Gain... what is it?

[LPC]

I care because in order for me to know if it applies, I have to understand it all, do I not?

Nope.

You don't bother read to read subchapter C unless you're a corporation.

You don't bother to read subchapter J unless you're a trustee.

You don't bother to read subchapter K unless you're a partner in a partnership.

You don't bother to read subchapter N unless you have income from foreign sources, or you're a nonresident alien.

Need I go on?

NOBODY (or at least very few people) have ever bothered to read the entire Internal Revenue Code. You figure out what you need to figure out, and ignore the rest.

For most people, the best way to do that is to read the instructions to Form 1040. The IRS does the best it can to produce explanations that will help people report the income they are required to report, and claim the income and credits they are allowed to claim.

[wserra]

1) I care because in order for me to know if it applies, I have to understand it all, do I not? Or shall I simply take your word for it?

Have a fever? Better read the entire body of extant medical literature. Hey, maybe you have visceral leishmaniasis.

Occam's razor is a very useful device.

[Blackbeard]

I've read many posts that say yes, but those posts are based on the assumption that you have more of something than you did at one time and these posts also ignore that you have less of something else.

You may less time left in your life, but you gained eight bucks. You could have spent that hour napping, making love, smoking ribs on the grill; you would still be out the hour.

Or if you're really coordinated, all three.

[Dr. Caligari]

I care because in order for me to know if it applies, I have to understand it all, do I not?

You only hear this kind of stuff from tax protestors (or "tax agnostics"). Nobody I know has ever read all of the federal and state laws on controlled substances, but they have somehow figured out that crack cocaine is illegal and Jolt Cola is not.

[Tax Guest]

There can be many reasons to hire professionals. For example (from a famous picture on professionalism):

Doug: "Sounds good, Tom, but I'd like to look at your opperation before I commit."
Big Tom: "Fair enough, Doug. 'Course, I could get a hell of a good look at a T-Bone steak by sticking my head up a bull's ass, but I'd rather take the butcher's word for it."

[Joey Smith]

If a man works for another man for an hour and receives $8, has the worker gained anything?

Yeah, he gained $8. Why else did he work? Or are you assuming a Communist system where everybody works for the common good without hope of economic remuneration?

[John J. Bulten]

What a shocker. John is a tax protester who wants you to buy a book from his internet guru to help you learn the secret meaning of the magic words in the Code...

Demo, please recall I do not protest any taxes, and Shades may be unaware of Dan's expansive definition of "tax protester". You know, the secret meaning where he goes beyond the plain words and includes those who "claim that they are not 'protesting' the tax laws, but only arguing that the tax laws do not apply to them or their income" (http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#protester)-- brushing aside for now the fact that he compares us immediately to Holocaust deniers.

Also, we try to stock up libraries with CtC so that buying it is not strictly necessary. I always make a point of giving CtC away for free, because I've made clear that I don't want to be anywhere near the tax shelter laws. Buy truth and do not sell it.

[Joey Smith]

The term "tax protestor" refers to those who use theories that have been rejected time after time after time, or patently bogus theories.

Certainly, CtC is an easy fit into that characterization.

There is a simple reason why NO accredited tax, legal or constitutional scholar thinks that CtC works: It is wrong.

Instead, you have a nut who was once convicted of blowing up an innocent postal employee who magically comes up with a theory for avoiding taxes, followed by a bunch of like nuts who put feathers on a tire and call it an airplane.

Next totally bogus theory . . .

[LPC]

Nobody I know has ever read all of the federal and state laws on controlled substances, but they have somehow figured out that crack cocaine is illegal and Jolt Cola is not.

Good analogy. (Or metaphor, or synecdoche, or palindrome, or something.)

[jg]

"Tax protestor" is inaccurate but commonly used as the term for those that are better described as "tax denier" for they deny that the law is valid or that it means what it says or that it applies to them or that it is constitutional, etc. etc.

The only protest is whining and complaining that the law is not what the tax denier wishes it would be or imagines it should be; but mostly the protest is heard when the law is applied and enforced against the tax denier.

[ShadesOfKnight]

I care because in order for me to know if it applies, I have to understand it all, do I not?

Nope.

You don't bother read to read subchapter C unless you're a corporation.

You don't bother to read subchapter J unless you're a trustee.

You don't bother to read subchapter K unless you're a partner in a partnership.

You don't bother to read subchapter N unless you have income from foreign sources, or you're a nonresident alien.

Need I go on?

As a matter of fact, yes. Are not some of the references cross-subchapter? Are there not references that read "unless otherwise provided in this title?" That language forces one to know the title, not just the limited piece that they hope is relevant.

For most people, the best way to do that is to read the instructions to Form 1040. The IRS does the best it can to produce explanations that will help people report the income they are required to report, and claim the income and credits they are allowed to claim.

Unfortunately, an appeal to authority on this one comes off as an equivalent statement to "have faith" from a god-fearing man. Sure, it might be true and accurate... or it might not. I suppose it could be said that all you'll ever need to know will be provided to you by the government... But history is rife with examples of how that trust is abused. That, plus the fact that cynicism is just good common sense these days pretty much puts the idea that putting blind faith in the 1040 is not wholly reasonable.

[ShadesOfKnight]

1) I care because in order for me to know if it applies, I have to understand it all, do I not? Or shall I simply take your word for it?

Have a fever? Better read the entire body of extant medical literature. Hey, maybe you have visceral leishmaniasis.

Occam's razor is a very useful device.

True. But what does Occam say in the case of a situation where a simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time?

Or does Occam stop being useful when it's put that way?

[ShadesOfKnight]

Nobody I know has ever read all of the federal and state laws on controlled substances, but they have somehow figured out that crack cocaine is illegal and Jolt Cola is not.

And some folk I know have been arrested for having just over the legal limit of Sudafed in their medicine cabinet.

[ShadesOfKnight]

If a man works for another man for an hour and receives $8, has the worker gained anything?

Yeah, he gained $8. Why else did he work? Or are you assuming a Communist system where everybody works for the common good without hope of economic remuneration?

I think you may have missed the point. Objective gain requires that the two sides of the exchange be compared to determine plus or minus. The gain of the Federal Reserve Notes have to be compared against the losses that balance it out.

[ShadesOfKnight]

The term "tax protestor" refers to those who use theories that have been rejected time after time after time, or patently bogus theories.

Would that be "Tax Denier" then?

Sorry, the Holocaust Denier reference stuck...

[ShadesOfKnight]

Um, ShadesofKnight asked what is gain. Gain is a laundry soap, like All or Tide. It comes in both powder and liquid form in containers of various sizes.

Glad to be of help.

I always thought of Tide as something that happened twice a day due to the pull of gravity on the oceans... How odd that I have been wrong all these years.

[wserra]

what does Occam say in the case of a situation where a simple clerical error can ruin your life 100% of the time?

That it's ridiculous hyperbole. Back in the days when I did my own taxes, I made "clerical errors" on a couple of occasions. Each time, I got a polite letter from the IRS pointing them out. Once I simply paid the tax I owed, the other time they reduced the tax because I made an error in their favor. End of story.

Perhaps you can cite to me when a "clerical error" "ruined your life". No? Didn't think so.

[Agent Observer]

And some folk I know have been arrested for having just over the legal limit of Sudafed in their medicine cabinet.

I throw the BS flag on that one. The controlled versions of Sudafed products contain Pseudoephedrine, which is a precursor chemical used in the illicit manufacture of Methamphetamines. It requires cases of these pills in order to derive enough Pseudoephedrine (ie, way way more than the “legal limit,” which I believe is two boxes). Now, in order to have seized it from your friends “medicine cabinet,” it would have required a search warrant. There’s no way in hell law enforcement got a search warrant to seize “just over the legal limit” (read one or two boxes) of pills out of a medicine cabinet in someone’s house, so basically it boils down to a couple possibilities:

1- You are lying about the entire incident to embellish your point.
2 – Your “friend” was popped for illicit manufacture of Methamphetamines, which you conveniently left out to make it seem like he bought a box of medicine and the ebil gubermint went ballistic.
3 – Your friend was a mule purchasing products containing Pseudoephedrine for a meth cook and got popped, but of course, you cant mention that, since it wouldn’t support your point.

[silversopp]

Objective gain requires that the two sides of the exchange be compared to determine plus or minus. The gain of the Federal Reserve Notes have to be compared against the losses that balance it out.

It should be easy enough for you to point out the statute that says this. But you cannot, because you're wrong.

[Quixote]

Nobody I know has ever read all of the federal and state laws on controlled substances, but they have somehow figured out that crack cocaine is illegal and Jolt Cola is not.

And some folk I know have been arrested for having just over the legal limit of Sudafed in their medicine cabinet.

What state was that in? Here in Texas there is no limit on how much Sudafed you can own, just how much you can buy each day. I suspect that is so in most states.