+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 26

  1. #1
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Your thoughts...

    I am thinking out loud here and requesting your "thoughts" not opinion or advice. Please read the following very carefully.

    1.Did the 16th Amendment repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation without apportionment imposed at Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 "of the American Constitution?

    2. If the 16th Amendment did repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation, what existing lawful statutory authority did Congress have to overturn its very own limitations imposed directly from the founding fathers of this nation, especially after each member has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution?

    Surely they are not going to state that they violated their oath of office and consent that they committed a criminal offense(s). (Regardless of whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not, this section is very clear all by itself. I do not care about the ratification issue at all. The ratification issue is not the relevant issue.)

    3.Also, if the IRS completes the "required" Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 83 (SF83) for authorization for an OMB #, the IRS must list any regulations in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Privacy Act implying the sections of regulations to the code, thereby creating duly enacted law. However the IRS has never, to date, included or implemented 26 CFR 1.1-1 "Tax on Individuals" as a regulation section to be used in connection with OMB # 1545-0074, i.e., the form 1040. It appears to me, the "Tax on Individuals" (direct tax) is not a tax to be used on a form that includes OMB # 1545-0074, the form 1040. Plus, there are "at least" 3 OMB forms now that I know of that use the same OMB #, which is in direct conflict, or stated another way, in violation of the legal requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Obviously I have many more questions ESPECIALLY after reading the DOJ's own manual below. (Superseding section)

    Read the piece below and let me know if the highlights/under linings bring this into view.

    Please post your thoughts pertaining to 1 through 3 above.
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Thanks!

    http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/APA/R...WORKS/AG02.HTM
    or
    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1947ii.html


    II SECTION 3--PUBLIC INFORMATION
    The purpose of section 3 is to assist the public in dealing with administrative agencies by requiring agencies to make their administrative materials available in precise and current form. Section 3 should be construed broadly in the light of this purpose so as to make such material most useful to the public. The public information requirements of section 3 do not supersede the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). They are to be integrated with the existing program for publication of material in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Federal Register regulations (11 F.R. 9833) govern the manner in which documents are to be prepared prior to submission to the Division of the Federal Register. All materials issued under section 3 (a) of the Act will be included in the Code of Federal Regulations and should be prepared accordingly. The Division of the Federal Register is prepared to offer assistance to the agencies in this respect.


    .
    Last edited by sojustask; 02-27-2007 at 01:58 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Your thoughts...

    The sixteenth is indeed an oft misunderstood amendment, at least it's application to article one. It's very complicated as it has turned out over the years as many courts have heard argument referencing it. I have a number of "opinions" regarding your post but since you ask that I not express them I offer this "thought." I know of no laws, acts or statutes on the books today that have been found to be unconstitutional by appropriate court challenges.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    I am thinking out loud here and requesting your "thoughts" not opinion or advice. Please read the following very carefully.

    1.Did the 16th Amendment repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation without apportionment imposed at Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 "of the American Constitution?

    No, it amended the limitation by excluding taxes on income from the limitation.

    2. If the 16th Amendment did repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation, what existing lawful statutory authority did Congress have to overturn its very own limitations imposed directly from the founding fathers of this nation, especially after each member has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution?

    Congress had no such authority, nor was any needed, because Congress did not ratify the 16th Amendment; the states did in accordance with Article V.

    Surely they are not going to state that they violated their oath of office and consent that they committed a criminal offense(s). (Regardless of whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not, this section is very clear all by itself. I do not care about the ratification issue at all. The ratification issue is not the relevant issue.)

    3.Also, if the IRS completes the "required" Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 83 (SF83) for authorization for an OMB #, the IRS must list any regulations in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Privacy Act implying the sections of regulations to the code, thereby creating duly enacted law. However the IRS has never, to date, included or implemented 26 CFR 1.1-1 "Tax on Individuals" as a regulation section to be used in connection with OMB # 1545-0074, i.e., the form 1040. It appears to me, the "Tax on Individuals" (direct tax) is not a tax to be used on a form that includes OMB # 1545-0074, the form 1040. Plus, there are "at least" 3 OMB forms now that I know of that use the same OMB #, which is in direct conflict, or stated another way, in violation of the legal requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Obviously I have many more questions ESPECIALLY after reading the DOJ's own manual below. (Superseding section)

    Read the piece below and let me know if the highlights/under linings bring this into view.

    Please post your thoughts pertaining to 1 through 3 above.
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Anyone reading the PRA will readily see that it does not apply to Form 1040, because the information collected on Form 1040 is required by law, not by regulation or other administrative decision. The courts have held that on several occasions. Even if it did apply, the alleged violations of tha PRA are internal governmental matters that have no effect, positive or negative, on anyone other than a few bureaucrats.

    Thanks!

    http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/APA/R...WORKS/AG02.HTM
    or
    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1947ii.html


    II SECTION 3--PUBLIC INFORMATION
    The purpose of section 3 is to assist the public in dealing with administrative agencies by requiring agencies to make their administrative materials available in precise and current form. Section 3 should be construed broadly in the light of this purpose so as to make such material most useful to the public. The public information requirements of section 3 do not supersede the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). They are to be integrated with the existing program for publication of material in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Federal Register regulations (11 F.R. 9833) govern the manner in which documents are to be prepared prior to submission to the Division of the Federal Register. All materials issued under section 3 (a) of the Act will be included in the Code of Federal Regulations and should be prepared accordingly. The Division of the Federal Register is prepared to offer assistance to the agencies in this respect.


    .
    ..........

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Read the piece below and let me know if the highlights/under linings bring this into view.
    What piece below? Surely you're not referring to the links to the law.

  5. #5
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    What piece below? Surely you're not referring to the links to the law.
    I think my friend was referring to the links provided because he never underlined or highlighted anything either.

    Lady Mod

  6. #6

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    I am thinking out loud here and requesting your "thoughts" not opinion or advice. Please read the following very carefully.

    1.Did the 16th Amendment repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation without apportionment imposed at Article 1 Section 9 Clause 3 "of the American Constitution?

    2. If the 16th Amendment did repeal or otherwise pre-empt the Congressional limitations on direct taxation, what existing lawful statutory authority did Congress have to overturn its very own limitations imposed directly from the founding fathers of this nation, especially after each member has sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution?

    Surely they are not going to state that they violated their oath of office and consent that they committed a criminal offense(s). (Regardless of whether the 16th amendment was ratified or not, this section is very clear all by itself. I do not care about the ratification issue at all. The ratification issue is not the relevant issue.)

    3.Also, if the IRS completes the "required" Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Standard Form 83 (SF83) for authorization for an OMB #, the IRS must list any regulations in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Privacy Act implying the sections of regulations to the code, thereby creating duly enacted law. However the IRS has never, to date, included or implemented 26 CFR 1.1-1 "Tax on Individuals" as a regulation section to be used in connection with OMB # 1545-0074, i.e., the form 1040. It appears to me, the "Tax on Individuals" (direct tax) is not a tax to be used on a form that includes OMB # 1545-0074, the form 1040. Plus, there are "at least" 3 OMB forms now that I know of that use the same OMB #, which is in direct conflict, or stated another way, in violation of the legal requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Privacy Act, and the Code of Federal Regulations. Obviously I have many more questions ESPECIALLY after reading the DOJ's own manual below. (Superseding section)

    Read the piece below and let me know if the highlights/under linings bring this into view.

    Please post your thoughts pertaining to 1 through 3 above.
    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Thanks!

    http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/APA/R...WORKS/AG02.HTM
    or
    http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/admin/1947ii.html


    II SECTION 3--PUBLIC INFORMATION
    The purpose of section 3 is to assist the public in dealing with administrative agencies by requiring agencies to make their administrative materials available in precise and current form. Section 3 should be construed broadly in the light of this purpose so as to make such material most useful to the public. The public information requirements of section 3 do not supersede the Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 301 et seq.). They are to be integrated with the existing program for publication of material in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. The Federal Register regulations (11 F.R. 9833) govern the manner in which documents are to be prepared prior to submission to the Division of the Federal Register. All materials issued under section 3 (a) of the Act will be included in the Code of Federal Regulations and should be prepared accordingly. The Division of the Federal Register is prepared to offer assistance to the agencies in this respect.


    .
    1 & 2 NO.

    The personal income tax is an EXCISE TAX and NOT a "direct tax".

    If you do some research, I believe that you will find that is because 26 CFR 1.1-1 is an "interpretive" regulation and NOT a SUBSTANTIVE regulation that has the "force & effect of law" on the general public. (which is why it says "In general...)

    “It has been established in a variety of contexts that properly promulgated, substantive agency regulations have the "force and effect of law." 18

    In order for a regulation to have the "force and effect of law," it must have certain substantive characteristics and be the product of certain procedural requisites. The central distinction among agency regulations found in the APA is that between "substantive rules" on the one hand and "interpretive rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice" on the other. 30 A "substantive [441 U.S. 281, 302] rule" is not defined in the APA, and other authoritative sources essentially offer definitions by negative inference. 31 But in Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974), we noted a characteristic inherent in the concept of a "substantive rule." We described a substantive rule - or a "legislative-type rule," id., at 236 - as one "affecting individual rights and obligations." Id., at 232. This characteristic is an important touchstone for distinguishing those rules that may be "binding" or have the "force of law." Id., at 235, 236.

    That an agency regulation is "substantive," however, does not by itself give it the "force and effect of law." The legislative power of the United States is vested in the Congress, and the exercise of quasi-legislative authority by governmental departments and agencies must be rooted in a grant of such power by the Congress and subject to limitations which that body imposes. As this Court noted in Batterton v. Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425 n. 9 (1977):

    "Legislative, or substantive, regulations are `issued by an agency pursuant to statutory authority and . . . implement [441 U.S. 281, 303] the statute, as, for example, the proxy rules issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission . . . . Such rules have the force and effect of law.'" 32

    Likewise the promulgation of these regulations must conform with any procedural requirements imposed by Congress. Morton v. Ruiz, supra, at 232. For agency discretion is limited not only by substantive, statutory grants of authority, but also by the procedural requirements which "assure fairness and mature consideration of rules of general application." NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759, 764 (1969). The pertinent procedural limitations in this case are those found in the APA.” CHRYSLER CORP. v. BROWN, 441 U.S. 281 (1979)

    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/441/281.html

    "Once promulgated, these regulations, called for by the statute itself, have the force of law, and violations thereof incur criminal prosecutions, just as if all the details had been incorporated into the congressional language. The result is that neither the statute nor the regulations are complete without the other. and only together do they have any force. In effect, therefore, the construction of one necessarily involves the construction of the other." UNITED STATES v. MERSKY, 361 U.S. 431 (1960)

    http://laws.findlaw.com/us/361/431.html

    And that you will also find out that 95 PERCENT of the population did NOT OWE the personal income tax UNTIL the introduction of the VICTORY TAX (which was a TEMPORARY war time measure) which EXTENDED the TAX from GOVERNMENT WORKERS and CORPORATE/PUBLIC OFFICERS to the GENERAL PUBLIC.

    "In 1939 only about five percent of American workers paid income tax. The United States' entrance into World War II changed that figure. The demands of war production put almost every American back to work, but the expense of the war still exceeded tax-generated revenue. President Roosevelt's proposed Revenue Act of 1942 introduced the broadest and most progressive tax in American history, the Victory Tax. Now, about 75 percent of American workers would pay income taxes. Because so many citizens paid the tax, it was considered a mass tax. To ease workers' burden of paying a large sum once a year, and to create a regular flow of revenue into the U.S. Treasury, the government required employers to withhold money from employees' paychecks. Additional taxes were put in place in 1943. By war's end in 1945, about 90 percent of American workers submitted income tax forms, and 60 percent paid taxes on their income. The federal government covered more than half its expenses with new income tax revenue.

    http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...p/IWT2L5lp.jsp

    What most people do NOT REALIZE is that the VICTORY TAX was REPEALED in 1944.

    SEC 6. REPEAL OF VICTORY TAX
    (a) In general. Subchapter D of Chapter 1 (relating to the victory tax) is repealed.
    (b) Technical amendments.
    (1) Section 3 (relating to classification of provisions) is amended by striking out the following:
    "Subchapter D--Victory tax on individuals, divided into parts and sections."
    (2) Section 56(f) (cross reference) is amended by striking out ", 144, and Part II of Subchapter D" and inserting in lieu thereof "and 144".
    (3) Section 103 (relating to rates of tax on citizens and corporations of certain foreign countries) is amended by striking out "and 450" wherever appearing therein and inserting in lieu thereof "and 400".
    (4) Section 131(a) (relating to taxes of foreign countries and possessions of the United States) is amended by striking out "or section 450".
    (5) Section 131(i) (relating to tax withheld at source) is amended by striking out "466(e)" and by inserting in lieu thereof "35".
    (6) Section 145(e) (cross reference) is amended to read as follows: [remainder of section omitted]

    Act May 29, 1944, 7 p. m., E. W. T., c. 210, 58 Stat. 234.
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    And that you will also find out that 95 PERCENT of the population did NOT OWE the personal income tax UNTIL the introduction of the VICTORY TAX (which was a TEMPORARY war time measure) which EXTENDED the TAX from GOVERNMENT WORKERS and CORPORATE/PUBLIC OFFICERS to the GENERAL PUBLIC.
    If 95% of the population did not owe the personal income tax, then very few government workers, who were no better paid then than they are now, did not owe any personal income tax. All the Victory Tax did was greatly lower the standard deduction.

    What most people do NOT REALIZE is that the VICTORY TAX was REPEALED in 1944.
    That is certainly one of the things most people do not realize. Most people are unaware that the Victory Tax ever existed, so it's not surprising that they are ignorant of its repeal. Those people who are aware of the Victory Tax fall into two categories, tax deniers, who think it was never repealed, and rational people, who know it was. The Victory Tax is an interesting footnote in the history of taxation, but of no relevance today.

  8. #8

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    If 95% of the population did not owe the personal income tax, then very few government workers, who were no better paid then than they are now, did not owe any personal income tax. All the Victory Tax did was greatly lower the standard deduction.

    That is certainly one of the things most people do not realize. Most people are unaware that the Victory Tax ever existed, so it's not surprising that they are ignorant of its repeal. Those people who are aware of the Victory Tax fall into two categories, tax deniers, who think it was never repealed, and rational people, who know it was. The Victory Tax is an interesting footnote in the history of taxation, but of no relevance today.
    The IRS seems to DISAGREE with you on its SIGNIFICANCE.

    "President Roosevelt's proposed Revenue Act of 1942 introduced the broadest and most progressive tax in American history, the Victory Tax. Now, about 75 percent of American workers would pay income taxes."
    http://www.irs.gov/app/understandin...lp/IWT2L5lp.jsp
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    The IRS seems to DISAGREE with you on its SIGNIFICANCE.
    Your link is broken. The excerpt you quoted is talking about the effect of the Victory Tax in 1942. I was clearly talking about it's current effect, which is non-existent.

  10. #10

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    Your link is broken. The excerpt you quoted is talking about the effect of the Victory Tax in 1942. I was clearly talking about it's current effect, which is non-existent.
    Try http://www.irs.gov/app/understanding...p/IWT2L5lp.jsp

    And WHY do you say that the current effect is "non-existent" when many of DEFINITIONS used TODAY in Title 26 are taken from the BUCK ACT (1940) and the 1939 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE?

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0----000-.html

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/s...1_26notes.html

    And legally, isn't there is a huge DIFFERENCE between the following definitions?

    The term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

    The term “employee” SHALL ALSO include an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” SHALL ALSO include an officer of a corporation.

    Especially if people understand some of the following CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION?

    EJUSDEM GENERIS. Of the same kind, class, or nature.
    In statutory construction, the "ejusdem generis rule" is that where general words follow an enumeration of persons or things. by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same general kind or class as those specifically mentioned. Black, Interp. Laws, 141; Cutshaw v. Denver, 19 Colo. App. 341, 75 Pac. 22; Ex parte Leland, 1 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 462; Spalding v. People, 172 Ill. 40, 49 N. B. 993. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 415.

    Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. A maxim of statutory interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d 321, 325; Newblock v. Bowles, 170 Okl. 487, 40 P.2d 1097, 1100. Mention of one thing implies exclusion of another. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract, or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. Under this maxim, if statute specifies one exception to a general rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision, other exceptions or effects are excluded.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 581

    Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others. ... This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes [a] particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

    Noscitur a sociis. It is known from its associates. 1 Vent. 225. The meaning of a word is or may be known from the accompanying words. 3 Term R. 87; Broom, Max. 588. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 2ND EDITION, pages 830.

    And couldn't having an understanding of the CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION make a big DIFFERENCE in HOW people INTERPRETE these DEFINITIONS?

    26 USC 3401 (c) Employee
    For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

    26 USC 7701(a)(26) Trade or business
    The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...1----000-.html

    26 USC 1402(a) Net earnings from self-employment
    The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business, plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702 (a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member; except that in computing such gross income and deductions and such distributive share of partnership ordinary income or loss— ...[rest omitted]
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...2----000-.html

    After all, those who work for the government, hold public office and/or are public officers are hold postions of PUBLIC TRUST, don't they?

    Unlike your average person who simply works for someone else and is NOT ACTING in a FIDUCIARY CAPACITY and so would NOT be in the SAME GENERAL CLASS as the DEFINED "employee" or the person who is involved in a "trade or business" or has "“net earnings from self-employment”?
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    And WHY do you say that the current effect is "non-existent" when many of DEFINITIONS used TODAY in Title 26 are taken from the BUCK ACT (1940) and the 1939 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE?
    You definitely win the award for most bizarre non-sequitur. Here's a clue, the Victory Tax was not part of the Buck act or the 1939 IRC.

    And legally, isn't there is a huge DIFFERENCE between the following definitions?

    The term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” also includes an officer of a corporation.

    The term “employee” SHALL ALSO include an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term “employee” SHALL ALSO include an officer of a corporation.
    There is no semantic difference, and therefore no legal difference, between those two statements in isolation.

    Especially if people understand some of the following CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION?
    The first canon of statutory construction is that a statute means what it says unless the result is clearly erroneous. The meaning of the word "includes" is specifically clarified in the IRC. Therefore, no general maxim of statutory interpretation is needed to understand it.

    "The terms “includes” and “including” when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." IRC §7701(c)

    The word "employee" is expanded in scope by the definition in the Code, not diminished.

    And couldn't having an understanding of the CANONS OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION make a big DIFFERENCE in HOW people INTERPRETE these DEFINITIONS?

    26 USC 3401 (c) Employee
    For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee" also includes an officer of a corporation.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...01----000-.html

    26 USC 7701(a)(26) Trade or business
    The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...01----000-.html

    26 USC 1402(a) Net earnings from self-employment
    The term “net earnings from self-employment” means the gross income derived by an individual from any trade or business carried on by such individual, less the deductions allowed by this subtitle which are attributable to such trade or business, plus his distributive share (whether or not distributed) of income or loss described in section 702 (a)(8) from any trade or business carried on by a partnership of which he is a member; except that in computing such gross income and deductions and such distributive share of partnership ordinary income or loss— ...[rest omitted]
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...02----000-.html

    After all, those who work for the government, hold public office and/or are public officers are hold postions of PUBLIC TRUST, don't they?
    No. And try to stick to the topic under discussion, the federal income tax. Neither of those sections are relevant to the question of the validity of the federal income tax.

  12. #12

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Gee, which of these taxes is the INCOME TAX?

    26 CFR 31.0-2 General definitions and use of terms.

    (a) In general. As used in the regulations in this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated--
    (1) The terms defined in the provisions of law contained in the regulations in this part shall have the meanings so assigned to them.
    ...
    (8) Person includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, a trust or estate, a joint-stock company, an association, or a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture or other unincorporated organization or group, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on. It includes a guardian, committee, trustee, executor, administrator, trustee in bankruptcy, receiver, assignee for the benefit of creditors, conservator, or any person acting in a fiduciary capacity.
    ...
    (19) The cross references in the regulations in this part to other portions of the regulations, when the word ``see'' is used, are made only for convenience and shall be given no legal effect.
    (b) Subpart B. As used in Subpart B of this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated--
    (1) Act means the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.
    (2) Taxes means the employee tax and the employer tax, as respectively defined in this paragraph.
    (3) Employee tax means the tax (with respect to wages received by an employee after Dec. 31, 1965, the taxes) imposed by section 3101 of the Code.
    (4) Employer tax means the tax (with respect to wages paid by an employer after Dec. 31, 1965, the taxes) imposed by section 3111 of the Code.
    (c) Subpart C. As used in Subpart C of this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated--
    ...
    (5) Tax means the employee tax, the employee representative tax, or the employer tax, as respectively defined in this paragraph.
    (6) Employee tax means the tax imposed by section 3201 of the Code.
    (7) Employee representative tax means the tax imposed by section 3211 of the Code.
    (8) Employer tax means the tax imposed by section 3221 of the Code.
    (d) Subpart D. As used in Subpart D of this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated:
    (1) Act means the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
    ...
    (3) Tax means the tax imposed by section 3301 of the Code.
    (e) Subpart E. As used in Subpart E of this part, unless otherwise expressly indicated, tax means the tax required to be deducted and withheld from wages under section 3402 of the Code.
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...6cfr31.0-2.htm

    Could it possibly be the TAX they don't name and refer to as the "tax required to be deducted and withheld from wages under section 3402 of the Code"?

    After it is in CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_C_20_24.html

    Could it be because that chapter also ESTABLISHS LIABILITY for the INCOME TAX?
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Gee, which of these taxes is the INCOME TAX?

    26 CFR 31.0-2 ...
    There's no need to read further. Part 31 of the 26 CFR deals only with employment taxes, not the income tax.


    After it is in CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...10_C_20_24.html

    Could it be because that chapter also ESTABLISHS LIABILITY for the INCOME TAX?
    No, my guess would be that it's called that because it's the chapter about collection of income tax at source on wages. I find it's easier to assume, absent information to the contrary, that titles are accurate. It's certainly simpler than your method of reading the words in random order and adding others to suit your fancy.

  14. #14

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    There's no need to read further. Part 31 of the 26 CFR deals only with employment taxes, not the income tax.

    No, my guess would be that it's called that because it's the chapter about collection of income tax at source on wages. I find it's easier to assume, absent information to the contrary, that titles are accurate. It's certainly simpler than your method of reading the words in random order and adding others to suit your fancy.
    Hmmm...

    CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_C_20_24.html

    SUBCHAPTER C--EMPLOYMENT TAXES AND COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE
    http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...31_main_02.tpl

    You "think" that sections of the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations that deal with the "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE" and the "Liability for tax" have nothing to do with the income tax?

    Voltaire was RIGHT, "common sense is not so common."
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    228

    Re: Your thoughts...

    You "think" that sections of the U.S. Code and the Code of Federal Regulations that deal with the "COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE" and the "Liability for tax" have nothing to do with the income tax?
    I said that such sections did not establish the liability for the income tax. I will charitably assume for now that you have a reading comprehension problem. Further attempts on your part to misrepresent what I wrote might require a revision of that policy.

  16. #16

    Re: Your thoughts...

    Quote Originally Posted by Parcival
    I said that such sections did not establish the liability for the income tax. I will charitably assume for now that you have a reading comprehension problem. Further attempts on your part to misrepresent what I wrote might require a revision of that policy.
    DOCUMENTATION beats conversation.

    TITLE 26 > Subtitle C > CHAPTER 24

    CHAPTER 24—COLLECTION OF INCOME TAX AT SOURCE ON WAGES

    § 3401. Definitions
    § 3402. Income tax collected at source
    § 3403. Liability for tax
    § 3404. Return and payment by governmental employer
    § 3405. Special rules for pensions, annuities, and certain other deferred income
    § 3406. Backup withholding
    [§§ 3451 to 3456. Repealed.]

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_C_20_24.html

    And you were saying?
    Patrick in California

    http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus

    "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done."--Peter Ustinov

Similar Threads

  1. Keep your thoughts
    By Old Timer in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-02-2009, 04:53 PM
  2. New MLM - Any one have thoughts?
    By WSUTTON in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-18-2008, 12:56 AM
  3. Thoughts on this....
    By Yeah Well Fine Then in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 10:18 AM
  4. Thoughts
    By Ronald in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 11:26 AM
  5. Some Thoughts
    By ianmatthews in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-14-2007, 06:10 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •