Paradoxmagnus, You really need to read the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 and it definition of income - for all of the Tax Acts Thereafter, like the Sixteenth Amendment of 1913 must use this exactsame definition.
One more time: "Humans are not liable because we do not receive Corporate Income"
"Those who are SLAVES to DEFINITIONS are SUBJECT to REGULATION."--PKM
--- In legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Brown" <hollidayrb@...> wrote: > > Patrick, > > I don't see the "861" people as logical. If there were only certain humans living in certain places the Sixteenth could tax, it would have said that in the Sixteenth Amendment. The entire Title 26 USC pretends to be Codified from the Sixteenth. Pretends, because it is not Positive Law. > > The Sixteenth says it can tax incomes, not certain incomes from certain humans living in certain places. > > Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neil called the Code "9,500 pages of gibberish." The reason for the gibberish is to get humans like these "861" believers dazzled and confused in the absolute meaningless. > > The code only says one thing, fill out the 1040 form and give us a Lion's share of your labor. Really, just ask any Judge. > > Humans are not liable because we do not receive Corporate Income - Period. > > Richard > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: patrickhenry > To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:35 PM > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Sources > > > > I see, so back in the early 80s, I should have looked to 861, rather than others even referenced by the IRS such as 6001, 6011 and 6012(a) to determine if I were 1st liable, then "required" to file, and "then" subject to the details of 861? Hmmm! You mean I've not filed since for return of the 1st 4 months of Withholding for 1983, without using 861? Good golly, I wonder why I haven't even gotten an "inquiry" {CP-515 Letter, etc.} since April 1995? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Frank > To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:29 PM > Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Sources > > > You wouldn't know if you were REQUIRED to file, > until you followed the regulations at 861, > that tell you "HOW to DETERMINE TAXABLE income > from sources WITHIN U.S." > > So if those sections show that you do NOT OWE, > then I believe there is no duty to file a return , > if you do not owe any tax. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: paradoxmagnus > To: legality-of-income-tax@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 5:31 AM > Subject: [legality-of-income-tax] Re: Sources > > > Here's the PROBLEM I see. > > Unless you were a person REQUIRED to file a return "with respect to > income taxes under subtitle A", WHY would you be using those > portions of the Title 26 and the CFR that deal with "Income >From > Sources Within or Without the United States"? > > And even if those sections of the IRC show that you do NOT OWE, HOW > does that relieve you of your DUTY to file a return? > > Patrick in California > > http://www.travelpropower.com/paradoxmagnus > > "Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't." -- Mark > Twain
I would say that some people either NEVER filed and therefore CREATED the many PRESUMPTIONS and INFERENCES that "The Powers that Be" use to TAX us under there...
Paradoxmagnus, You really need to read the Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 and it definition of income - for all of the Tax Acts Thereafter, like the Sixteenth...
... That would come as news to: (a) the trust in Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U. S. 509 (1921), which although not a corporation, was...
In Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111 (1930), "This case presents the question whether the respondent, Earl, could be taxed for the whole of the salary and...
... Earl was an attorney in private practice and an officer of the Great Western Power Co., and he received income from both occupations. He did not work for...
As an officer of a corporation, Earl was therefore subject to the income tax as an excise for the privilege of doing business as a corporation. In truth, Dave ...
... Except that it was his employer who was doing business as a corporation, not Earl. If employment by a corporation is all that's required, then every...
... No, I was just pointing out that IF a privilege is required for an income tax (which is not and never has been the law), and IF Earl's being an officer of...
You are confusing the privilege of having employment with the privilege which the employment provides. The privilege of being an officer of the corporation is...
... No, it is the Board of Directors that determines the salaries of the top officers and the distribution of profits via dividends. ... No. See above. ... ...
But Congress does. 26 USC 3401(c) Employee For purposes of this chapter, the term "employee" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United...
... The top officers are usually members of the Board. ... The payroll comes out of the capital of the corporation and if there is a profit it can be deducted...
... Earl was also subject to the tax as a practicing attorney, by receiving the profits of the practice (compensation for services) as his own personal...
Earl's legal practice was probably in the form of a partnership which is also a government approved entity; hence, taxable earnings from such. ... as...
Humans are not liable because we do not receive 'income' on our labors. The definition of income never did include earnings from our own labor. Such a tax on...
... Congress was also quite clear when they imposed a tax on wages and personal earnings in the 1913 Tax Act, including tax withholding at the source. ... Yes,...
Hey Prof, You say that Congress could tax wages and earnings before the 16th Amendment----was it a DIRECT or INDIRECT tax??? ... very ... the ... 61...
The 16th accomplished nothing then, as you point out. Indirect it is applied now---although it is a capitation and Direct tax in reality.Why argue about the...
... No, it isn't, and I never claimed the 16th did nothing. ... What was accomplished was the overturn of the result in Pollock. What was accomplished was the...
... What ... from ... Exactly. And the key word in that statement is the word "from". Congress was not granted authorization to tax income "for" real or ...
... the ... This must have been the beginning of the fraud upon the people of the 50 states of the union. ... WRONG, they tax income, gain or profit, from...
... No. Section 2.E of the Revenue Act of 1913 provided as follows: All persons, firms, copartnerships companies, corporations, joint- stock companies or...
I've worked for myself as a General Contractor/Custom Remodeler/Architectural Designer-Engineer since May 1, 1983. Though various customers accountants have...
Offline 
Send Email