Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Feb, 2007 11:17 am
Ok! So I haven't learned you anything new…yet!

Quick re-cap before I apply the killer blow:
First apologies for confusing Joe from wherever with Joe Blow.


At first the income tax was incrementally expanded by the Congress of the United States, and then inflation automatically raised most persons into tax brackets formerly reserved for the wealthy until income tax brackets were adjusted for inflation. Income tax now applies to almost ⅔ of the population. The lowest earning workers ($20,000 in 2000) pay no income taxes as a group and actually get a small subsidy from the federal government because of child credits and the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Some lower income individuals pay a proportionately higher share of payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare than do some higher income individuals in terms of the effective tax rate. All income earned up to a point, adjusted annually for inflation ($94,200 for the year 2006 and $97,500 for the year 2007) is taxed at 7.65% (consisting of the 6.2% Social Security tax and the 1.45% Medicare tax) on the employee with an addition 7.65% in tax incurred by the employer. The annual limitation amount is sometimes called the "Social Security tax wage base amount" or "Contribution and Benefit Base." Above the annual limit amount, only the 1.45% Medicare tax is imposed. In terms of the effective rate, this means that a worker earning $20,000 for 2006 pays at a 7.65% effective rate ($1,530) while a worker earning $200,000 pays at an effective rate of about 4.37% ($8,740).

Self employed people pay the entire 15.3%, although they are allowed to deduct one-half of this amount from their total income when they file income taxes. Above these payroll taxes presumably pay into the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare Trust Funds that they will then draw on when the worker grows older.

The federal government is now financed primarily by personal and corporate income taxes. While it was originally funded via tariffs upon imported goods, tariffs now represent only a minor portion of federal revenues. There are also non-tax fees to recompense agencies for services or to fill specific trust funds such as the fee placed upon airline tickets for airport expansion and air traffic control. Often the receipts intended to be placed in "trust" funds are used for other purposes, with the government posting an IOU ('I owe you') in the form of a federal bond or other accounting instrument, then spending the money on unrelated current expenditures.


Coming soon, helpful historical hints to reduce your tax liability.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 01:56 pm
"There are two distinct classes of men...those who pay taxes and those who receive and live upon taxes."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 06:32 pm
No, I don't agree.

It is human nature to ignore the many benefits you recieve from government because they are not readily visible. It is human nature to want more than you give. The only myth I see being propogated is the one that the only way to get a benefit from taxation is to go on the dole or become a bureaucrat.


I find it rather ironic that you would quote Thomas Paine in the same post where you deny that any social compact exists. You might want to read some Paine.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 09:00 pm
This from Cambridge history of literature about Paine...

Quote:
To criticise the faults of the existing state of things was easy and obvious; but Paine expounded, also, a radical constructive policy including parliamentary reform, old age pensions and a progressive income-tax. With these and other changes, he looked forward to a broadcloth millennium.


Bartleby.com
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Feb, 2007 10:34 pm
I hate getting in the middle of things, but on this one I just can't resist.
Tryagain and parados you both have valid reasoning in certain areas (I am not about to go back and quote who said what either).

In my opinion the Constitution and the 16th Amendment gave Congress the power to make laws requiring all individuals to pay tax. At this point I see it as a matter of terminology. The laws are otherwise known as the Internal Revenue Code. Then it is just a matter of the IRS enforcing whatever Congress enacts.

To me it is simple because these so called laws or codes are in Title (Volume) 26 of the United States Code. Then it gets further broken down into the Sections of the Code and even further by Subsections.

Sections 1, 61, 63, 6012, 6151, and 6072 impose the tax, requires filing a tax return and requires paying the tax. I am sure if I were more motivated I could find many more to cite.

The main point that I see is the courts have been consistent in upholding paying taxes. Juries on the other hand are unpredictable. The common taxpayer does not know how to fill out a tax return so to talk tax terminology to a jury one might as well be speaking a whole different language.

These are the main facts in my opinion:

1) Most taxpayers cannot even fill out a tax return because they do not
understand it. The tax system has become way too complicated for
the average taxpayer.

2) The common taxpayer is afraid of the IRS. Just the mere mention of
that name frightens people.

3) Most taxpayers just want to file and not risk having any complications
that might force them to deal with the IRS.

4) Trying to fight the IRS through the system costs more than most
people can afford.

5) Most taxpayers will be willing to cheat a small amount on their tax
returns because they feel they already pay too much taxes.

6) I cannot say how many, but I can say that there are a lot of
companies (even big, huge ones) that do not file the correct forms,
typically 1099's.

I could continue on and on. These are the main points though.
Bottom line to me is that the majority of the people who pay tax will never see the benefit of it directly and I am sorry parados I do not agree with you that it is human nature to want more than you give. I believe the average taxpayer wants a simple tax system and one that is fair and we have neither.

BTW I am not an EA, an attorney or work for the IRS. I just happen to know taxes as one of many talents. (Tryagain= Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes ) That Tryagain is special just for you because you know how much I admire your talents.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Feb, 2007 12:38 pm
Quote:
The main point that I see is the courts have been consistent in upholding paying taxes. Juries on the other hand are unpredictable. The common taxpayer does not know how to fill out a tax return so to talk tax terminology to a jury one might as well be speaking a whole different language.

Except as I pointed out in the case Tryagain cited, the jury didn't make the tax invalid. The jury only ruled the act of not paying the taxes was not criminally willful. It was an ignorantly made choice to not pay. If a taxpayer can logically prove they thought they were doing the right thing and were never told otherwise they might escape the criminal penalty but they won't escape their taxes. The purpose of this thread has been to argue that the tax itself is invalid. No jury has ever said that.

The overwhelming amount of information available including information from the IRS itself makes the argument made in 1996 difficult to support today as an innocent mistake.

Quote:

These are the main facts in my opinion:

1) Most taxpayers cannot even fill out a tax return because they do not
understand it. The tax system has become way too complicated for
the average taxpayer.
In order to claim all your deductions, that is true. If you want to pay taxes quickly and easily, the 1040EZ works fine for most wage earners and is easy to fill out.
Quote:

2) The common taxpayer is afraid of the IRS. Just the mere mention of
that name frightens people.
I won't argue there. But why is that? Is it because the IRS has put a disproportinate number of people in jail or is it the media attention to a few cases? The tax protestors are certainly doing their damndest to make the IRS out as a frightening organization. I have filed tax returns for over 30 years with no problems.
Quote:

3) Most taxpayers just want to file and not risk having any complications
that might force them to deal with the IRS.
True, which is why some people don't take all their deductions.

Quote:

4) Trying to fight the IRS through the system costs more than most
people can afford.
Most issues with the IRS are cleared up with just sending supporting paperwork. If you did your taxes correctly there isn't much cost at all, a little time and a stamp.
Quote:

5) Most taxpayers will be willing to cheat a small amount on their tax
returns because they feel they already pay too much taxes.
Most small cheating is ignored because it is small, deductions without the proper receipt is one example.
Quote:

6) I cannot say how many, but I can say that there are a lot of
companies (even big, huge ones) that do not file the correct forms,
typically 1099's.
Everyone makes mistakes. Most are not willful errors and don't require you to fight the IRS in crimanal court.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Feb, 2007 04:37 am
parados I agree no jury has ever said paying taxes is invalid. I doubt one will and by chance if it were to occur than I would bet a higher court would immediately overrule the decision. I do not foresee any court ruling that the payment of tax is invalid, it just is not going to happen.

RE:
2) I think the reason is the media and past altercations that taxpayers had with the IRS being extremely heavy handed and discriminatory is the cause of this.

4) I should have been more specific because I was referring to actually fighting the IRS through our court system and the cost of attorneys.
So, thank you for pointing my omission on that one out.

In my opinion I am satisfied that it has been proven that the payment of tax is valid. Not only that, but I do believe we are about to see a swing in the approach of the IRS becoming more proactive in prosecutions again.
This they themselves have stated and they are already auditing more tax returns than what we have seen in the past when they were more lenient.

btw my previous reference to Tryagain was meant with terms of endearment. He happens to be my favorite Embarrassed and I do admire his talents. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 06:10 pm
While I read all the links previously posted may I ask the question…

Did you itemize? If not you may have overpaid IRS!!!

Every year, as many as 2 million people pay too much in taxes by taking the standard deduction. Are you one of them? Here's what to do.

If you took the standard deduction on your 2006 tax return, you may want to take another look. You might have cheated yourself out of some tax savings. In fact, you may even want to look at your 2005 and 2004 returns as well.

In the past, the General Accounting Office has found that filers who used the standard deduction instead of itemizing paid the Internal Revenue Service almost $1 billion more than they should have.

Taxpayers have a choice of which deduction method they use to reduce taxable income, standard or itemized. They may claim whichever amount is larger.

The standard deduction amount is established annually. It is based on a taxpayer's filing status and is listed on each of the individual tax-return forms -- 1040, 1040A and 1040EZ. This deduction generally is taken by taxpayers who don't have many expenses.

For your 2006 return, it is $10,300 for married couples filing jointly and $5,150 for singles and married taxpayers filing separately. It's $7,550 for heads of households.

For 2007, the standard deduction rises to $10,700 for married couples filing jointly and $5,350 for singles and married couples filing separately. It's $7,850 for heads of households.

Itemized deductions are calculated from allowable expenses that a taxpayer tracks throughout the tax year. They are reported on Schedule A, with some amounts limited by a filer's income. While it takes more work, itemizing taxpayers often find the effort pays for itself through a lower tax bill.

Itemizing filers, however, are consistently in the minority. Critics of the tax code say this is because many people choose to forgo savings for simplicity. Using the standard deduction, regardless of the tax costs, means you can end your annual tax involvement sooner.



You can see the standard deductions and other tax adjustments for 2007 below.


Part III
Administrative, Procedural, and Miscellaneous
26 CFR 601.602: Tax forms and instructions.
(Also Part I, §§ 1, 23, 24, 25A, 25B, 32, 42, 59, 62, 63, 68, 132, 135, 137, 146, 148,
151, 170, 179, 213, 219, 220, 221, 223, 408, 512, 513, 685, 877, 911, 2032A, 2503,
2523, 4161, 4261, 6033, 6039F, 6323, 6334, 6601, 7430, 7702B; 1.148-5)
Rev. Proc. 2006-53

Table of Contents:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
SECTION 2. CHANGES
SECTION 3. 2007 ADJUSTED ITEMS

Code Section
.01 Tax Rate Tables 1(a)-(e)
.02 Unearned Income of Minor Children Taxed as if Parent's 1(g)
Income ("Kiddie Tax")
.03 Adoption Credit 23
.04 Child Tax Credit 24
.05 Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits 25A
.06 Elective Deferrals and IRA Contributions by Certain Individuals 25B
.07 Earned Income Credit 32

- 2 -
.08 Low-Income Housing Credit 42(h)
.09 Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption for a Child Subject to the 59(j)
"Kiddie Tax"
.10 Transportation Mainline Pipeline Construction Industry Optional 62(c)
Expense Substantiation Rules for Payments to Employees under
Accountable Plans
.11 Standard Deduction 63
.12 Overall Limitation on Itemized Deductions 68
.13 Qualified Transportation Fringe 132(f)
.14 Income from United States Savings Bonds for Taxpayers Who 135
Pay Qualified Higher Education Expenses
.15 Adoption Assistance Programs 137
.16 Private Activity Bonds Volume Cap 146(d)
.17 Safe Harbor Rules for Broker Commissions on Guaranteed 148
Investment Contracts or Investments Purchased for a Yield
Restricted Defeasance Escrow
.18 Personal Exemption 151
.19 Election to Expense Certain Depreciable Assets 179
.20 Eligible Long-Term Care Premiums 213(d)(10)
.21 Retirement Savings 219
.22 Medical Savings Accounts 220
.23 Interest on Education Loans 221
.24 Health Savings Accounts 223
.25 Roth IRAs 408A
.26 Treatment of Dues Paid to Agricultural or Horticultural 512(d)
Organizations

- 3 -
.27 Insubstantial Benefit Limitations for Contributions Associated 513(h)
with Charitable Fund-Raising Campaigns
.28 Funeral Trusts 685
.29 Expatriation to Avoid Tax 877
.30 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion 911
.31 Valuation of Qualified Real Property in Decedent's Gross Estate 2032A
.32 Annual Exclusion for Gifts 2503 & 2523
.33 Tax on Arrow Shafts 4161
.34 Passenger Air Transportation Excise Tax 4261
.35 Reporting Exception for Certain Exempt Organizations with 6033(e)(3)
Nondeductible Lobbying Expenditures
.36 Notice of Large Gifts Received from Foreign Persons 6039F
.37 Persons Against Whom a Federal Tax Lien Is Not Valid 6323
.38 Property Exempt from Levy 6334
.39 Interest on a Certain Portion of the Estate Tax Payable 6601(j)
in Installments
.40 Attorney Fee Awards 7430
.41 Periodic Payments Received under Qualified Long-Term Care 7702B(d)
Insurance Contracts or under Certain Life Insurance Contracts
SECTION 4. EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS
SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
SECTION 6. DRAFTING INFORMATION

- 4 -
SECTION 1. PURPOSE
This revenue procedure sets forth inflation adjusted items for 2007.

SECTION 2. CHANGES
.01 Under § 25B eligible individuals are allowed a credit against tax equal to the applicable percentage of qualified retirement savings contributions of the individual that do not exceed $2,000. Section 833(a) of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, Pub. L.

No. 109-280, 120 Stat. 780 (2006)(PPA), added § 25B(b)(3), which provides that the adjusted gross income amounts in § 25B(b) used to determine the applicable percentage for calculating the credit are adjusted for inflation. (See section 3.06 of this revenue procedure.)

.02 Section 219(a) allows individuals to deduct qualified retirement contributions for a taxable year. Section 833(b) of the PPA added § 219(g)(8), which provides that the applicable dollar amount under § 219(g)(3)used to determine the amount of reduction for the limitation on deduction for taxpayers who are active participants and for spouses who are not active participants in certain pension plans is adjusted for inflation. (See section 3.21 of this revenue procedure.)

.03 Section 408A(c) provides rules for the tax treatment of contributions made to Roth IRAs. Section 833(c) of the PPA added § 408A(c)(3)(C), which provides that the applicable dollar amount under § 408A(c)(3) used to determine the dollar limit, based on modified adjusted gross income, for the contribution limit to Roth IRAs is adjusted for inflation. (See section 3.25 of this revenue procedure.)

.04 Q&A 14 of Rev. Proc. 2002-41, 2002-1 C.B. 1098, provides an inflation
- 5 - adjustment method for the hourly rates used to determine the amounts deemed substantiated for payments made by transportation mainline pipeline construction employers under accountable plans. (See section 3.10 of this revenue procedure.)
-
Q&A 14 is modified to read as follows:
Q-14. Will the amount deemed substantiated under this revenue procedure be
adjusted for inflation?

A-14. Yes. For calendar years after 2006, the hourly rate will be adjusted
annually for inflation under § 1(f)(3), except that the base year for such adjustment will be calendar year 2002 and any adjustment will be rounded to the nearest dollar. Any adjustment to the rates provided in this revenue procedure will be published annually.

SECTION 3. 2007 ADJUSTED ITEMS
.01 Tax Rate Tables. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the tax rate tables under § 1 are as follows:
TABLE 1 - Section 1(a). - Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and Surviving Spouses If Taxable Income Is: The Tax Is:

Not over $15,650 10% of the taxable income.
Over $15,650 but $1,565 plus 15% of
not over $63,700 the excess over $15,650
Over $63,700 but $8,772.50 plus 25% of
not over $128,500 the excess over $63,700
Over $128,500 but $24,972.50 plus 28% of
not over $195,850 the excess over $128,500
Over $195,850 but $43,830.50 plus 33% of
not over $349,700 the excess over $195,850

- 6 -
Over $349,700 $94,601 plus 35% of the excess over $349,700

TABLE 2 - Section 1(b). - Heads of Households
If Taxable Income Is: The Tax Is:
Not over $11,200 10% of the taxable income
Over $11,200 but $1,120 plus 15% of
not over $42,650 the excess over $11,200
Over $42,650 but $5,837.50 plus 25% of
not over $110,100 the excess over $42,650
Over $110,100 but $22,700 plus 28% of
not over $178,350 the excess over $110,100
Over $178,350 but $41,810 plus 33% of
not over $349,700 the excess over $178,350
Over $349,700 $98,355.50 plus 35% of
the excess over $349,700

TABLE 3 - Section 1(c). - Unmarried Individuals (other than Surviving Spouses and Heads of Households).

If Taxable Income Is: The Tax Is:
Not over $7,825 10% of the taxable income
Over $7,825 but $782.50 plus 15% of
not over $31,850 the excess over $7,825
Over $31,850 but $4,386.25 plus 25% of
not over $77,100 the excess over $31,850
Over $77,100 but $15,698.75 plus 28% of
not over $160,850 the excess over $77,100
Over $160,850 but $39,148.75 plus 33% of
not over $349,700 the excess over $160,850
Over $349,700 $101,469.25 plus 35% of

- 7 -
the excess over $349,700
TABLE 4 - Section 1(d). - Married Individuals Filing Separate Returns
If Taxable Income Is: The Tax Is:

Not over $7,825 10% of the taxable income
Over $7,825 but $782.50 plus 15% of
not over $31,850 the excess over $7,825
Over $31,850 but $4,386.25 plus 25% of
not over $64,250 the excess over $31,850
Over $64,250 but $12,486.25 plus 28% of
not over $97,925 the excess over $64,250
Over $97,925 but $21,915.25 plus 33% of
not over $174,850 the excess over $97,925
Over $174,850 $47,300.50 plus 35% of
the excess over $174,850

TABLE 5 - Section 1(e). - Estates and Trusts
If Taxable Income Is: The Tax Is:

Not over $2,150 15% of the taxable income
Over $2,150 but $322.50 plus 25% of
not over $5,000 the excess over $2,150
Over $5,000 but $1,035 plus 28% of
not over $7,650 the excess over $5,000
Over $7,650 but $1,777 plus 33% of
not over $10,450 the excess over $7,650
Over $10,450 $2,701 plus 35% of
the excess over $10,450

.02 Unearned Income of Minor Children Taxed as if Parent's Income (the "Kiddie Tax"). For taxable years beginning in 2007, the amount in § 1(g)(4)(A)(ii)(I), which is

- 8 -
used to reduce the net unearned income reported on the child's return that is subject to the "kiddie tax," is $850. This amount is the same as the $850 standard deduction amount provided in section 3.11(2) of this revenue procedure. The same $850 amount is used for purposes of § 1(g)(7) (that is, to determine whether a parent may elect to include a child's gross income in the parent's gross income and to calculate the "kiddie").

For example, one of the requirements for the parental election is that a child's
gross income is more than the amount referenced in § 1(g)(4)(A)(ii)(I) but less than 10 times that amount; thus, a child's gross income for 2007 must be more than $850 but less than $8,500.

.03 Adoption Credit. For taxable years beginning in 2007, under § 23(a)(3) the credit allowed for an adoption of a child with special needs is $11,390. For taxable years beginning in 2007, under § 23(b)(1) the maximum credit allowed for other adoptions is the amount of qualified adoption expenses up to $11,390. The available adoption credit begins to phase out under § 23(b)(2)(A) for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $170,820 and is completely phased out for taxpayers with modified
adjusted gross income of $210,820 or more. (See section 3.15 of this revenue
procedure for the adjusted items relating to adoption assistance programs.)

.04 Child Tax Credit. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the value used in
§ 24(d)(1)(B)(i) to determine the amount of credit under § 24 that may be refundable is $11,750.

.05 Hope and Lifetime Learning Credits.
(1) For taxable years beginning in 2007, the Hope Scholarship Credit under

- 9 -
§ 25A(b)(1) is an amount equal to 100 percent of qualified tuition and related expenses not in excess of $1,100 plus 50 percent of those expenses in excess of $1,100, but not in excess of $2,200. Accordingly, the maximum Hope Scholarship Credit allowable under § 25A(b)(1) for taxable years beginning in 2007 is $1,650.

(2) For taxable years beginning in 2007, a taxpayer's modified adjusted gross
income in excess of $47,000 ($94,000 for a joint return) is used to determine the reduction under § 25A(d)(2)(A)(ii) in the amount of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits otherwise allowable under § 25A(a).
.06 Elective Deferrals and IRA Contributions by Certain Individuals. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the applicable percentage under § 25B(b) is determined based onthe following amounts:

Modified Adjusted Gross Income
Joint Return Head of Household All Other Cases Applicable

Over Not Over Over Not Over Over Not over Percentage
$ 0 $31,000 $ 0 $23,250 $ 0 $15,500 50%
$31,000 $34,000 $23,250 $25,500 $15,500 $17,000 20%
$34,000 $52,000 $25,500 $39,000 $17,000 $26,000 10%
$52,000 $39,000 $26,000 0%

.07 Earned Income Credit.
(1) In general. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the following amounts are used to determine the earned income credit under § 32(b). The "earned income amount" is the amount of earned income at or above which the maximum amount of the earned

- 10 -
income credit is allowed. The "threshold phaseout amount" is the amount of adjusted gross income (or, if greater, earned income) above which the maximum amount of the credit begins to phase out. The "completed phaseout amount" is the amount of adjusted gross income (or, if greater, earned income) at or above which no credit is allowed.

Number of Qualifying Children
Item One Two or More None
Earned Income Amount $ 8,390 $11,790 $ 5,590
Maximum Amount of Credit $ 2,853 $ 4,716 $ 428
Threshold Phaseout Amount $15,390 $15,390 $ 7,000
(Single, Surviving Spouse, or
Head of Household)
Completed Phaseout Amount $33,241 $37,783 $12,590
(Single, Surviving Spouse, or
Head of Household)
Threshold Phaseout Amount $17,390 $17,390 $ 9,000
(Married Filing Jointly)
Completed Phaseout Amount $35,241 $39,783 $14,590
(Married Filing Jointly)

The instructions for the Form 1040 series provide tables showing the amount of the earned income credit for each type of taxpayer.
(2) Excessive investment income. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the earned income tax credit is not allowed under § 32(i) if the aggregate amount of certain investment income exceeds $2,900.
.08 Low-Income Housing Credit. For calendar year 2007, the amounts used under

- 11 -
§ 42(h)(3)(C)(ii) to calculate the State housing credit ceiling for the low-income housing
credit is the greater of (1) $1.95 multiplied by the State population, or (2) $2,275,000.

.09 Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption for a Child Subject to the "Kiddie Tax." For taxable years beginning in 2007, for a child to whom the § 1(g) "kiddie tax" applies, the exemption amount under §§ 55 and 59(j) for purposes of the alternative minimum tax under § 55 may not exceed the sum of (1) the child's earned income for the taxable year, plus (2) $6,300.

.10 Transportation Mainline Pipeline Construction Industry Optional Expense
Substantiation Rules for Payments to Employees under Accountable Plans. For calendar year 2007, an eligible employer may pay certain welders and heavy equipment mechanics an amount of up to $15 per hour for rig-related expenses that is deemed substantiated under an accountable plan if paid in accordance with Rev. Proc. 2002-41.

If the employer provides fuel or otherwise reimburses fuel expenses, up to $9 per hour is deemed substantiated if paid under Rev. Proc. 2002-41.

.11 Standard Deduction:

(1) In general. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the standard deduction
amounts under § 63(c)(2) are as follows:

Filing Status Standard Deduction
Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns $10,700
and Surviving Spouses (§ 1(a))
Heads of Households (§ 1(b)) $ 7,850
Unmarried Individuals (other than Surviving Spouses $ 5,350
and Heads of Households) (§ 1(c))

- 12 -
Married Individuals Filing Separate $ 5,350
Returns (§ 1(d))
(2) Dependent. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the standard deduction
amount under § 63(c)(5) for an individual who may be claimed as a dependent by another taxpayer cannot exceed the greater of (1) $850, or (2) the sum of $300 and the individual's earned income.
(3) Aged or blind. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the additional standard
deduction amount under § 63(f) for the aged or the blind is $1,050. These amounts are increased to $1,300 if the individual is also unmarried and not a surviving spouse.

.12 Overall Limitation on Itemized Deductions. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the "applicable amount" of adjusted gross income under § 68(b), above which the amount of otherwise allowable itemized deductions is reduced under § 68, is $156,400 (or $78,200 for a separate return filed by a married individual).

.13 Qualified Transportation Fringe. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the monthly limitation under § 132(f)(2)(A), regarding the aggregate fringe benefit exclusion amount for transportation in a commuter highway vehicle and any transit pass, is $110. The monthly limitation under § 132(f)(2)(B), regarding the fringe benefit exclusion amount for qualified parking, is $215.

.14 Income from United States Savings Bonds for Taxpayers Who Pay Qualified Higher Education Expenses. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the exclusion under § 135, regarding income from United States savings bonds for taxpayers who pay qualified higher education expenses, begins to phase out for modified adjusted gross income above $98,400 for joint returns and $65,600 for other returns. The exclusion is

- 13 -
completely phased out for modified adjusted gross income of $128,400 or more for joint returns and $80,600 or more for other returns.

.15 Adoption Assistance Programs. For taxable years beginning in 2007, under§ 137(a)(2) the amount that can be excluded from an employee's gross income for the adoption of a child with special needs is $11,390. For taxable years beginning in 2007, under § 137(b)(1) the maximum amount that can be excluded from an employee's gross income for the amounts paid or expenses incurred by an employer for qualified adoption expenses furnished pursuant to an adoption assistance program for other adoptions by the employee is $11,390. The amount excludable from an employee's gross income
begins to phase out under § 137(b)(2)(A) for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $170,820 and is completely phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $210,820 or more. (See section 3.03 of this revenue procedure for the adjusted items relating to the adoption credit.)

.16 Private Activity Bonds Volume Cap. For calendar year 2007, the amounts used under § 146(d)(1) to calculate the State ceiling for the volume cap for private activity bonds are the greater of (1) $85 multiplied by the State population, or (2) $256,235,000.

.17 Safe Harbor Rules for Broker Commissions on Guaranteed Investment Contracts or Investments Purchased for a Yield Restricted Defeasance Escrow. For calendar year 2007, under § 1.148-5(e)(2)(iii)(B)(1), a broker's commission or similar fee for the acquisition of a guaranteed investment contract or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow is reasonable if (1) the amount of the fee that the issuer treats as a qualified administrative cost does not exceed the lesser of (A) $33,000, and

- 14 -
(B) 0.2 percent of the computational base (as defined in § 1.148-5(e)(2)(iii)(B)(2)) or, if more, $3,000; and (2) the issuer does not treat more than $93,000 in brokers' commissions or similar fees as qualified administrative costs for all guaranteed investment contracts and investments for yield restricted defeasance escrows purchased with gross proceeds of the issue.

.18 Personal Exemption.
(1) Exemption amount. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the personal
exemption amount under § 151(d) is $3,400. The exemption amount for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of the maximum phaseout amount is $1,133 for taxable years beginning in 2007.

(2) Phaseout. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the personal exemption amount begins to phase out at, and reaches the maximum phaseout amount after, the following adjusted gross income amounts:

AGI - Beginning AGI - Maximum
Filing Status of Phaseout Phaseout
Married Individuals Filing Joint Returns and $234,600 $357,100
Surviving Spouses (§ 1(a))
Heads of Households (§ 1(b)) $195,500 $318,000
Unmarried Individuals (other than Surviving $156,400 $278,900
Spouses and Heads of Households) (§ 1(c))
Married Individuals Filing Separate $117,300 $178,550
Returns (§ 1(d))

.19 Election to Expense Certain Depreciable Assets. For taxable years beginning in 2007, under § 179(b)(1) the aggregate cost of any § 179 property a taxpayer may elect

- 15 -
to treat as an expense can not exceed $112,000. Under § 179(b)(2) the $112,000 limitation is reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which the cost of § 179 property placed in service during the 2007 taxable year exceeds $450,000.

.20 Eligible Long-Term Care Premiums. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the limitations under § 213(d)(10), regarding eligible long-term care premiums includible in the term "medical care," are as follows:
Attained Age Before the Close of the Taxable Year Limitation on Premiums

40 or less $ 290
More than 40 but not more than 50 $ 550
More than 50 but not more than 60 $1,110
More than 60 but not more than 70 $2,950
More than 70 $3,680

.21 Retirement Savings.
(1) For taxable years beginning in 2007, the applicable dollar amount under
§ 219(g)(3)(B)(i) for taxpayers filing a joint return is $83,000. If the taxpayer's spouse is not an active participant, the applicable dollar amount for the spouse under § 219(g)(3)(B)(i) is $156,000 for taxable years beginning in 2007.

(2) For taxable years beginning in 2007, the applicable dollar amount under
§ 219(g)(3)(B)(ii) for all other taxpayers (except for married taxpayers filing separately)
is $52,000.
(3) The applicable dollar amount under § 219(g)(3)(B)(iii) for married taxpayers filing separately is $0.

- 16 -
.22 Medical Savings Accounts.
(1) Self-only coverage. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the term "high
deductible health plan" as defined in § 220(c)(2)(A) means, for self-only coverage, a health plan that has an annual deductible that is not less than $1,900 and not more than $2,850, and under which the annual out-of-pocket expenses required to be paid (other than for premiums) for covered benefits does not exceed $3,750.

(2) Family coverage. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the term "high deductible health plan" means, for family coverage, a health plan that has an annual deductible that is not less than $3,750 and not more than $5,650, and under which the annual outof-pocket expenses required to be paid (other than for premiums) for covered benefits does not exceed $6,900.

.23 Interest on Education Loans. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the $2,500 maximum deduction for interest paid on qualified education loans under § 221 begins to phase out under § 221(b)(2)(B) for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $55,000 ($110,000 for joint returns), and is completely phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income of $70,000 or more ($140,000 or more for joint returns).

.24 Health Savings Accounts.
(1) Monthly contribution limitation. For calendar year 2007, the monthly limitation for any month on deductions under § 223(b)(2)(A) for an individual with self-only coverage under a high deductible plan as of the first day of the month is 1/12 of the lesser of (1) the annual deductible, or (2) $2,850. For calendar year 2007, the monthly limitation for

- 17 -
any month on deductions under § 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under a high deductible plan as of the first day of the month is 1/12 of the lesser of (1) the annual deductible, or (2) $5,650.

(2) High deductible health plan. For calendar year 2007, a "high deductible health plan" is defined under § 223(c)(2)(A) as a health plan with an annual deductible that is not less than $1,100 for self-only coverage or $2,200 for family coverage, and the annual out-of pocket expenses (deductibles, co-payments, and other amounts, but not premiums) do not exceed $5,500 for self-only coverage or $11,000 for family coverage.

.25 Roth IRAs.
(1) For taxable years beginning in 2007, the applicable dollar amount under
§ 408A(c)(3)(C)(ii)(I) for taxpayers filing a joint return is $156,000.
(2) For taxable years beginning in 2007, the applicable dollar amount under
§ 408A(c)(3)(C)(ii)(II) for all other taxpayers (except for married taxpayers filing separately) is $99,000.

(3) The applicable dollar amount under § 408A(c)(3)(C)(ii)(III) for married taxpayers filing separately is $0.

.26 Treatment of Dues Paid to Agricultural or Horticultural Organizations. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the limitation under § 512(d)(1), regarding the exemption of annual dues required to be paid by a member to an agricultural or horticultural organization, is $136.

.27 Insubstantial Benefit Limitations for Contributions Associated with Charitable Fund-Raising Campaigns.

- 18 -
(1) Low cost article. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the unrelated business income of certain exempt organizations under § 513(h)(2) does not include a "low cost article" of $8.90 or less.
(2) Other insubstantial benefits. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the $5, $25, and $50 guidelines in section 3 of Rev. Proc. 90-12, 1990-1 C.B. 471 (as amplified by Rev. Proc. 92-49, 1992-1 C.B. 987, and modified by Rev. Proc. 92-102, 1992-2 C.B. 579), for disregarding the value of insubstantial benefits received by a donor in return for a fully deductible charitable contribution under § 170, are $8.90, $44.50, and $89, respectively.

.28 Funeral Trusts. For a contract entered into during calendar year 2007 for a
"qualified funeral trust," as defined in § 685, the trust may not accept aggregate contributions by or for the benefit of an individual in excess of $8,800.

.29 Expatriation to Avoid Tax. For calendar year 2007, an individual with "average annual net income tax" of more than $136,000 for the five taxable years ending before the date of the loss of United States citizenship under § 877(a)(2)(A) is subject to tax under § 877(b).

.30 Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the foreign earned income exclusion amount under § 911(b)(2)(D)(i) is $85,700.

.31 Valuation of Qualified Real Property in Decedent's Gross Estate. For an estate of a decedent dying in calendar year 2007, if the executor elects to use the special use valuation method under § 2032A for qualified real property, the aggregate decrease in the value of qualified real property resulting from electing to use § 2032A for purposes

- 19 -
of the estate tax can not exceed $940,000.
.32 Annual Exclusion for Gifts.

(1) For calendar year 2007, the first $12,000 of gifts to any person (other than gifts of future interests in property) are not included in the total amount of taxable gifts under § 2503 made during that year.

(2) For calendar year 2007, the first $125,000 of gifts to a spouse who is not a
citizen of the United States (other than gifts of future interests in property) are not included in the total amount of taxable gifts under §§ 2503 and 2523(i)(2) made during that year.

.33 Tax on Arrow Shafts. For calendar year 2007, the tax imposed under
§ 4161(b)(2)(A) on the first sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any shaft of a type used in the manufacture of certain arrows is $0.42 per shaft.

.34 Passenger Air Transportation Excise Tax. For calendar year 2007, the tax under § 4261(b) on the amount paid for each domestic segment of taxable air transportation is $3.40. For calendar year 2007, the tax under § 4261(c) on any amount paid (whether within or without the United States) for any air transportation, if the transportation begins or ends in the United States, generally is $15.10. However, for a domestic segment beginning or ending in Alaska or Hawaii as described in § 4261(c)(3), the tax applies only to departures and the rate is $7.50.

.35 Reporting Exception for Certain Exempt Organizations with Nondeductible
Lobbying Expenditures. For taxable years beginning in 2007, the annual per person, family, or entity dues limitation to qualify for the reporting exception under § 6033(e)(3)

- 20 -
(and section 5.05 of Rev. Proc. 98-19, 1998-1 C.B. 547), regarding certain exempt organizations with nondeductible lobbying expenditures, is $95 or less.

.36 Notice of Large Gifts Received from Foreign Persons. For taxable years
beginning in 2007, recipients of gifts from certain foreign persons may be required to report these gifts under § 6039F if the aggregate value of gifts received in a taxable year exceeds $13,258.

.37 Persons Against Whom a Federal Tax Lien Is Not Valid. For calendar year 2007, a federal tax lien is not valid against (1) certain purchasers under § 6323(b)(4) who purchased personal property in a casual sale for less than $1,290, or (2) a mechanic's lienor under § 6323(b)(7) that repaired or improved certain residential property if the contract price with the owner is not more than $6,450.

.38 Property Exempt from Levy. For calendar year 2007, the value of property
exempt from levy under § 6334(a)(2) (fuel, provisions, furniture, and other household personal effects, as well as arms for personal use, livestock, and poultry) can not exceed $7,720. The value of property exempt from levy under § 6334(a)(3) (books and tools necessary for the trade, business, or profession of the taxpayer) can not exceed $3,860.

.39 Interest on a Certain Portion of the Estate Tax Payable in Installments. For an estate of a decedent dying in calendar year 2007, the dollar amount used to determine the "2-percent portion" (for purposes of calculating interest under § 6601(j)) of the estate tax extended as provided in § 6166 is $1,250,000.

.40 Attorney Fee Awards. For fees incurred in calendar year 2007, the attorney fee

- 21 -
award limitation under § 7430(c)(1)(B)(iii) is $170 per hour.
.41 Periodic Payments Received under Qualified Long-Term Care Insurance
Contracts or under Certain Life Insurance Contracts. For calendar year 2007, the stated dollar amount of the per diem limitation under § 7702B(d)(4), regarding periodic payments received under a qualified long-term care insurance contract or periodic payments received under a life insurance contract that are treated as paid by reason of the death of a chronically ill individual, is $260.

SECTION 4. EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS
Rev. Proc. 2002-41 is modified for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2006.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE
.01 General Rule. Except as provided in section 5.02, this revenue procedure applies to taxable years beginning in 2007.

.02 Calendar Year Rule. This revenue procedure applies to transactions or events occurring in calendar year 2007 for purposes of sections 3.08 (low-income housing credit), 3.10 (pipeline construction industry optional expense substantiation rules), 3.16 (private activity bond volume cap), 3.17 (safe harbor rules for broker commissions on guaranteed investment contracts or investments purchased for a yield restricted defeasance escrow), 3.24 (health savings accounts), 3.28 (funeral trusts), 3.29 (expatriation to avoid tax), 3.31 (valuation of qualified real property in decedent's gross
estate), 3.32 (annual exclusion for gifts), 3.33 (tax on arrow shafts), 3.34 (passenger air transportation excise tax), 3.37 (persons against whom a federal tax lien is not valid), 3.38 (property exempt from levy), 3.39 (interest on a certain portion of the estate tax

- 22 -
payable in installments), 3.40 (attorney fee awards), and 3.41 (periodic payments received under qualified long-term care insurance contracts or under certain life insurance contracts).



Millions of people overpay:
How much taxpayers overpay is subject to regular studies. The study of 1998 data was instigated by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas. In its study, the GAO initially found half a million taxpayers neglected to deduct mortgage interest.

In 2003, a second GAO exam of 1998 returns expanded to unclaimed deductions for loan points, charitable contributions and other taxes, such as real estate, personal property and state and local income.

The final tally: as many as 2.2 million filers erroneously paid Uncle Sam too much, by an average of $438 per taxpayer. (The GAO has not updated the report since.)

Who ignored deductions and paid unnecessary taxes? The GAO says it was mainly lower-income and middle-income taxpayers. Taxpayers in the $25,000-to-$50,000 income range accounted for the bulk of those who paid too much; filers earning between $50,000 and $75,000 were a close second.

Taxpayer confusion and a nightmarish tax code:
At the time, GAO director of tax issues James White said that his agency did not try to determine why filers claimed the standard deduction when itemizing could have saved them money. But critics say the problem is the increasingly complex tax code.

Confusion apparently isn't limited to rank-and-file taxpayers. The study estimated that professionals prepared almost half the 1998 returns on which taxes were overpaid because deductions weren't claimed.

Amended returns could pay off:
Taxpayers who cheated themselves by taking the standard deduction, however, don't have to wait for legislation. They can use existing tax laws to recoup lost tax money.

If you discover you could have saved by itemizing deductions and are willing to tackle your taxes again, file an amended return on Form 1040X. It will let you negate your original standard deduction and list all the money-saving deductions you should have taken.

Generally, tax returns must be amended within three years of the original filing deadline. If you wanted to amend your 2002 return, sorry. The deadline was April 17, 2006. If you want to amend your 2003 return (which was due April 15, 2004), you have until April 16, 2007. (Because April 15 in 2007 falls a Sunday.)

But if you also paid too much by not itemizing deductions on your 2003 or 2004 returns, get several copies of 1040X and get to work. To get your rightful dollar back money, you must file an amended return for each affected tax year.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Mar, 2007 07:21 pm
Tryagain first I want to point out I did not read your entire post. I only glanced at it and stopped at this statement you made.

What I see that I don't like about your statement:
"........Taxpayers have a choice of which deduction method they use to reduce taxable income, standard or itemized. They may claim whichever amount is larger......."


Is that you failed to mention the exception to this rule. I would not like anyone to be misled even if by oversight.

Also, after citing all those section #'s that you have listed, who in the world would want to do their own taxes. You make it look scarier than it is. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Mar, 2007 10:09 am
OMG..
not the, "income isn't defined in the law" argument. That one is so old.

First of all, no one pays taxes on their "income". You pay taxes on your "taxable income" It says it right there in the law. Then the law explains how taxable income is figured. You subtract deductions from your gross income.
That leaves us with "gross income" as the starting point. Gross income is defined in the law.
Quote:

§ 61. Gross income defined

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00000061----000-.html

Quote:
(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following).


Unless you want to argue that you are working for someone and not providing any services for your salary, you are covered under this as an employee. As a reasonable person do you expect me to believe that anyone that provides work in exchange for pay is not being paid for their service?
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 12:26 pm
tryingtohelp wrote:
Tryagain first I want to point out I did not read your entire post. I only glanced at it and stopped at this statement you made.

What I see that I don't like about your statement:
"........Taxpayers have a choice of which deduction method they use to reduce taxable income, standard or itemized. They may claim whichever amount is larger......."


Is that you failed to mention the exception to this rule. I would not like anyone to be misled even if by oversight.

Also, after citing all those section #'s that you have listed, who in the world would want to do their own taxes. You make it look scarier than it is. Rolling Eyes



I was refering to "choice". There is an exception where there is not a "choice". Actually 2 that I can think of. Where you must take one over the other.
0 Replies
 
Tryagain
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Mar, 2007 05:53 pm
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so."…Uncle Remus


"As a reasonable person do you expect me to believe that anyone that provides work in exchange for pay is not being paid for their service?"


Today's Legal theory Lexicon is about the "reasonable person," who used to be the "reasonable man" and is now occasionally the "reasonable woman."

The notion of a "reasonable person" usually makes its first appearance in the Torts course. The context, of course, is the tort of negligence, where the "reasonable person" is used to define the standard of care that triggers liability for unintentional harms. But what makes a "reasonable person" reasonable?

The concept of the reasonable person is not limited to torts, however. The reasonable person makes appearances in criminal law, contract law, and elsewhere. As usual, the legal theory lexicon introduces the "reasonable person" for the law student with an interest in legal theory.

A cautionary note. The word "reasonable" is used in a wide variety of legal contexts, some of which have very little to do with the reasonable person. In Antitrust law, for example, the notion of "an unreasonable restraint of trade" is crucially important, but this topic does not, at least on the surface, have anything to do with the reasonable person of torts and criminal law.


"Reasonable" and "rational" are used in many different contexts and have a variety of meanings, but when I think about the "reasonable," the first thing that comes to mind is the distinction between the reasonable and the rational that was articulated by W.M. Sibley in a 1953 article but was made famous by John Rawls.

When the rational is defined in contradistinction to the reasonable, rational usually refers to instrumental rationality--that is, the rationality of ends and means. Given that an agent has end X, it is rational for the agent to engage in action Y, only if Y will lead to X. Instrumental rationality is relative to the ends of a particular agent, and may (but need not) consider the interests of others. Thus, it may be instrumentally rational for me to steal from you, if you have something that I want and I have good reason to believe that I won't get caught. But it may also be rational for me to help a stranger, if I happen to have the welfare of others as my end.

When we contrast the reasonable with the rational, the notion of the reasonable goes beyond instrumental rationality. It may be rational for me to steal from you, but unreasonable for me to do so. Why not? Well, that is quite a question. One answer is based on the idea that the reasonable is, in some way, connected to what could be justified to others. Another idea is that the reasonable is in some way specified by that to which others would consent.

So as we are thinking about the "reasonable person," it is important to distinguish her from her cousin, the "rational person." The rational person may or may not take the interests of others into account. To be a reasonable person, however, is to consider the interests or viewpoints of others--to give them their proper due.

Of course, all of this is terribly vague! What does it mean "to give the interests of others their proper due"? How much is enough? How much is too much? So far, we have only the general concept of the reasonable person. In order to make use of the "reasonable person" in the law, we need a particular conception of the "reasonable person"--a set of standards or criteria that will enable us to sort the reasonable actions from the unreasonable ones.


From the very beginning of the systematic effort to induce participation in the "income" tax by those to whom it does not legally apply, Americans have recognized the conflict between the clear language of the Constitution (and even merely grade-school-level principles of law) with what the "income" tax schemers seek to suggest is true. Thus, for many decades now, thousands-- perhaps millions-- of upstanding men and women who take seriously their right (and their responsibility) to defend the rule of law have resisted that effort. Unfortunately, this resistance has generally been misdirected-- in large part as a consequence of inadequate legal research.

Those whose only exposure to the "income" tax scheme has been as a compliant victim of the mainstream disinformation program maintained by its beneficiaries-- the government, 'tax professionals', clients of redistribution programs, etc.-- will likely find little to interest them here. The sole antidote necessary for that mainstream misunderstanding is to become aware that all is not as it seems to be (or as it should be) in regard to the "income" tax; or having just discovered that he or she is not alone in recognizing that all is not well is to seek the truth.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 08:28 pm
parados wrote:
OMG..
not the, "income isn't defined in the law" argument. That one is so old.

First of all, no one pays taxes on their "income". You pay taxes on your "taxable income" It says it right there in the law. Then the law explains how taxable income is figured. You subtract deductions from your gross income.
That leaves us with "gross income" as the starting point. Gross income is defined in the law.

Im new here but I couldnt resist talking about this topic.

It would appear that any said tax would be unconstitutional.
It would seem that any direct tax on your income would have to be apportioned as per the supreme court. I know the IRC is quite a lengthy document but its amazing how nobody in the IRS will point to a law requiring the payment of income taxes. ANytime Ive heard of someone questioning their senator or congressman they also seem to get the same reply which is there is no law that they can cite that requires it.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 06:01 am
Richard Saunders wrote:
parados wrote:
OMG..
not the, "income isn't defined in the law" argument. That one is so old.

First of all, no one pays taxes on their "income". You pay taxes on your "taxable income" It says it right there in the law. Then the law explains how taxable income is figured. You subtract deductions from your gross income.
That leaves us with "gross income" as the starting point. Gross income is defined in the law.

Im new here but I couldnt resist talking about this topic.

It would appear that any said tax would be unconstitutional.
It would seem that any direct tax on your income would have to be apportioned as per the supreme court.
The 16th amendment removed that argument. Any direct tax other than ones specifically allowed. If the income tax is a direct tax then it is allowed because the constitution was amended to allow it. If it is an indirect tax then it is allowed. The 16th made any direct/indirect argument moot since it is allowed either way.
Quote:
I know the IRC is quite a lengthy document but its amazing how nobody in the IRS will point to a law requiring the payment of income taxes. ANytime Ive heard of someone questioning their senator or congressman they also seem to get the same reply which is there is no law that they can cite that requires it.

I can cite it. The courts have cited it. The IRS has cited it. It is title 26. The very first chapter.

Quote:

§ 1. Tax imposed

...
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...

I'm not quite clear how you think a tax can be imposed but not be required.
There is a tax imposed on alcohol.
Quote:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax

on cigarettes
Quote:
On cigarettes, manufactured in or imported into the United States, there shall be imposed the following taxes:


Are those not required? They use "imposed" just like the income tax does. People have been jailed for trying to avoid them. The tax on alcohol goes back to the beginning of this country. I haven't checked to be sure but I bet every taxed article has a tax "imposed" on it.
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 06:30 am
parados wrote:

The 16th amendment removed that argument. Any direct tax other than ones specifically allowed. If the income tax is a direct tax then it is allowed because the constitution was amended to allow it. If it is an indirect tax then it is allowed. The 16th made any direct/indirect argument moot since it is allowed either way.

Well that is a common misconception. But the supreme court said that an unapportioned direct tax is not allowed. So if it is a direct tax it is invalid. If it is an indirect tax then it has to be uniform throughout all 50 states which it is not. The 16th ammedment allows no apportionment on income derived from its source, which means it has to be separated by its source. A tax on ones salary is a tax on the labor itself. The word 'income' in its constitutional sense means corporate profit.

Quote:

I can cite it. The courts have cited it. The IRS has cited it. It is title 26. The very first chapter.

§ 1. Tax imposed

...
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of...

I have absolutely never seen the IRS cite any law requiring the paymentof income taxes.. they are quite mum on the topic.

Well again how do you impose a tax on money itself without it being considered a direct tax? A tax needs to be imposed on some type of privileged activity. All other taxes that are imposed in the IRC also have liabilities created for them. However there is nothing in there of an income tax liability..
Quote:

I'm not quite clear how you think a tax can be imposed but not be required.
There is a tax imposed on alcohol.
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax on cigarettes, manufactured in or imported into the United States, there shall be imposed the following taxes:

Quote:

Are those not required? They use "imposed" just like the income tax does. People have been jailed for trying to avoid them. The tax on alcohol goes back to the beginning of this country. I haven't checked to be sure but I bet every taxed article has a tax "imposed" on it.

See how the tax is imposed on some type of activity? It is the production or manufacture that the tax is imposed on.. Just like the VALID corporate income tax is a tax on corporate privilege.. The amount of tax is determined by a company's income or profit. People have no such corporate profit.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:25 am
Quote:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The constitution says the above. Please explain how you can say it requires apportionment when the constitution is very specific in saying it does not.

Amendments to the constitution do just that. They amend it. The 16th amendment took away your argument which is why tax protestors then came up with their silly argument that the 16th was never ratified.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:39 am
Just because you can claim to not have seen something doesn't mean it isn't true.

The IRS is citing the code here along with penalties for failure to comply.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106790,00.html
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:40 am
parados wrote:
Quote:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The constitution says the above. Please explain how you can say it requires apportionment when the constitution is very specific in saying it does not.

Amendments to the constitution do just that. They amend it. The 16th amendment took away your argument which is why tax protestors then came up with their silly argument that the 16th was never ratified.


Very simply... The ammendment allows taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.

This means that the money received has to be derived or separated from the actual tangible thing that generates that money.. This does not happen in the case of somebody wages or labor.. When a person gets taxed on their salary, they are actually being taxed on the source of their salary - their labor.

What the ammendment does is prevents somebody from taking money made from corporate profit and trying to force it into the category of direct taxation. For example if Exxon tried to claim its corporate income tax was unconstitutional because they were getting taxed on their oil well property.. However Exxons income is only derived from the property hence apportionment is not needed.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled on this topic. An direct tax on ones labor is not allowed WITHOUT apportionment.

Lower courts have ruled in contradiction to the Supreme Court which I would say at best is an anomaly. A lower court cannot overturn a Supreme Court ruling... Yet people DO get arrested, and go to jail for not paying taxes... it is being enforced illegally.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:46 am
Quote:
However there is nothing in there of an income tax liability..

Oh? really?
Quote:
Liability


That looks like the word "liability" to me. Not only is it in there. It is the subchapter title.

As for your argument that the income tax langauge for corporations is somehow different than that for individuals. Please point out where it is different.
Quote:
A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation.

Quote:
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual
0 Replies
 
Richard Saunders
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Mar, 2007 08:47 am
parados wrote:
Just because you can claim to not have seen something doesn't mean it isn't true.

The IRS is citing the code here along with penalties for failure to comply.

http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106790,00.html

Those enforcement provisions are not for income taxes. They are general provisions for taxes within Title 26. There is no income tax liability created in the IRC.

For example there is a tax imposed on the manufacture of cigarettes but you dont pay it because youre not liable for the tax.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/06/2024 at 06:27:25