I want to title my own thread, thank you

[LPC]

I just looked at 861 (a). What about it? Do you see anything there about whose income?

I sometimes think that the ultimate problem with most tax protesters is that they are unable (or unwilling) to grasp the fact that different sections of the Internal Revenue Code serve different functions.

What they really want is one section of the Code that does *everything*: defines gross income, defines all allowable deductions, and defines who is required to file, preferably as one sentence.

As it is, I have the persistent sense that I'm dealing with a victim of Korsakoff's syndrome.

[LPC]

Dan,

So what good does it do you to determine the source of your wages unless you can find something that says your wages are not taxable?

Because....it ...must...say...they...are. My taxable income--from within the U.S.

And it does. See sections 861(a)(3) and 861(b).

As I've written numerous times in the last 48 hours, section 861 states quite plainly that compensation for services performed in the United States is included in taxable income from sources within the United States.

That you keep evading that issue speaks volumes about your integrity.

[Florida]

Dan, Because....it ...must...say...they...are. My taxable income--from within the U.S.

And it does. See sections 861(a)(3) and 861(b).

As I've written numerous times in the last 48 hours, section 861 states quite plainly that compensation for services performed in the United States is included in taxable income from sources within the United States.

That you keep evading that issue speaks volumes about your integrity.

You pay my taxes then, because it doesn't say they're mine.

I think he's got you there Dan. 861(a)(3) doesn't say Fuzzrabbit's name.

Next thing he'll do is start going the "sale of inventory" route.

[natty]

Natty,

What is wrong is you can't tell the difference between reporting what the law is and being an advocate for the law.

I'm not advocating, anyway. I'm debating, and discussing. Advocating is telling someone to do something: something, btw, Larken has never done. What's with all the snarling?

Did you lose your dictionary as well as your IRC?
An advocate defends or maintains a cause or position.
You are against the income tax, therefore, you "read" the law to support your position. Anyone who reads the law in a way that govt can tax your income is a deceiver, hence "theft by deception".

The law can be objectively analyzed. The only exception is if the law is ambiguous or vague.

[Paul]

The argument is domestic income isn't specifically taxable FOR CITIZENS. You have yet to address this distinction. So far you have called me stupid, dim-witted, lazy and gullible.

Try reading regulation section 1.1(b):

"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."

Since 861 and 862 are the sections that tell you how to divide your income between "within" the US and "without" the US, it kinda sounds like Section 1.1 clearly says they apply to citizens.

Quote:

Now try actually doing the reading and you'll see my post is correct, and Larkin is full of it

I've read Section 1 many times. The tax imposed is on "taxable" income, not gross. Rules for determining tax on taxable income are ONLY in 861--no where else.

You still haven't done the reading. In my first post, I expressly referred you to Section 63, which tells you how to compute your "taxable income." 861 doesn't. It tells you how to compute your gross income from sources within the US and your taxable income

from sources within the US

. And it does both by telling you only how to figure out what items of gross income are from sources within the US (you have to look elsewhere in the IRC to figure out what items are included in gross income and which are excluded) and that taxable income from sources within the US is gross income from sources within the US minus applicable deductions (but you have to look elsewhere to determine what is deductible).

Kindly do the reading. Of course, once you do, you'll be so embarassed at how you could ever have bought into Larken's bs that you might not want to post here any more.

[Kimokeo]

There was an option to raise 861 in court and there was a time to do so. The argument wasn't raised as a defense. It was discussed at length here why 861 wasn't used.

If 861 is valid - there wouldn't be a lawyer out there that wouldn't raise the defense. Failure to do so would lead to disbarment for failure to defend with an obvious cure.

[rachel]

The argument is domestic income isn't specifically taxable FOR CITIZENS. You have yet to address this distinction. So far you have called me stupid, dim-witted, lazy and gullible.

Try reading regulation section 1.1(b):

"In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States."

Since 861 and 862 are the sections that tell you how to divide your income between "within" the US and "without" the US, it kinda sounds like Section 1.1 clearly says they apply to citizens.

Quote:

Now try actually doing the reading and you'll see my post is correct, and Larkin is full of it

I've read Section 1 many times. The tax imposed is on "taxable" income, not gross. Rules for determining tax on taxable income are ONLY in 861--no where else.

You still haven't done the reading. In my first post, I expressly referred you to Section 63, which tells you how to compute your "taxable income." 861 doesn't. It tells you how to compute your gross income from sources within the US and your taxable income

from sources within the US

. And it does both by telling you only how to figure out what items of gross income are from sources within the US (you have to look elsewhere in the IRC to figure out what items are included in gross income and which are excluded) and that taxable income from sources within the US is gross income from sources within the US minus applicable deductions (but you have to look elsewhere to determine what is deductible).

Kindly do the reading. Of course, once you do, you'll be so embarassed at how you could ever have bought into Larken's bs that you might not want to post here any more.

Hey Paul,
Why do you deliberately miss the point by bring up 1.1(b)?
The only way for a common worker to be liable for federal taxes is found in 1.1-1.
Notice where it says "taxable income"? Start at the third sentence.
You most likely and purposely passed over this part of the law to assert your fallacy that every thing is taxable.
Are you trying to insert square pegs into round holes also?
Do you have a clue to know how the common worker is taxed?
Do you know anything about "wages" and "excises"?....Probably not from your demonstration that you too hide behind court cases that you have no idea why they are decided the way they are!
Heres a hint for you Paul......go read 26CFR 3101 and 26CFR 3111.

[Paul]

Notice where it says "taxable income"?

Yes, I did. And if you had done the assigned reading in my first post, you would know is defined in Section 63 as "gross income" minus deductions. And gross income is defined in Section 61 as ALL income from WHATEVER source except as provided in Subtitle A of the IRC.

And I notice that you don't even attempt to the fact that 1.1 rebuts your nonsense about how 861 says nothing about citizens. Because citizens are taxed on their income whether or not it is from sources within the US, and all 861 does is tell you how to figure out if your income is from sources within the US, there is no reason for 861 to mention citizens in order for them to be taxed on income from sources within the US. Instead, you run away from yet another indefensible position.

PLEASE do the reading.

[rachel]

Notice where it says "taxable income"?

Yes, I did. And if you had done the assigned reading in my first post, you would know is defined in Section 63 as "gross income" minus deductions. And gross income is defined in Section 61 as ALL income from WHATEVER source except as provided in Subtitle A of the IRC.

And I notice that you don't even attempt to the fact that 1.1 rebuts your nonsense about how 861 says nothing about citizens. Because citizens are taxed on their income whether or not it is from sources within the US, and all 861 does is tell you how to figure out if your income is from sources within the US, there is no reason for 861 to mention citizens in order for them to be taxed on income from sources within the US. Instead, you run away from yet another indefensible position.

PLEASE do the reading.

I'm not here about the 861 arguement as I know that is as "tax protesting" as it can get. I never addressed the 861 issue, so quit implying I did.
I'm merely pointing your fault of 1.1(b).
Citizenship is second hand and has nothing to with it except if your not a U.S. citizen, but thats a whole nother issue in itself.
All U.S. citizens are taxed ONLY on "taxable income" as 26CFR 1.1-1 clearly points out.
Sections 3101 and 3111 that I refered to are for a very good core reason.
Care to guess why?

[LPC]

Notice where it says "taxable income"?

Yes, I did. And if you had done the assigned reading in my first post, you would know is defined in Section 63 as "gross income" minus deductions. And gross income is defined in Section 61 as ALL income from WHATEVER source except as provided in Subtitle A of the IRC.

You're responding to Rachel now? Paul, you have no standards at all.

But there's an important point here, which is the difference between "taxable income" as defined by section 63 (and section 861) and "taxable income" as the phrase is often used casually by lawyers (and sometimes judges).

In sections 1, 63, and 861, "taxable income" is defined gross income less deductions. And that is absolutely followed throughout the Code and regulations. But in common speech (and many court opinions), the phrase "taxable income" is used to describe income that is subject to tax and not exempt. So, for example, interest on municipal bonds is "exempt income" while income from Treasury bonds is "taxable income." But in the Code, interest on municipal bonds is excluded from gross income, and not "taxable income."

And Larken Rose flagrantly exploits this ambiguity between "taxable income" (as defined by law) and "taxable income" (as sometimes used casually).

In dealing with mental midgets like Rachel and fuzzrabbit, we must be careful to explain the difference, and be consistent in our use of defined terms.

[LPC]

All U.S. citizens are taxed ONLY on "taxable income" as 26CFR 1.1-1 clearly points out.
Sections 3101 and 3111 that I refered to are for a very good core reason.
Care to guess why?

As a general rule, I don't try to guess at the mental processes of idiots and delusional psychopaths.

[rachel]

Whats the first listed source of income LPC for gross income?
Its "service" am I correct!
What does 3121(b) define as a "service"?
Its "employment" as defined for FICA purposes or Social Security. And what does 3101 tax LPC.
Why of course its 3121(a) "wages" for 3121(b) "employment " purposes of Social Security.
Every list source of gross income has an imposing section causing it to be taxed as in "taxable income".
Are you really that dense of a moron Danny boy?

[Florida]

Whats the first listed source of income LPC for gross income?
Its "service" am I correct!
What does 3121(b) define as a "service"?
Its "employment" as defined for FICA purposes or Social Security. And what does 3101 tax LPC.
Why of course its 3121(a) "wages" for 3121(b) "employment " purposes of Social Security.
Every list source of gross income has an imposing section causing it to be taxed as in "taxable income".
Are you really that dense of a moron Danny boy?

[LPC]

Whats the first listed source of income LPC for gross income?
Its "service" am I correct!
What does 3121(b) define as a "service"?
Its "employment" as defined for FICA purposes or Social Security.

I am going to take the time, just this once, to explain how wrong you are, and why nonsense like what you've written above makes an idiot.

1. The definitions in section 3121 are "for purposes of this chapter." Section 3121 is in chapter 21. Section 61, defining gross income for purposes of the income tax, is in chapter 1. So any definition of "service" in section 3121 would have no application to the word "service" in section 61.

2. The word "service" in section 3121(b) is used quite broadly, because section 3121(b) defines "employment" to include "any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States...." So even if the definition of "employment" in section 3121(b) applied to section 61, it would not affect the tax liabilities of most working people.

Also, the first thing listed in section 61(a) is not a "source" of income, but an "item" of income.

So you're relying on a section that doesn't apply in order to impose a meaning it doesn't have onto another section that you don't understand the purpose of.

Consider yourself bitch-slapped. (As you like to say.)

[The Observer]

Consider yourself bitch-slapped. (As you like to say.)

I am predicting a iron-cage match, no holds barred...

[rachel]

Whats the first listed source of income LPC for gross income?
Its "service" am I correct!
What does 3121(b) define as a "service"?
Its "employment" as defined for FICA purposes or Social Security.

I am going to take the time, just this once, to explain how wrong you are, and why nonsense like what you've written above makes an idiot.

1. The definitions in section 3121 are "for purposes of this chapter." Section 3121 is in chapter 21. Section 61, defining gross income for purposes of the income tax, is in chapter 1. So any definition of "service" in section 3121 would have no application to the word "service" in section 61.

2. The word "service" in section 3121(b) is used quite broadly, because section 3121(b) defines "employment" to include "any service, of whatever nature, performed (A) by an employee for the person employing him, irrespective of the citizenship or residence of either, (i) within the United States...." So even if the definition of "employment" in section 3121(b) applied to section 61, it would not affect the tax liabilities of most working people.

Also, the first thing listed in section 61(a) is not a "source" of income, but an "item" of income.

So you're relying on a section that doesn't apply in order to impose a meaning it doesn't have onto another section that you don't understand the purpose of.

Consider yourself bitch-slapped. (As you like to say.)

Why dont you go and read 3401(a) and tell me that 3121(b) is not in that definition for section 1 liability.
I dare you to claim your stupidity on your own turf...dumbass!
I'd love to see this!
Section 3401(a)'s core is 3121(b)'s "employment". They have the same exclusions minus the federal and state individuals because they are included at 3401(c).
Cant see past your self professed nose can you?
Like I always said:
"You hide behind court decisions without ever knowing why the court ruled the way they do about 3401(c) being expansive."
Some professional you turn out to be....HA!
Even-legal???????......joke of the century!

[Joey Smith]

Thread too long; somebody start a new one.