17300Re: Peter Hendrickson convicted.
- Nov 11, 2009Maybe there SHOULD be an argument about "United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed".
WHAT "general consensus" are you referring to?
And WHERE did you get these "beliefs" about "federally connected dollars"?
It appears to me that those "beliefs" may be confusing you about issues regarding the IMPOSITION of the income tax in 26 USC 1 & the DETERMINATION of LIABILITY for it.
So to me it boils down to TWO QUESTIONS:
Have you been given the REQUIRED NOTICE that you are a person REQUIRED to file a return?
Are you engaged in an ACTIVITY/PRIVILEGE that REQUIRES WITHHOLDING?
Patrick in California
"It ain't what ya don't know that hurts ya. What really puts a hurtin' on ya is what ya knows for sure, that just ain't so." -- Uncle Remus
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John Hill" <otoman@...> wrote:
> Jerry Bell Wrote:
> United states persons are Federal persons which can be taxed.
> There is no argument regarding this. However, definitions do not IMPOSE taxes, nor do they necessarily limit those who can be taxed. Example: I am a private sector individual doing contracted work for the federal government, being paid by your tax dollars. Am I a government employee? NOT! Are my receipts taxable? The general consensus is YES since the "receipts" are federally connected. However, after somewhat reading Tommy Cryer's Memorandum, I have to admit that I am unable to connect the dots as to why the general consensus is correct. I STILL cannot find a tax that is "CLEARLY" imposed in Subtitle A on federally connected dollars. YES, the definition of "trade or business" relates to federally connected dollars. BUT,WHERE IS THE IMPOSITION OF THE TAX IN SUBTITLE A? If there is no "TAX IMPOSED," then there is "NO LIABILITY" for a tax!"
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>