Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: An Apparent Conflict

Expand Messages
  • ciamarie2001
    It s been a few years since I researched all of that, however here s my understanding: There are several definitions of United States -- so it really would
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 27, 2008
      It's been a few years since I researched all of that, however here's
      my understanding:

      There are several definitions of 'United States' -- so it really would
      depend on what definition you're using. However, the key word in
      section 861 and related sections, as well as in the 16th amendment is
      the word 'source'.

      Under the regs for section 861, it shows a list of types or items of
      income from sources within the United States that are NOT exempt, and
      are thus taxable. The list then shows mostly some types of corporate
      income as well as some possessions income as taxable. So in this
      instance, whether the definition of U.S. encompasses 'the several
      states' or not, the types of income shown as not exempt is very limited.

      The 16th amendment says that Congress can lay a tax on incomes from
      whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several
      states. Right? Now this goes against most people's thinking or
      brainwashing, as the case may be - but I submit to you that the only
      way the 16th amendment can be in harmony with the part of the
      Constitution that forbids a direct tax unless apportioned, is if they
      lay said tax OUTSIDE of the several states. There is no need for
      apportionment in that case. What is the definition of the word
      'without' ? For those of you with a King James B-ble, you'll see that
      the word 'without' is for something outside of someplace else.

      Some say that ALL direct taxes require apportionment, and that's not
      true, it only says apportionment is required 'among the several
      states'. The writers of the 16th amendment got tricky with the wording
      and managed to fool a lot of people. The income tax was implemented
      under various tariff acts (tariff of 1909 and 1913). A tariff requires
      an ITEM (see sect 61 of the IRC), such as widgets, as well as a SOURCE
      or origin -- i.e. China. Source is always a place, so therefore
      'wages', or 'dividends and interest' are not a source of income, but
      they are an item of income. The source part of the equation must still
      be determined to finish the calculation under a tariff.

      Hope that helps.


      --- In tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com, "westernwit" <westernwit@...>
      > Section 861 arguers say that those "within the united States" are
      > exempted from taxation.
      > On another bit that I saw, it is postulated that the United States
      > consists only of the Dist. of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
      > amounting to 5 entities. Sounded and looked reasonable...
      > Now, if according to USC the United States is only those entities then
      > isn't there a problem with the reading of 861? If the United States
      > is DC and Guam, etc then aren't all citizens living in the several
      > States living "without the United States"?
      > If we are living "without the United States" then, according to 861 we
      > are liable, but if we are "without" aren't we then out of the
      > jurisdiction of the United States?
      > I am sooooo confused. Help.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.