has also stated that it is a “settled principle” that "exemptions from taxation are not to be implied; they must be unambiguously proved." United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 (1988), citing Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 606 (1943); United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U.S. 57, 60 (1939); Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573, 592 -593 (1938). This “settled principle” works against tax protesters, because it shows that, once their receipts are within the definition of gross income” in section 61, any claimed exemption (such as the exemption claimed in the “section 861” argument) must be “unambiguously proved.”

Notice that the reliance of generalities is the opposite of the tendency of tax protesters to fail to see the forest for the trees. Tax protesters sometimes seem to go “guardrail to guardrail” in crashing back and forth between over-generalities and over-specifics. Anything to avoid the important realities.

[dude101]

[Liar.

It is not more complicated than this - section 3401(c) defines "employee" as only including 'an officer, employee...

Hay - do you know haw quotations are used? see the ' ? that's where the code qoute starts...

"only" is outside of that qoute. BOY OH BOY.

[Red Cedar PM]

[Liar.

It is not more complicated than this - section 3401(c) defines "employee" as only including 'an officer, employee...

Hay - do you know haw quotations are used? see the ' ? that's where the code qoute starts...

"only" is outside of that qoute. BOY OH BOY.

And I went back and edited my post in the meantime. You will come to find a not-so-warm welcome here for jerky behavior.

[Imalawman]

So, answer me this dude.

If 3401 is only meant to apply to federally connected income, why are there private sector exclusions at the beginning of 3401?

If 3401 is really limited to federally connected income, what good does that do? 3401 only applies to who has to withhold. Even if you're not required to withhold your wages sec. 61 still requires it to be taxable. How does 3401 exempt 90% of all wages earned when its just a withholding statute?

If I were to tell you that a cake recipe includes eggs, would you assume that that is all that is included in the recipe?

[RyanMcC]

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

The above link will cite numerous cases where the arguement dude101 makes is rejected soundly.

In the immortal words of Ron 'Tater Salad' White, "You can't fix stupid". No sense trying.

[Red Cedar PM]

Only remunerations to "employees" as defined in (c) are "wages" as defined in (a). Only such payments are taxable.

I'd also like to see a cite to this gem. IRC 61 says that compensation for services is included in gross income (and is therefore taxable). Whether that compensation is "wages" or whether it was paid to an "employee" has no bearing.

[jg]

Here are a few snippets from cases that are relevant to the issue:

United States v. Latham, 754 F.2d 747, 750 (7 th Cir. 1985) - Calling the instructions Latham wanted given to the jury "inane," the court said, "[the] instruction which indicated that under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) the category of 'employee' does not include privately employed wage earners is a preposterous reading of the statute. It is obvious within the context of [the law] the word 'includes' is a term of enlargement not of limitation, and the reference to certain entities or categories is not intended to exclude all others."

Sullivan v. United States, 788 F.2d 813, 815 (1 st Cir. 1986) - The court rejected Sullivan's attempt to recover a civil penalty for filing a frivolous return, stating "to the extent [he] argues that he received no 'wages' . . . because he was not an 'employee' within the meaning of 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), that contention is meritless. . . . The statute does not purport to limit withholding to the persons listed therein." The court imposed sanctions on Sullivan for bringing a frivolous appeal.

Peth v. Breitzmann, 611 F. Supp. 50, 53 (E.D. Wis. 1985) - The court rejected the taxpayer's argument "that he is not an 'employee' under I.R.C. § 3401(c) because he is not a federal officer, employee, elected official, or corporate officer," stating, "[he] mistakenly assumes that this definition of 'employee' excludes all other wage earners."

Pabon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-476, 68 T.C.M. (CCH) 813, 816 (1994) - The court characterized Pabon's position - including that she was not subject to tax because she was not an employee of the federal or state governments - as "nothing but tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish." The court imposed a penalty of $2,500 on Pabon for bringing a frivolous case, stating that she "regards this case as a vehicle to protest the tax laws of this country and espouse her own misguided views."

From a SCOTUS case regarding Title 26 section 3401 see Central Illinois Pub. Svc. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978) at http://supreme.justia.com/us/435/21/case.html

In Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U. S. 77 (1977), decided earlier this Term, the Court held that New Jersey's cash reimbursements to its highway patrol officers for meals consumed while on patrol duty constituted income to the officers, within the broad definition of gross income under § 61(a) of the 1954 Code, 26 U.S.C. § 61(a), and, further, that those cash payments were not excludable under § 119 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. § 119, relating to meals or lodging furnished for the convenience of the employer.

Kowalski, however, concerned the federal income tax and the issue of what was income. Its pertinency for the present withholding tax litigation is necessarily confined to the income tax aspects of the lunch reimbursements to the Company's employees.

The income tax issue is not before us in this case. We are confronted here, instead, with the question whether the lunch reimbursements, even though now they may be held to constitute taxable income to the employees who are reimbursed, are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). These withholding statutes are in Subtitle C of the Code. The income tax provisions constitute Subtitle A.

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, 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). Our task, therefore, is to determine the character of the lunch reimbursements in the light of the definition of "wages" in § 3401(a), and the Company's consequent obligation to withhold under § 3402(a).

Before we proceed to the resolution of that issue, however, one further observation about the income tax aspect of lunch reimbursements is in order. Although United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299 (1967), restricting to overnight trips the travel expense deduction for meal costs under § 162(a)(2), dispelled some of the confusion, it is fair to say that, until this Court's very recent decision in Kowalski, the Courts of Appeals have been in disarray on the issue whether, under §§ 61 and 119 of the 1954 Code or under the respective predecessor sections of the 1939 Code, such reimbursements were income.

Please note the distinction between the income tax issue, whether payments may be held to constitute taxable income to the employees who are reimbursed, and whether the payments are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 3401-3403.
These are separate issues. Even if payments are not "wages" subject to withholding according to the statues in Subtitle C they may still be constitute taxable income to the recipient of the payment according to the statues in Subtitle A.

For the sake of argument, if it is conceded that one does not receive "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, that does not exclude those payments from being within the broad definition of gross income under § 61(a) subject to the income tax imposed on taxable income in 26 U.S.C. § 1.

Hendrickson imagines that payments not subject to withholding are also not subject to income tax; but that is clearly contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I hope this helps you to understand what the law actually is rather than what Hendrickson, or you, or I might like it or imagine it to be.

[dude101]

And the Supreme Court has also stated that it is a “settled principle” that "exemptions from taxation are not to be implied; they must be unambiguously proved." United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 (1988), citing Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 606 (1943); United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U.S. 57, 60 (1939); Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573, 592 -593 (1938).

Is it not interesting that all of the cases you cite here deal with quasi-federal entities or state public entities that receive federal funds: e.g., federally insured banks, federal trusts, federally protected indian tribes, etc...and the ones that aren't are state tax cases, not Federal.

How far can the truth be stretched by you bozo's

[dude101]

JG above quotes
"Where there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.” — Plato

Plato was a fascist of the worse sort. He believed in the benign dictatorship of an enlightened
ruler.

His "Republic" is a plan for one of the most inhuman societies imaginable!@

[jg]

And the Supreme Court has also stated that it is a “settled principle” that "exemptions from taxation are not to be implied; they must be unambiguously proved." United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, 485 U.S. 351, 354 (1988), citing Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. United States, 319 U.S. 598, 606 (1943); United States Trust Co. v. Helvering, 307 U.S. 57, 60 (1939); Rapid Transit Corp. v. New York, 303 U.S. 573, 592 -593 (1938).

Then you will have to show where the payments made to you are exempt from taxes to adhere to this principle. This case does not help you; but rather does require that you find a specific, and not an implied, exemption for your receipts from being subject to the income tax.

Is it not interesting that all of the cases you cite here deal with quasi-federal entities or state public entities that receive federal funds: e.g., federally insured banks, federal trusts, federally protected indian tribes, etc...and the ones that aren't are state tax cases, not Federal.

Although it is not clear what is a federal trust (as those entities are created under state law), it is also very clear that a state public entity is part of the sovereign state government and not part of the federal government.
So, your comment is only interesting in showing your ability to expand your thesis to include all entities that receive federal funds or your choice to evade the main point that the issues of income being subject to income tax and wages being subject to withholding are independent.

[dude101]

So you admitt that the cases all deal with government creatures!

State agencies that get federal funding (as in funded mandates) are treated under USC 26 as one of those defined as "employees" of "employers" and not "excluded" by 3401 "includes" language...

I love USC 26!
WOW

[Imalawman]

So you admitt that the cases all deal with government creatures!

State agencies that get federal funding (as in funded mandates) are treated under USC 26 as one of those defined as "employees" of "employers" and not "excluded" by 3401 "includes" language...

I love USC 26!
WOW

You really are the among the most dense ctcer to ever grace this forum. But thanks for the laugh and for ignoring my questions. Go ahead give them a shot. No one else has ever answered those questions. Maybe you'll be the first. So far (crickets....)

[dude101]

Here's the real question for all of you geniuses:

If USC 26 means what you say it means, then why would the IRS send out a CP2000 Notice claiming a tax liability of over 26K and then send out a Notice of Deficency reiterating that claim and then after they received 2 carefully crafted letters and one phone call and 6 months of consideration on the part of the IRS minons they agreed that the 26k claim was in error and that the case was closed.

Could it be that they just could see a way to levy the 26k or prosecute the filer for fraud or at the very least declare the filing frivolous. Was it jsut a mistake on their part? 6 months of Incompetence durring which they simply could not figure out which part of Title 26 allowed them to enforce the claim of the Notice of Deficiency?

What is more likely? All the above, or that they begrudgingly complied with the law...

ENJOY.

dude101!

[Nikki]

Why are you arguing with someone who

(1) has cemented his mind to the CtC insanity so firmly that nothing short of military-grade explosives will break it loose

(2) uses his college major as his handle

[dude101]

You really are the among the most dense ctcer to ever grace this forum. But thanks for the laugh and for ignoring my questions. Go ahead give them a shot. No one else has ever answered those questions. Maybe you'll be the first. So far (crickets....)[/quote]

I'm dense?!@@!?

You as much made my case that all your cites deal with government creatures and you call me dense and say I didn't answer your questions.

They be answered. You just don't like the answer 'cause you be dissemblin’!

[Imalawman]

You really are the among the most dense ctcer to ever grace this forum. But thanks for the laugh and for ignoring my questions. Go ahead give them a shot. No one else has ever answered those questions. Maybe you'll be the first. So far (crickets....)

I'm dense?!@@!?

You as much made my case that all your cites deal with government creatures and you call me dense and say I didn't answer your questions.

They be answered. You just don't like the answer 'cause you be dissemblin’![/quote]

That's what I thought....you can't answer them.

[dude101]

Why are you arguing with someone who

(1) has cemented his mind to the CtC insanity so firmly that nothing short of military-grade explosives will break it loose

(2) uses his college major as his handle

Yah baby! why bother to argue - the IRS didn't when they claimed a Notice of Deficiency amount of over $26,000 and then couldn't find anything in the code or anything in case law after 6 months which would allow them to close on the claim!!!!@@!@!@

If USC26 means what you say it does, how could this happen, over and over again?

It is either gross incompetence on the part of the IRS or it means that they have to follow the law and the law doesn't mean what you want people to think it means...

ENJOY!

PS - in college they called me STUD101! I've cleaned it up as I've aged...

[Arthur Rubin]

Here's the real question for all of you geniuses:

If USC 26 means what you say it means, then why would the IRS send out a CP2000 Notice claiming a tax liability of over 26K and then send out a Notice of Deficency reiterating that claim and then after they received 2 carefully crafted letters and one phone call and 6 months of consideration on the part of the IRS minons they agreed that the 26k claim was in error and that the case was closed.

Most probably, something in those "carefully crafted letters" is a false claim that either (1) the income reported to the IRS by third parties wasn't real, or (2) the income reported to the IRS wasn't taxable income.

Until they get to know you better, they may believe your claims, rather than the contradictory claims of the people and businesses that paid you. As I've had overstated 1099-MISC's at least 3 times, I can imagine how to draft those letters.

1. (Company A)I was told, when I finished the project in mid-December, that the balance of the money wouldn't be available until January 9. In fact, the check was dated December 31 and postmarked January 5, but they reported it in the December year.
2. (Company B) They reported the value of a computer as part of my income, but I never received it.
3. (Company A and its bankruptcy receiver). The company went bankrupt before I got my payment. In addition to the fact I forgot to deduct the cost of the registered letters required to file a claim for the trustee, they disputed whether the person who signed my contract had the authority to do so, and I settled for an immediate 40% payment by reducing my claim amount to the class 4A claim limit, rather than going through the full filing for class 4 and possibly getting 60% a few years down the road. They sent a 1099 for the full amount.

In each case, I reported the amount I actually received in the appropriate years.

[dude101]

Here's the real question for all of you geniuses:

If USC 26 means what you say it means, then why would the IRS send out a CP2000 Notice claiming a tax liability of over 26K and then send out a Notice of Deficency reiterating that claim and then after they received 2 carefully crafted letters and one phone call and 6 months of consideration on the part of the IRS minons they agreed that the 26k claim was in error and that the case was closed.

Most probably, something in those "carefully crafted letters" is a false claim that either (1) the income reported to the IRS by third parties wasn't real, or (2) the income reported to the IRS wasn't taxable income.

Until they get to know you better, they may believe your claims, rather than the contradictory claims of the people and businesses that paid you. As I've had overstated 1099-MISC's at least 3 times, I can imagine how to draft those letters.

1. (Company A)I was told, when I finished the project in mid-December, that the balance of the money wouldn't be available until January 9. In fact, the check was dated December 31 and postmarked January 5, but they reported it in the December year.
2. (Company B) They reported the value of a computer as part of my income, but I never received it.
3. (Company A and its bankruptcy receiver). The company went bankrupt before I got my payment. In addition to the fact I forgot to deduct the cost of the registered letters required to file a claim for the trustee, they disputed whether the person who signed my contract had the authority to do so, and I settled for an immediate 40% payment by reducing my claim amount to the class 4A claim limit, rather than going through the full filing for class 4 and possibly getting 60% a few years down the road. They sent a 1099 for the full amount.

In each case, I reported the amount I actually received in the appropriate years.

Wat!?? Get to know me better! Believe me, if they could, if any part of the law would allow them to, they'd get to know me alot better...

What cowardly dissembling crap!