Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 One man's opinion. Quite different from the law.It is true in general that one man's opinion is not the same as law. However, in this case, the law and the opinion are identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Title 26, the US Tax Code, Section 61: 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. And at section 63: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members snd4c Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 So does this mean I don't have to file taxes? And by the way have you guys heard about the Amero lately it seemed to get some attention and then just fell off the face of the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Don't be confused. Even as the case law above explains, "includes" as used in legal definitions is an open ended, or expansive, term. If the authors wanted to make the term "employee" refer to only federal employees, they would use a closed term such as "consisting of." RSB's definition of "employees" is either a self-serving joke or just a completely uneducated understanding of statutory construction. Go look it up for yourself. It's pretty cut and dried in the Code, the meaning of which I've already referenced in this thread. It's not my definition at all, but straight from the current IRC. If you'd take the time to read it, you'd find it's right there. And you are definitely wrong in the meaning of the word "includes". Did you know when "includes" is used in Title 26, there's not a time in any other Title of the USC (that I've ever seen) that does not say instead "includes but not limited to"? That seemingly simple word has sparked case after case of what it truly means, with still no clear understanding of the phrase.If it were just that simple, you should call up your jack-booted thug buddy at the DOJ and "influence" Congress (by "voluntary compliance"... ) to write the IRC and underlying Statutes in plain English and commonspeak. Until that time happens, which it never will, there's always going to be an argument. Makes you wonder why all these alleged "tax geniuses" or composers of the IRC make the language so redundant. If they simply said (and this would have to be a Statutory change, not another BS re-write of the already muddy IRC which is only Congress' interpretation of the Statutes) "all that comes in, no matter what you make or do or what the {censored} ever, ALL of it, you have to claim". But no- they use terms like "wages" and "gross income" and the like, which are defined legal TERMS within the IRC, with corresponding definitions, not everyday commonly understood meanings. If YOU knew half of what you're claiming I don't or am making up about the IRC, you'd know this yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 So does this mean I don't have to file taxes?And by the way have you guys heard about the Amero lately it seemed to get some attention and then just fell off the face of the planet. It means if you're up for the battle, and are able to rely on law, like Tom Cryer in this case, and introduce it, you have a good shot. Problem is, your "judge" gets to play god in "his" courtroom, and can either allow or not allow you to present THE law to the jury. Usually you don't get to present law and that hurts, and in no way makes the trial fair even a little bit. But the transcript for the Cryer case is now available. I'd suggest checking it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 But if there was a "correct" way to file that an attorney could defend, you'd think an attorney would take a case on 100% contingency basis. If it's as solid of a position that RSB seems to portray, it's easy money for any decent tax attorney. And it may set precedent. Again, someone needs to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. I don't want to pay taxes anymore than the next guy. So I'd love to see some real cases. Instead, I get examples like Joe Banister - talk about not walking the walk. Wow. Why? Why in the blue hell would ANY smart and self-serving "tax attorney" educate someone the correct way to file a tax return? I mean you can't be serious in asking this question. Tax attorneys make billions each year by arguing deductions, and getting $15-20K retainers upfront to argue mileage and medical expenses. You think someone in the business of making money upfront, arguing law second (if at all) is going to REALLY find the correct way of doing things? This goes for CPA's as well. I was hoping while reading this you were being facetious, but sadly enough, you're not. Setting a precedent? Just the people who've been filing according to their correct tax liability over the last few years, according the law and Pete Hendrickson's method, as I've referenced before. They're about to $2.4M of fully refunded withholding, SS and Medicare taxes, with not ONE criminal indictment or charge. Goes along for people I've helped educate as well. Interesting, to say the least... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 more bull{censored} You are uneducated and uninformed about the matters with which you speak so definitively. I think it is important for anyone following this thread to be forewarned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 And you are definitely wrong in the meaning of the word "includes". Did you know when "includes" is used in Title 26, there's not a time in any other Title of the USC (that I've ever seen) that does not say instead "includes but not limited to"? That seemingly simple word has sparked case after case of what it truly means, with still no clear understanding of the phrase. Your ignorance is dangerous. Since I was dealing with it earlier today, let's take one quick look at 35 U.S.C. 287(3)(B)(iii), paragraph 2: "The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement." Includes? Check. Open ended? Check. If you were a patent attorney and you went into court to argue that "mitigating circumstances" was limited to "the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement" you'd be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Don't be confused. Even as the case law above explains, "includes" as used in legal definitions is an open ended, or expansive, term. If the authors wanted to make the term "employee" refer to only federal employees, they would use a closed term such as "consisting of." Did the legal definitions, as they stand today, exist at the time the code was written? I know nothing about it, just curious. Even if it was meant to be expansive, it doesn't mean the intent was include regular citizens. That just means it wasn't meant specifically not to. Which doesn't really lean eith3r ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members catphish Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Your ignorance is dangerous. Since I was dealing with it earlier today, let's take one quick look at 35 U.S.C. 287(3)(B)(iii), paragraph 2: "The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement." Includes? Check. Open ended? Check. If you were a patent attorney and you went into court to argue that "mitigating circumstances" was limited to "the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement" you'd be wrong. *backs out of thread... and buries blueprints for his perpetual motion machine in the back yard under a ficus* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 Even if it was meant to be expansive, it doesn't mean the intent was include regular citizens. That just means it wasn't meant specifically not to. Which doesn't really lean eith3r ( True. Rather than type any of it out myself, here is a good summary of info you are looking for:http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/income.htm http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/trust.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RyCLB Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 RSB, just a word of advice: You should probably include a Circular 230 disclaimer with all this tax "advice" you're spouting... ...You're technically purporting yourself as a tax advisor, which may have criminal repercussions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members toolbar Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 It means if you're up for the battle, and are able to rely on law, like Tom Cryer in this case, and introduce it, you have a good shot. Problem is, your "judge" gets to play god in "his" courtroom, and can either allow or not allow you to present THE law to the jury. Usually you don't get to present law and that hurts, and in no way makes the trial fair even a little bit. And here lies the problem. I have too much to loose. I'll join the rebellion when there is actual Tea in the harbor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Your ignorance is dangerous. Since I was dealing with it earlier today, let's take one quick look at 35 U.S.C. 287(3)(B)(iii), paragraph 2: "The failure to perform any acts described in the preceding sentence is evidence of absence of good faith unless there are mitigating circumstances. Mitigating circumstances include the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement." Includes? Check. Open ended? Check. If you were a patent attorney and you went into court to argue that "mitigating circumstances" was limited to "the case in which, due to the nature of the product, the number of sources for the product, or like commercial circumstances, a request for disclosure is not necessary or practicable to avoid infringement" you'd be wrong. Here's some fun "includes" words-TITLE 26 > Subtitle F > CHAPTER 79 > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 RSB, just a word of advice: You should probably include a Circular 230 disclaimer with all this tax "advice" you're spouting... ...You're technically purporting yourself as a tax advisor, which may have criminal repercussions... I'm not giving "advice" at all. Go lookup what it means to "give advice" and perform a service to. I'm doing neither. Discussing foundational law isn't something I'm too worried about...And that's also wrong. Educating based on experience and current mechanics that the IRS processes and correctly follows everyday isn't something I'm losing sleep over.Like I said, for EVERYONE that's correctly filed a tax return, based on their alleged and purported wage, not ONE criminal count or indictment has been raised. This specifically answers bbl's question or inquiry as to why a whole bunch of lawyers simply deconstruct a business that's made them rich- there's no NEED for a tax attorney when you're not involved in criminal proceeding! Maybe people out there have attorneys with retainers on staff, just for fun. Most people do not, as it's not necessary. Further, a lot of "tax attorneys" give advice (which is true advice) that's so off cuff it's sad. We had one guy tell an old client of ours that while she was under a civil/regular/compliance audit, that it was a criminal indictment and she was going to have to go to court before the audit even started, because she was under criminal investigation for a civil audit. She nearly had a heart attack and when we explained that's a bold faced lie, she got better, but not a lot. The "expert" was surprisingly unavailable for discussion when we got on the phone with her for a 3 way call... I'll still send the book for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RyCLB Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 I'm not giving "advice" at all. Go lookup what it means to "give advice" and perform a service to. I'm doing neither. Discussing foundational law isn't something I'm too worried about... And that's also wrong. Educating based on experience and current mechanics that the IRS processes and correctly follows everyday isn't something I'm losing sleep over. Like I said, for EVERYONE that's correctly filed a tax return, based on their alleged and purported wage, not ONE criminal count or indictment has been raised. This specifically answers bbl's question or inquiry as to why a whole bunch of lawyers simply deconstruct a business that's made them rich- there's no NEED for a tax attorney when you're not involved in criminal proceeding! Maybe people out there have attorneys with retainers on staff, just for fun. Most people do not, as it's not necessary. Further, a lot of "tax attorneys" give advice (which is true advice) that's so off cuff it's sad. We had one guy tell an old client of ours that while she was under a civil/regular/compliance audit, that it was a criminal indictment and she was going to have to go to court before the audit even started, because she was under criminal investigation for a civil audit. She nearly had a heart attack and when we explained that's a bold faced lie, she got better, but not a lot. The "expert" was surprisingly unavailable for discussion when we got on the phone with her for a 3 way call... I'll still send the book for free. Exactly what do you do for a living? I know you're not a CPA, but are you a licensed tax preparer or something along those lines? I mean, seriously, you come off like a pretentious prick with your continuing indictments of "tax attorneys". You sound like a guy who's not educated enough to become an attorney, therefore, fueled by jealousy, you believe all (or at least most) tax attorneys are frauds just out to make a buck. Your broad generalizations regarding that specific group of people are insulting - especially to me since I married one. Besides, most tax attorneys don't even {censored} with individual tax issues because, like you said, people can't afford them. The majority of actual "tax attorney's" clients are made up of corporations. If you're referring to tax litigators, then you're probably on spot. If that's the case, get your terminology straight before you start bashing a profession you obviously know nothing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 And again, for clarity for those that have missed it- 1. I do not condone or endorse Willful Failure to File, which is what Cryer and Bannister and Kughlin and others have advanced and won on. 2. Everyone is different. There is no such thing as a "silver bullet" to thwart the IRS, and considering how much power people passively and actively give them through Congress, it's going to be a while before it falls out, but it is on the way down, with the estimated numbers for people who no longer file or aren't even in the system. 3. There IS a law that requires you to file, IF applicable to you. There is no such thing as "no law in the Code that says you have to file." YES there is. The original 1861 code that was revised and passed into law (under Lincoln, which will make you do some revisionist history on that one) in 1862 explains it. If you had federal wages by working for the Union army, and made over $600, you owed a percentage back because it was your gov't. giving you that money. The Statutes are still the same today. Only their "summary", the IRC, has been rewritten. 4. To work is a right, not a privilege. Exchanging my human capital for monetary compensation is not a gain, as my life, as is everyone else's, worth something, which is why you get paid. It's amazing to me how people just assume the IRS and DOT/DOJ has some claim to your life's work, without any explanation or notification thereof. They just do it. 5. I don't have all the answers. This stuff has been argued for over 140 years. This thread could go on for 100 pages and you couldn't scratch the surface. But properly applied, the tax law makes sense even to me. And I still have a free book to send you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Exactly what do you do for a living? I know you're not a CPA, but are you a licensed tax preparer or something along those lines? I mean, seriously, you come off like a pretentious prick with your continuing indictments of "tax attorneys". You sound like a guy who's not educated enough to become an attorney, therefore, fueled by jealousy, you believe all (or at least most) tax attorneys are frauds just out to make a buck. Your broad generalizations regarding that specific group of people are insulting - especially to me since I married one. Besides, most tax attorneys don't even {censored} with individual tax issues because, like you said, people can't afford them. The majority of actual "tax attorney's" clients are made up of corporations. If you're referring to tax litigators, then you're probably on spot. If that's the case, get your terminology straight before you start bashing a profession you obviously know nothing about. You don't have to have a license to even somewhat prepare taxes. I suggest you read up on your information of who can do what in the prep realm before you start bashing an entire profession. I hardly said that. I said many do NOT read nor argue statutory law nor advance it. You're spot on and I agree with you 100% that most argue corporate law. Corps are 100% taxable. There is no argument. They argue deductions and share distributions and fraud and concealment cases. I work with them and go to workshops all the time. I'm hardly jealous. And if you knew much about your average attorney, "smart enough" isn't something that's usually a qualifier. I would've started law school this fall but I'm taking the CPA instead. I probably will start next fall, if not next spring. However, I did state that during a PERSONAL and CIVIL audit, MANY attorneys do not have the understanding or experience to properly guide someone through it, as shown by my example. I have plenty more. Requesting a $10000 retainer for a civil audit when you owe $3000 is in my view, fraudulent and wrong. But that's what they do. Being an attorney doesn't make you an expert, and just because you're under civil audit doesn't mean you need one either. Criminal does NOT equal civil. I've said it plenty of times in this thread, but apparently it's still not clear to you and for that, there it is again. I said not one thing about your wife. Unless she's dating this person's mom and lives in Georgia.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 However, your interpretation doesn't even follow common sense. If I or you or anyone else were to take "includes" as a term of seeming expansion, say you get a new amp. Packaging says "Includes SWR 900 amp, manual, extra preamp tube, power cable, and SWR logo sticker", you'd be expecting more? Why would people not sue for these excluded items you are referring to? There are some poor ass people out there that would sue for anything- why not that? You say it's a term of expansion, where as I just pointed out (and the document which is too big to link, but would love to email anyone who's interested in Supreme Court cases and the law itself) in other parts of the IRC and USC it's not deemed to do so. Why does it that one specific time, without any instruction to do so, or any differing language? My definition follows the explicit definition provided within the statue as well as the rules of statutory construction. Your analogy is funny, but worthless. In any case, ignoring the explicit definition provided, even the common usage of the term includes is open ended. Here's a great example:To stay within the music realm I decided to go to http://www.musiciansfriend.com and find the first 4 string bass listed. Here's what came up:http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Rickenbacker-4003-Bass?sku=513600You'll notice the listing says:Rickenbacker 4003 Bass Includes: * Rickenbacker standard caseThat's all it says is included. Boy, I sure hope it also includes the bass itself. I have made my points, demonstrated your ignorance and ensured that anyone following this discussion has been adequately warned of your incompetence. I am leaving the thread and not returning, but anyone with questions on the subject can feel free to contact me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Every use of the term includes above is open ended. The definition is explicitly open ended. You've made my point once again. I haven't told you what I believe the definition of income includes. The fact of the matter is terms used in statutes are interpreted according to their ordinary and customary usage unless they are explicitly defined otherwise. My definition follows the explicit definition provided within the statue as well as the rules of statutory construction. Your analogy is funny, but worthless. In any case, ignoring the explicit definition provided, even the common usage of the term includes is open ended. Here's a great example: To stay within the music realm I decided to go to http://www.musiciansfriend.com and find the first 4 string bass listed. Here's what came up: http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Rickenbacker-4003-Bass?sku=513600 You'll notice the listing says: Rickenbacker 4003 Bass Includes: * Rickenbacker standard case That's all it says is included. Boy, I sure hope it also includes the bass itself. I have made my points, demonstrated your ignorance and ensured that anyone following this discussion has been adequately warned of your incompetence. I am leaving the thread and not returning, but anyone with questions on the subject can feel free to contact me. Well that's your differing and wrong opinion, which the courts state. And that's wrong- IRC terms are used AS defined and if not explicitly and clearly defined, are done so in the Courts (77 pages of which I've made available, to of course no response from you). They are custom words- in no way or how used as "every day language". Anyone at the IRS or DOT/DOJ level will tell you that. And oh, since you say it's a term of expansion, where does it limit? You're saying there's no limitation on a statute that A.) doesn't define anything except what it explicitly states and B.) basically it's just a crap shoot up to the IRS/DOT/DOJ as to what they want to "include"? Wow, so you attempt to rebut my example that's equally ambiguous? That looks like it pretty much seals the deal huh. I've made further points, offered Supreme Court evidence with years of case law, and of course, an ignoring of all that. You really can lead a horse to water, but... And that's a nice terrorist manifesto you got there- the government has the guns, regardless of what you believe, and what the law says, you just better do what we say. Nice. Are you sure it's your "buddy" who works for the DOJ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thunderbroom Posted July 31, 2007 Author Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've read the thread. Sorry RSB, but Kindness owns you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 I've read the thread. Sorry RSB, but Kindness owns you. On which grounds? Oh, and here's some fun definitions for "includes", not that it matters... http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/includes-TD3980.pdf http://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/Deposition/Evidence/Q09.006.pdf http://famguardian.org/Publications/Bouviers/bouvieri.txt This of course isn't a listing of the Supreme Court interpretations, which I've made available to everyone... But hey, let's not get caught up in the law or anything silly like that. EDIT: I found the link version of the package. 95 pages, so take your time. http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/FalseRhetoric/Includess.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kindness Posted July 31, 2007 Moderators Share Posted July 31, 2007 I have been asked by RSB via PM to look at these links. I have and all of my previous statements stand and are entirely supported by the content he has provided. Reagan - you have taken this far enough. You are completely off base with all of your analysis and you are actively encouraging illegal behavior. This is a violation of Forum policy as provided by the Terms of Use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 I have been asked by RSB via PM to look at these links. I have and all of my previous statements stand and are entirely supported by the content he has provided. Reagan - you have taken this far enough. You are completely off base with all of your analysis and you are actively encouraging illegal behavior. This is a violation of Forum policy as provided by the Terms of Use. How is it off base to act according to Supreme Court rulings, and legal and statutory definitions? And as far as filing, why does the IRS process these "illegal" returns, and have for years? The fact that it still is an issue and is ruled upon to present date means it's not set and if it were, back to the OP, Cryer's case would be moot and irrelevant. However, this is not the case. People have been arguing the IRC and tax law since inception. I'm not stopping now, nor should anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Crescent Seven Posted July 31, 2007 Members Share Posted July 31, 2007 Hey everyone! I have a HUGE dick! C7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.