Discussion with MN Stix

[MN Stix]

According to you, the 16th amendment has no limitation of power.

According to you, the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

How would you know what I think the 16th amendment means? Why don't you grace us all with my opinion.

But if the 16th Amendment means what it says, then it should be limited to what it says.

ROFLMFAO!!

As I said, according to you and others here, the 16th provides no limitation of power. The only limitation is whatever lawmakers decide its limitation would be.

Btw, you provided your knowledge of constitutional limitation exquisitely. Denha Hom, gawana dizid

For the purpose of this post, an employee is any employee working for an employer paying wages as an employer to an employee so long as that employee is being paid wages by an employer, unless otherwise specifically in conflict somewhere else in the universe.

The above statement A) defines wages B)defines employee C)defines employer D)defines the universe

Ga giigoo-shiina.

A conclusion to be drawn from that was already provided by me.

What is "that"? Limitation of power? What Nikki thinks? The 16th Amendment?

And what conclusion? Where?

Could you please be a little more vague?

Why bother asking a question to something you missed? I must admit, I found myself questioning!

As "income from any source derived", would not be limited to money needing to be present, simply a "source" having a converted value of money.

Sounds right.

No, it is not right and it is not wrong. It is more wrong than it is right however.

No debate is needed because the Internal Revenue Code specifically provides for recognition of income upon the receipt of services or property other than money. For example, see section 83.

Why would I bother with section 83?...irrelevant. We are specifically dealing with section 61 (compensation for services to be specific). My opinion is that your idea of "income" is any money for any service. Not the case in so many ways. Money being involved in something, does not automatically create gross income. see section 61

Why do you feel I would need to "weasle" my way out of anything?

Sure, why bother to "weasel" when you can be vague, incoherent, and obliviously wrong.

You are a hoot! You have just defined an IRS agent, the IRS, the tax code and a minimum of 300,000,000 people. Could you be more vague?

The law does not allow for it atm, so no debate is needed.

The law does not allow for automated teller machines?

ATM = At the Moment.

Thank you for the clarification hick. I would hate to think some poor soul would be left with the confusion. Next time I will just spend the extra time and type it out

Actually, quite a few of the posters here are primarily concerned with (1) helping people avoid getting caught up in scams and (2) helping take the scam operators off the streets -- for a long time.

Hear! Hear! That's my motives.

And, yes, 'Demo,' some of us are just simply reading, watching, paying attention and hoping it's a good outcome for 'MN Stix' and others. Right now, 'Imalawman' and 'LPC' are doing fine.

Not to leave the others out! Your comments have been good too. Cheers.

It is decidedly so, but I doubt the pure motive is unanimous.

[Paul]

My opinion is that your idea of "income" is any money for any service. Not the case in so many ways. Money being involved in something, does not automatically create gross income. see section 61

And exactly where in section 61 does it say that money received for services is not gross income? Or do you not understand what it means to cite "see section 61", in addition to all the other things you clearly do not understand (including this question)?

[Nikki]

MN:

You're all over the map.

Let's start with one simple question at a time.

Is compensation for services income as described by the 16th amendment?

This just gets a yes or no answer. If you answer no, you need to explain why so we can discuss that.

If you say yes, we can move on to the next point.

Please note that I am not addressing wages, salary, payment for labor, contract services. All I asked about was compensation for services.

[LPC]

According to you, the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

How would you know what I think the 16th amendment means? Why don't you grace us all with my opinion.

You have argued that taxing compensation for labor would be a "direct tax" that must be apportioned, but the 16th Amendment says that taxes on incomes do NOT need to be apportioned. So you are either arguing that compensation for labor is not income or you are arguing that the 16th Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

And occasionally you argue that compensation for labor might be income, but Congress doesn't have the power to tax it.

I haven't yet seen a lot of rationality or coherence in what you write, so I have to admit that it is difficult for me to determine if you think at all, much less the results of your "thinking."

As I said, according to you and others here, the 16th provides no limitation of power.

Something that you've said before, and that I'm beginning to believe is just a string of words that you like to repeat because you like the sounds of the words because you aren't able to attach any content to the words.

[LPC]

Btw, you provided your knowledge of constitutional limitation exquisitely. Denha Hom, gawana dizid

For the purpose of this post, an employee is any employee working for an employer paying wages as an employer to an employee so long as that employee is being paid wages by an employer, unless otherwise specifically in conflict somewhere else in the universe.

The above statement A) defines wages B)defines employee C)defines employer D)defines the universe

Ga giigoo-shiina.

Maybe in the morning he'll be sober, but I doubt he'll be any more lucid.

[Kimokeo]

A guy cuts lawns in our neighborhood for $30. I choose to cut my own lawn. Now, because my lawn is owned by me, my sole-proprietorship owes me $30. Since I choose how, when, and several other things about this type of labor and its relationship, I'd think of myself a contracted laborer to me. So, as the soleproprietorship pays me $30, I must now claim $30 as income on my Schedule C. But, since I have a sole-proprietorship, I'll be righting off the $30 contracted labor off my other Schedule C that reflects my sole proprietorship.

So, basically, one Sch C shows $30 out. The other shows $30 in. Now, when considering gas and maintenance for my lawnmower, I may be bringing in $15 bucks when I'm done. So, I have a gain of $15 after expenses, but my other Sch C took a $30 loss. So, I"m $15 in the hole?

Because my property has had its lawn cut, it gains in value. I figure this since the house down the street hasn't cut its lawn in months and it is on sale (and still on sale). It's value is depreciating due to its appearance. So, by cutting my lawn, my home gains in value. But, I don't recognize the gain yet until I sell it, right?

But, to take the loss on my soleproprietorship, I'd have to prove the to courts that I was in business to make a profit. Since the only argument I could raise about my home ownership making me money is on the profit made on potential sale, would I have to prove my home is for sale, and hence, a profit is intentioned?

Now, I cut my neighbor's yard and I ask for no compensation. My neighbor isn't a recognized charity, so I can't take the contribution's value on the Sch A as a deduction for charitible contributions. But, my neighbor has had labor done for him at $30 FMV. Does he have to claim the gain?

Which brings me to the homes built by that TV show. Apparently, the taxes are being avoided under an abandonment idea? I guess, if I cut your lawn and don't charge you, I abandoned my labors on your lawn (after picking up the grass and twigs). So, you don't have to pay for my abandoned labor?

[MN Stix]

MN:
Please note that I am not addressing wages, salary, payment for labor, contract services. All I asked about was compensation for services.

Nikki, I'm following you just fine, continue at will.

[RyanMcC]

MN:
Please note that I am not addressing wages, salary, payment for labor, contract services. All I asked about was compensation for services.

Nikki, I'm following you just fine, continue at will.

Are you sure? Nikki posted 8 sentences, 7 of which attempted to get you to answer one question, yet you ignored the question.

[MN Stix]

Are you sure? Nikki posted 8 sentences, 7 of which attempted to get you to answer one question, yet you ignored the question.

I believe she asked me to explain if the answer was no. Did you see me explain anything? A simple deduction, you have the answer...not? I figured anyone could reason the answer as being "yes".

Nikki, I'm sorry if you did not understand the answer as being "yes". The answer was "yes" and remains as such to this very moment. That is not limiting the answer to only this moment, but shall continue to be said answer until such a time I decide to disagree. If disagreement should arise due to brain damage or other form of retardation, I will serve formal notice in this thread. If more than one copy is needed, please make the request.

Any time your ready to continue.

[.]

Say, Stix, you wouldn't mind being a bit less obtuse, would you?

BTW, Stix, AFAIK nikki is a male. Whom I'm sure will be happy to go through this step by step. But, if you answer by omission or some other sort of obscurity everyone has to interpret, it'll take about a dozen 100-post threads to get anywhere.

Unfortunately, I've been compelled by my interest in colossal train-wrecks to read every excruciating word you've posted here. I have to say that, unlike mutter who has seen the bright headlight of the DoJ train approaching CtC at 100 mph in the tunnel of denial and stepped off the tracks, the impression I gain from your hackneyed elucidations is that of someone who thinks the feds take and spend too much money and therefore wants to rationalize non-payment of taxes, no matter what.

Now, I wholeheartedly agree that the feds take and spend too much money. But, that has nothing to do with the state of current tax law and never will. It is what it is. The lawyers and other tax professionals here will provide the cites that dot every "i" and cross every "t." I'll just say that you're barking up a tree that will fall on you.

[Nikki]

I believe she asked me to explain if the answer was no. Did you see me explain anything? A simple deduction, you have the answer...not? I figured anyone could reason the answer as being "yes".

Nikki, I'm sorry if you did not understand the answer as being "yes". The answer was "yes" and remains as such to this very moment. That is not limiting the answer to only this moment, but shall continue to be said answer until such a time I decide to disagree. If disagreement should arise due to brain damage or other form of retardation, I will serve formal notice in this thread. If more than one copy is needed, please make the request.

Any time your ready to continue.

First, I don't base anything here on my understanding, or lack thereof, of another poster's remarks unless they are completely self-explanatory.

In any case, you said YES -- compensation for services is, in fact, income as described by the 16th amendment.

Next question: The tax code (26USC) clearly states that compensation for services is a component of gross income. Where, in specific, within the current tax code, is there any language removing any subset of compensation for services FROM inclusion in gross income? This answer requies a specific citation in the form of, for example, 26USC61.

If you need a good source for the tax code, try Find Law.

[Arthur Rubin]

EDIT: Famspear has demonstrated that he is not omnipotent -- by having to go back and correct his spelling of the word itself -- from "ominpotent" to "omnipotent" in the text above.[/size]

Wrong word choice, also. It's "omniscient" that you are not. You have have not demonstrated a failure of "omnipotence" in this thread, at least as I've read so far.

[wserra]

EDIT: Famspear has demonstrated that he is not omnipotent -- by having to go back and correct his spelling of the word itself -- from "ominpotent" to "omnipotent" in the text above.[/size]

Wrong word choice, also. It's "omniscient" that you are not. You have have not demonstrated a failure of "omnipotence" in this thread, at least as I've read so far.

Yes, he has. Were Famspear omnipotent, then his spelling the word "ominpotent" would make it so.

Sort of like Ursula LeGuin's Lathe of Heaven.

[Arthur Rubin]

Which brings me to the homes built by that TV show. Apparently, the taxes are being avoided under an abandonment idea? I guess, if I cut your lawn and don't charge you, I abandoned my labors on your lawn (after picking up the grass and twigs). So, you don't have to pay for my abandoned labor?

I don't think so. A local winner lost her home to income taxes. On the other hand, if it's the show I'm thinking of, one could make the credible theory that it's a gift.

After all, Habitat for Humanity recipients don't pay income tax on the value of the home. Property tax, yes (and some in Utah have lost their home to property taxes). Income tax, no.

[Arthur Rubin]

We now return you to your discussion with MN Stix, already in progress....

[Prof]

Which brings me to the homes built by that TV show. Apparently, the taxes are being avoided under an abandonment idea? I guess, if I cut your lawn and don't charge you, I abandoned my labors on your lawn (after picking up the grass and twigs). So, you don't have to pay for my abandoned labor?

I don't think so. A local winner lost her home to income taxes. On the other hand, if it's the show I'm thinking of, one could make the credible theory that it's a gift.

After all, Habitat for Humanity recipients don't pay income tax on the value of the home. Property tax, yes (and some in Utah have lost their home to property taxes). Income tax, no.

Habitat beneficiaries actually pay for their homes; given the poverty levels that Habitat works with, I suspect that the difference in payments and fair value would still not create taxable income for the beneficiaries. And, since Habitat is a charity, it should not owe gift taxes on the benefit conferred.

[ASITStands]

EDIT: Famspear has demonstrated that he is not omnipotent -- by having to go back and correct his spelling of the word itself -- from "ominpotent" to "omnipotent" in the text above.[/size]

Wrong word choice, also. It's "omniscient" that you are not. You have have not demonstrated a failure of "omnipotence" in this thread, at least as I've read so far.

Yes, he has. Were Famspear omnipotent, then his spelling the word "ominpotent" would make it so.

Sort of like Ursula LeGuin's Lathe of Heaven.

I thought he meant, "Ah'm inm-potent!" which would probably match his age.

However, I agree with 'Arthur' that the proper word was "omniscient."

Omnipotent essentially means "all-powerful" while omniscient means "all-knowing."

Of course, an "inm-potent" man might not know that.

[LPC]

Which brings me to the homes built by that TV show. Apparently, the taxes are being avoided under an abandonment idea? I guess, if I cut your lawn and don't charge you, I abandoned my labors on your lawn (after picking up the grass and twigs). So, you don't have to pay for my abandoned labor?

I don't think so. A local winner lost her home to income taxes. On the other hand, if it's the show I'm thinking of, one could make the credible theory that it's a gift.

After all, Habitat for Humanity recipients don't pay income tax on the value of the home. Property tax, yes (and some in Utah have lost their home to property taxes). Income tax, no.

There's a difference between a prize (which is gross income according to section 74) and a gift (which is not income according to section 102).

Thinking about this difference for the first time, I think that the difference may be in the motive of the giver. Prizes are usually awarded out of a profit motive, while gifts are the result of disinterested generosity. TV shows expect to make a profit, and give prizes to people who help them make profits by acting sufficiently enthusiastic on camera. Habitat for Humanity (and other charities) simply wants to help people and expects nothing in return.