cicerone imposter wrote:parados, Most people who think we don't have to pay income taxes never worked for wages/salary. If the company doesn't withhold income taxes as defined in the IRS code (based on each worker's W-4, Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate), the officers of the company become liable for all taxes. If the company doesn't have the money to pay it, the IRS can take possession of their personal bank accounts and other assets.
It just isn't going to happen, unless you're a fool. Some people do learn the hard way.
CI,
Sometimes this happens even when a company withholds income taxes and pays the IRS the money.
It can also happen if the IRS determines a company owes 'X' amount and said company even pays 'X' amount.
Richard S, I worked in management for most of my professional career, and also did audits of nonprofit organizations in Silicon Valley, but have never seen the situation where the government took over the personal assets of the officers of the agency. I have heard some horror stories about it happening, but they were always third hand info; I personally didn't know of any.
Parados wrote, "Show me where it is contrary to the ideals of the founding fathers and the constitution.. I bet you can't find a single place where it states "income tax is not allowed."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Constitution of the United States of America
Section. 2.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
CI has kindly pointed out that this is not the case.
Furthermore:
The federal tax laws are contained in the Internal Revenue Code, also known as Title 26 of the United States Code, which is the compilation of laws passed by the Congress ("Title" basically means "Volume" when applied to the U.S. Code as a whole, so Title 26 is what might more casually be called Volume 26).
Some confusion may result from the fact that some Titles in the United States Code (but not Title 26) have been enacted as "positive law." In published editions of the U.S. Code, these titles are marked with an asterisk, and Title 26 is not one of them.
All this means is that, for some Titles, Congress, usually after many years of tinkering with and amending the Title, decided to pass one, single statute embodying all the law in the entire Title. When this is done, that one law in the Statutes at Large can also be used as a Title of the U.S. Code (until it gets amended again).
Congress never did this for Title 26. Title 26 is the compiled result of many separate statutes passed over a period of decades.
Title 26 of the United States Code.
The problem with trying to find the law in the Statutes at Large is that, in order to tell whether the part you're reading (say, the 1986 tax law) is still good, current law, you'd have to read the entire Statutes at Large to see whether any later statute repealed or amended it. So you'd have to look through every statute that Congress has passed in the intervening decades.
That's not very practical.
Exactly; they know there is a serious flaw, which is why they don't quote it.
Can the IRS legally show "Department of the Treasury" on their outgoing mail?
Answer: No. It is obvious that such deceptive nomenclature is intended to convey the false impression that IRS is a lawful bureau or department within the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Federal laws prohibit the use of United States Mail for fraudulent purposes. Every piece of U.S. Mail sent from IRS with "Department of the Treasury" in the return address, is one count of mail fraud. See also 31 U.S.C. 333.
Gee.. Just as I suspected.. You didn't show me any mention of the words "income tax" or the words "not allowed".
I love your rewrite of the Preamble.... I don't think anyone with any sense will accept it as truth however..
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
parados wrote:Gee.. Just as I suspected.. You didn't show me any mention of the words "income tax" or the words "not allowed".
I love your rewrite of the Preamble.... I don't think anyone with any sense will accept it as truth however..
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I dont think anybody argues the ability to tax income parados.. Its just that it should be apportioned.. I mean the govt could always tax anything it wanted to.. just has to be done in a particular fashion. Following the constitution keeps it honest; but if they kept it honest they wouldnt need the income tax as it currently is or the federal reserve.
Thank you for your endorsement Parados; it means so much to me.
Richard wrote, "I don't think anybody argues the ability to tax income"
Excuse me, but I do. Whilst I totally agree there has to be taxes:
Import/ export
Company/corporation
Sales
State/local
Anything; but NOT personal.
Does the U.S. Department of Justice have power of attorney to represent the IRS in federal court?
Answer: No. Although the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") does have power of attorney to represent federal agencies before federal courts, the IRS is not an "agency" as that term is legally defined in the Freedom of Information Act or in the Administrative Procedures Act. The governments of all federal Territories are expressly excluded from the definition of federal "agency" by Act of Congress. See 5 U.S.C. 551(1)(C).
Since IRS is domiciled in Puerto Rico (RICO?), it is thereby excluded from the definition of federal agencies which can be represented by the DOJ. The IRS Chief Counsel, appointed by the President under authority of 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2), can appear, or appoint a delegate to appear in federal court on behalf of IRS and IRS employees. Again, see the Answer to Question 1.
As far as powers of attorney are concerned, the chain of command begins with Congress, flows to the President, and then to the IRS Chief Counsel, and NOT to the U.S. Department of Justice.
You read it here first!
Next time we reveal shocking new evidence that questions whether the 14th and 16th amendments were legally ratified.
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Gee.. Just as I suspected.. You didn't show me any mention of the words "income tax" or the words "not allowed".
I love your rewrite of the Preamble.... I don't think anyone with any sense will accept it as truth however..
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I dont think anybody argues the ability to tax income parados.. Its just that it should be apportioned.. I mean the govt could always tax anything it wanted to.. just has to be done in a particular fashion. Following the constitution keeps it honest; but if they kept it honest they wouldnt need the income tax as it currently is or the federal reserve.
If you wanted to be honest you would admit that all amendments are considered part of the constitution and the 16th amendment allows for income tax without apportionment. You can't ignore parts of the constitution when you claim the constitution has some meaning. The part you are referring to was specifically modified. It is dishonest to pretend it wasn't.
Try,
Why don't you at least link to the charlatans you are stealing from.
The IRS is in Puerto Rico? What nonsense.
Because Puerto Rico is a commonwealth and patterns its tax system after the US doesn't suddenly make the Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury control the IRS of the Federal government. Your charlatan is a complete buffoon to think that a ruling on the Puerto Rico Treasury in any way can relate to the US treasury and the IRS. And you are an even bigger fool for quoting him without referencing or bothering to check.
I see you are ignoring your rewrite of the constitution and your failure to back up your claim. What else is new.
parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Gee.. Just as I suspected.. You didn't show me any mention of the words "income tax" or the words "not allowed".
I love your rewrite of the Preamble.... I don't think anyone with any sense will accept it as truth however..
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I dont think anybody argues the ability to tax income parados.. Its just that it should be apportioned.. I mean the govt could always tax anything it wanted to.. just has to be done in a particular fashion. Following the constitution keeps it honest; but if they kept it honest they wouldnt need the income tax as it currently is or the federal reserve.
If you wanted to be honest you would admit that all amendments are considered part of the constitution and the 16th amendment allows for income tax without apportionment. You can't ignore parts of the constitution when you claim the constitution has some meaning. The part you are referring to was specifically modified. It is dishonest to pretend it wasn't.
well it was modified to allow for unapportionment from incomes derived and separated from their sources.. isnt that what these SCOTUS rulings from back in the day tell us?
Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Richard Saunders wrote:parados wrote:Gee.. Just as I suspected.. You didn't show me any mention of the words "income tax" or the words "not allowed".
I love your rewrite of the Preamble.... I don't think anyone with any sense will accept it as truth however..
Quote:We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain no Tax or Duty shall be laid directly upon the people and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I dont think anybody argues the ability to tax income parados.. Its just that it should be apportioned.. I mean the govt could always tax anything it wanted to.. just has to be done in a particular fashion. Following the constitution keeps it honest; but if they kept it honest they wouldnt need the income tax as it currently is or the federal reserve.
If you wanted to be honest you would admit that all amendments are considered part of the constitution and the 16th amendment allows for income tax without apportionment. You can't ignore parts of the constitution when you claim the constitution has some meaning. The part you are referring to was specifically modified. It is dishonest to pretend it wasn't.
well it was modified to allow for unapportionment from incomes derived and separated from their sources.. isnt that what these SCOTUS rulings from back in the day tell us?
Not really, but it if makes you feel better to think that go ahead.
The 16th removed all arguments for all incomes even though the USSC had already ruled it was constitutional to tax income from wages.
Parados wrote, "I see you are ignoring your rewrite of the constitution and your failure to back up your claim."
Checkout the Constitution; it now contains more amendments than words in the original. Did you object when politicians pushed through those changes for their own benefit?
"What else is new."
Glad you asked:
Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No. Neither was properly ratified. In the case of People v. Boxer (December 1992), docket number #S-030016, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer fell totally silent in the face of an Application to the California Supreme Court by the People of California, for an ORDER compelling Senator Boxer to witness the material evidence against the so-called 16th amendment.
That so‑called "amendment" allegedly authorized federal income taxation, even though it contains no provision expressly repealing two Constitutional Clauses mandating that direct taxes must be apportioned. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court have both ruled that repeals by implication are not favored. See Crawford Fitting Co. et al. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442 (1987).
The material evidence in question was summarized in AFFIDAVIT's that were properly executed and filed in that case. Boxer fell totally silent, thus rendering those affidavits the "truth of the case." The so‑called 16th amendment has now been correctly identified as a major fraud upon the American People and the United States. Major fraud against the United States is a serious federal offense. See 18 U.S.C. 1031.
Similarly, the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.
Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.
The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.
Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is properly understood to mean "subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress."
For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866.
Quote:Were the so-called 14th and 16th amendments properly ratified?
Answer: No.
Only in loony world is this true.....
In the real world the amendments have been ruled to be part of the constitution by the US Supreme Court. This thread is filled with the US court rulings that make your argument idiotic.
Here are some of them...
Quote:Sixteenth Amendment not adopted: mentioning "The Law that Never Was" by Benson & Beckman: US v. Wm.J. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598 [one of the authors of Law/Never] amended on other grounds 957 F2d 301; [ Benson convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to four years of prison followed by five years probation. US v. Benson (7th Cir 1995) 67 F3d 641 reh.den 74 F3d 152; it appears he violated the terms of his parole. Benson v. US (ND IL 1997) 969 F.Supp 1129]; M.D. Miller v. US (7th Cir 1988) 868 F2d 236; ("The validity of that process [adopting the 16th Amendment] and if the resulting constitutional amendment are no longer open questions.") US v. Sitka (2d Cir 1988) 845 F2d 43 at 47 cert.den 488 US 827; US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853 (the leading case; held that the Sec of State's 1913 proclamation of the adoption of the 16th Amendment is conclusive and "is now beyond review"); US v. House (WD Mich 1985) 617 F.Supp 237 aff'd (6th Cir 1986) 787 F2d 593(t)(used Benson as a witness, and thoroughly discussed his book); US v. Wojtas (ND IL 1985) 611 F.Supp 118; US v. Sato (ND IL 1989) 704 F.Supp 816 (the Constitutional provision that Congress will have exclusive authority over DC only means that no state govt has authority over DC but it does not limit Congress's authority to make laws, including tax laws, only to DC); O.L. Brown v. CIR (2/9/97) TC Memo 1987-78 (judge declined to buy a copy); Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); US v. Stahl (9th Cir 1986) 792 F2d 1438 cert.den 479 US 1036; Spoelman v. Hummel (WD Mich unpub 5/26/89); {Note: The argument in "The Law That Never Was" by Benson & Beckman is a 1913 legal memo worked up for the Sec. of State by the Solicitor of the State Dept regarding the ratifications received from state legislatures for the proposed 16th amendment, noticing that several of these notifications contained tiny typos in reprinting the text of the proposed amendment. The Solicitor advised that, as a state could not amend or change the proposed text but only vote for or against ratification, and that the proposed amendment was available to members of all the legislatures in a number of published copies - most without any typos, and it is not known whether these typos existed in the copies seen by the members of the legislatures before they voted (no state govt ever complained that its vote on ratification would have gone different without the typos), and certainly the ratifications of previous and undoubted amendments also had similar flaws, that the notification of favorable ratifying votes is binding on the Sec of State, etc., it is presumed that all the votes were taken on the correct and proper text and therefore the ratifications are all valid and sufficient to adopt the amendment. The Sec. of State agreed. Contrary to the claims made by Benson & Beckman, there is no evidence that any ratification of any amendment was ever invalidated because of some typo in repeating the proposed amendment, and in fact there is a distinct shortage of precedents for invalidating an Act of Congress because of a comparable typo distinguishing the bills adopted by the House and the Senate. The book was dealt with in detail in US v. Thomas (7th Cir 1986) 788 F2d 1250 cert.den 479 US 853, and one of the co-authors tried to revive the rejected argument simply because he had written that book in US v. Benson (7th Cir 1991) 941 F2d 598, both times the court held that the validity of the adoption of the 16th Amendment was "beyond review".}
Where are the statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes?
Answer: Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") contains no provisions creating a specific liability for taxes imposed by subtitle A. Aside from the statutes which apply only to federal government employees, pursuant to the Public Salary Tax Act, the only other statutes that create a specific liability for federal income taxes are those itemized in the definition of "Withholding agent" at IRC section 7701(a)(16). For example, see IRC section 1461. A separate liability statute for "employment" taxes imposed by subtitle C is found at IRC section 3403.
After a worker authorizes a payroll officer to withhold taxes, typically by completing Form W‑4, the payroll officer then becomes a withholding agent who is legally and specifically liable for payment of all taxes withheld from that worker's paycheck. Until such time as those taxes are paid in full into the Treasury of the United States, the withholding agent is the only party who is legally liable for those taxes, not the worker. See IRC section 7809 ("Treasury of the United States").
If the worker opts instead to complete a Withholding Exemption Certificate, consistent with IRC section 3402(n), the payroll officer is not thereby authorized to withhold any federal income taxes. In this latter situation, there is absolutely no liability for the worker or for the payroll officer; in other words, there is no liability PERIOD, specifically because there is no withholding agent.
What goes round
Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth.
As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
With the establishment of the new nation, the citizens of the various colonies now had proper democratic representation, yet many Americans still opposed and resisted taxes they deemed unfair or improper. In 1794, a group of farmers in south western Pennsylvania physically opposed the tax on whiskey, forcing President Washington to send Federal troops to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion, establishing the important precedent that the Federal government was determined to enforce its revenue laws.
The Whiskey Rebellion also confirmed, however, that the resistance to unfair or high taxes that led to the Declaration of Independence did not evaporate with the forming of a new, representative government.
Comes round...
When you use stock arguments, it becomes easy to respond. To say I couldn't read something and post a short rebuttal in 6 minutes is pretty silly. Your piece takes less than a minute to read and the argument is hardly new or exotic. It took all of a minute to write my 3 short sentences and paste from a bookmarked page that lists many court cases that directly dispute your claim that amendments weren't properly ratified.
As for the "evidence" you cite, it has been dealt with already on this thread. It is and remains a bogus argument. The amendments were ratified. They are by law and constitution part of the constitution. Any argument that they are not ignores the very constitution itself.
Your argument that part of the constitution can be "unconstitutional" is so silly I see no reason to even respond to it directly. A 3rd grader can see the flaws in that one.
By the way, since "vague" statements in the constitution are unconstitutional explain how the phrase "direct taxes" is not vague concerning income taxes. Since a vague phrase is unconstitutional under your argument wouldn't that mean there is no "constitutional" directive preventing income taxes?
At last Wednesday comes round again; time to rejoin the fray
Parados at last admits this topic has reaches 3rd grade standard. Due to the fact that my education was probably undisputedly inconvenienced by the antics of Antonio López de Santa Anna; I should take that as a compliment. What it says about him I shall leave for others to decide.
"Since a vague phrase is unconstitutional under your argument wouldn't that mean there is no "constitutional" directive preventing income taxes?"
That is only another way of saying; can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
The answer no matter how you sugar the pillis: No. The U.S. Constitution vests all legislative power in the Congress of the United States. See Article I, Section 1. The Executive Branch of the federal government has no legislative power whatsoever.
This means that agencies of the Executive Branch, and also the federal Courts in the Judicial Branch, are prohibited from making law.
If an Act of Congress fails to create a specific liability for any tax imposed by that Act, then there is no liability for that tax. Executive agencies have no authority to cure any such omission by using regulations to create a liability.
"An administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee."
See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition)
However, this cite from American Jurisprudence has been removed from the 1994 edition of that legal encyclopaedia. They may change the print, but the law still stands.
Your time starts now!
Quote:
"An administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee."
See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition)
IN case you hadn't noticed even though it has been pointed out REPEATEDLY. The US code sets out the tax for income. It's called Title 26.
source
It seems the lawmaking authority DID sanction the tax.
1. You can't show me where the US Congress didn't pass Title 26.
2. You can't show me where the IRS imposes any tax NOT in the US Code as passed by Congress
Quote:That is only another way of saying; can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
It's another way of saying you have your head so far up your behind you don't understand the English language and are grasping at straws to try to make a law not exist. It DOES exist. It DOES impose a tax on income. The title of the subchapter IS "Determination of Tax LIABILITY" In determining the tax liability a tax is IMPOSED on all income EXCEPT that which is specifically exempted.
Since the tax liability is DETERMINED by the tax law there is no way a thinking person can claim there is no determination of tax liability in the law.
At last Parados comes round to my way of thinking.
"It seems the lawmaking authority DID sanction the tax.
1. You can't show me where the US Congress didn't pass Title 26.
2. You can't show me where the IRS imposes any tax NOT in the US Code as passed by Congress
Since the tax liability is DETERMINED by the tax law there is no way a thinking person can claim there is no determination of tax liability in the law."
Sorry to burst your bubble buddy
The United States Code (USC) is a compilation of the United States Statutes at Large. It is the US Statutes at Large that are ultimate evidence of the laws governing the United States. The USC is put together by the Office of the Law Revision Council of the US House of Representatives in order to simplify administration of the laws. The US Statutes at Large are kept in chronological order and contain all amendments, repeals, etc.
This makes the Statutes at large difficult to reference. The USC is kept in order of subject matter and changed to reflect the current status of amendments, repeals etc. Some portions of the USC are fairly static. These sections are then proposed to become "positive" laws, meaning that, once approved, the section in the USC will become the current Statute. For Statutes subject to frequent revision, the USC section never has time to move through the process to become "positive".
The law of America is the Constitution. All Federal statutes, including Title 26 of the USC, must adhere to the Constitution.
Title 26 is not positive law, and as such listed in the Federal Register as applicable to everyone.
(Read that again: TITLE 26 IS NOT LISTED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER)
Title 26 is "special law", applicable only to those who choose to volunteer into its jurisdiction.
Comprendo?
parados wrote:Quote:
"An administrative agency may not create a criminal offense or any liability not sanctioned by the lawmaking authority, especially a liability for a tax or inspection fee."
See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Acker, 361 U.S. 87, 4 L.Ed.2d 127, 80 S.Ct. 144 (1959), and Independent Petroleum Corp. v. Fly, 141 F.2d 189 (5th Cir. 1944) as cited at 2 Am Jur 2d, p. 129, footnote 2 (1962 edition)
IN case you hadn't noticed even though it has been pointed out REPEATEDLY. The US code sets out the tax for income. It's called Title 26.
source
It seems the lawmaking authority DID sanction the tax.
1. You can't show me where the US Congress didn't pass Title 26.
2. You can't show me where the IRS imposes any tax NOT in the US Code as passed by Congress
Quote:That is only another way of saying; can a federal regulation create a specific liability, when no specific liability is created by the corresponding statute?
It's another way of saying you have your head so far up your behind you don't understand the English language and are grasping at straws to try to make a law not exist. It DOES exist. It DOES impose a tax on income. The title of the subchapter IS "Determination of Tax LIABILITY" In determining the tax liability a tax is IMPOSED on all income EXCEPT that which is specifically exempted.
Since the tax liability is DETERMINED by the tax law there is no way a thinking person can claim there is no determination of tax liability in the law.
Parados, just curious.. Have you read section 861 or the code and how it defines what 'taxable income' is? Im curious what youre take is on it.
The section on taxable income is 63..
It reads as follows..
[/QUOTE](a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term "taxable income" means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
Quote:
Section 861 pretty much negates the argument that income from wages isn't taxable.
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States: ...
(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States
Quote:
It doesn't even require that you be paid money or US currency. It only says compensation for your labor.
