Guys, is there something wrong with the logic here, particularly concerning the one sentence quoted from 1.861-8(a)? No one is answering. I'm not sure whether...
MessageThis is a little lengthy and more info can be found at http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/ronarl/Taxation.htm but: Now let's start looking at entries...
Auburn, NH. On March 5, 2003, federal income tax protester Steven A. Swan of Auburn, New Hampshire voluntarily appeared before a federal grand jury in Concord,...
A federal grand jury is called by a federal c0ourt, meaning the federal court must be one having proper jurisdiction, which is the matter at hand (in this case...
As you know, Taxgate has a history with NITE, that's why they're being treated similarly. Taxgate, to my knowledge, did nothing wrong, nor were they tried, but...
Everything looked fine, until a point in the analysis where it just exploded. My comments are in CAPS. Sec. 7701. Definitions (a) When used in this title,...
Hi Eva, I know Paul Andrew Mitchell since 1993. Back then he called himself Mitch Modoleski. Why? I don not know, perhaps you can ask him. He is reading the...
Freedom Law School
freedom@...
Mar 6, 2003 11:42 am
1966
You cannot put in words that are not there. The court has ruled against that. Study up on the definition of the term "includes" and "including: In Title 26,...
Hi Eva and everyone else, Part of our group met with Lynn! I am not sure who she is! When someone states the following, "What happened to Lynn's "sovereign...
Dear Ronald, While I do not disagree with your email, just how does one get a handle on anything within the CODE (a secret word game). They have changed so ...
The federal government uses trickery of words. They purposely redefine common terms to mean something entirely different from the commonly understood meaning....
Wow Ronald, that was great! Thank you for that very educational research material. If any one cannot understand that includes is a word of confinement, not...
Simple, it means the District of Columbia but it does not exclude other territories as controlled by congress (within the meaning of the term as defined). ...
tackslaw, None of your response debated the position on the "give rise to" clause. Would someone please look up that phrase for the rest of us, to see if it ...
Jon, Please tell me why you omitted the words you did as if they never existed in your analysis. Cite me where the 861 argument hinges on the "give rise to"...
Ron, Could you finish your analysis? Please comment on your attempt to interpret the Code below(I still think a State is a State for purposes of the Code, no...
If you make money for the performance of your labor or services in the United States, see how 861 wont work for you below: Okay I make 100g 26 USC section 1...
Read again carefully all definitions, especially that for "employee". Then you will understand that the term "employee" as defined in IRC 3401 consists of...
This is all very insightful. But it doesn't change the fact that 861 is a qualified statute (as per its regulations and the Constitution) and therefore all...
Whether or not I ommitted the words, if indeed "give rise to" means what I perceive it to mean (and no, the "861 argument" does not hinge on this, but it might...
Why refuse to comment on this obvious misunderstanding of statutory analysis? (1) 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) lists the sources that are taxable for the purposes...
tackslaw, Please stop typing in ALL CAPS and get an HTML-capable e-mail client. ALL CAPS is considered yelling and is very rude. This is your warning. Rudeness...
MessageThere are no regulations of final rule having legal effect in the Federal Register. You should learn about the Federal Register and the fact that there...
Ron, that made absolutely no sense at all. I honestly dont have a clue what 911 has to do with proposed regulations and 861. 861 is not a proposed regulation,...
... Please tell me how you come to this conclusion using the text of that law you cited. Thanks. Cheers ... 861 is a ... Congress ... noting what ... won't...
Of course, like I said you assume that everything entered in the CFR has legal effect, and you are wrong. Sec. 861 is not backed by any regulations having...
While this is very old and some of the information needs some correction, most of it is correct. To my friends and family, I have reviewed the Internal Revenue...
Ron, quite right you are. I must hand it to you...you got me. Please inform Jon Davis and Larken Rose that the regulations for Section 861 have no legal...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
