Definition of Income

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

By the way...actor Wesley Snipes is on trial right now in federal court in Florida for tax evasion. He is facing something like 20 years in prison if convicted on all counts. Now, surely being an actor is not something even you guys would argue is a "priviledged activity."

That's not true.

In America, being an actor is most certainly a "privileged activity"..

If Snipes has an SSN, he has been enfranchised by the federal government and if he is using that SSN to collect income as a consequence of his acting skills/talents/career, then he is most certainly engaging in a "privileged activity"..

I think it was even Shoonra (maybe on this thread) who said something about a 6-year old boy who had an SSN b/c he was hired to work in a commercial?

Acting is very much a "privileged" activity.

Especially in the U.S. where most actors are simply bought-and-paid-for change agents being used to further the government's culture creation agenda.. But I'm not going to go down that rabbithole on this thread, or even this forum.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

If Snipes has an SSN, he has been enfranchised by the federal government and if he is using that SSN to collect income as a consequence of his acting skills/talents/career, then he is most certainly engaging in a "privileged activity".

You still haven't explained how the income tax, along with other indirect taxes, was upheld in the absence of any "privileged activity" long before we had SSN's.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

You still haven't explained how the income tax, along with other indirect taxes, was upheld in the absence of any "privileged activity" long before we had SSN's.

I'll get around to that when it pleases me.

In the meantime, do you deny that having a SSN makes you an enfranchised person wrt the federal government, and that using that SSN to draw income creates a nexus of liability wrt the income tax?

[indio007]

Discharge of indebtedness is gross income.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61
Prev | Next
§ 61. Gross income defined
.......
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;





Every bill you've ever "paid" in your life is supposed to be counted as gross income

US CODE
TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART III > § 108

.....

(10) Indebtedness satisfied by issuance of debt instrument
(A) In general
For purposes of determining income of a debtor from discharge of indebtedness, if a debtor issues a debt instrument in satisfaction of indebtedness, such debtor shall be treated as having satisfied the indebtedness with an amount of money equal to the issue price of such debt instrument.


When you (the living being) receive a "bill" from some company in the name of the strawman the debt is discharged.

.......

(4) Acquisition of indebtedness by person related to debtor

(A) Treated as acquisition by debtor
For purposes of determining income of the debtor from discharge of indebtedness, to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the acquisition of outstanding indebtedness by a person bearing a relationship to the debtor specified in section 267 (b) or 707 (b)(1) from a person who does not bear such a relationship to the debtor shall be treated as the acquisition of such indebtedness by the debtor. Such regulations shall provide for such adjustments in the treatment of any subsequent transactions involving the indebtedness as may be appropriate by reason of the application of the preceding sentence.


....
267
(b) Relationships
The persons referred to in subsection (a) are:
(1) Members of a family, as defined in subsection (c)(4);
(2) An individual and a corporation more than 50 percent in value of the outstanding stock of which is owned, directly or indirectly, by or for such individual;
(3) Two corporations which are members of the same controlled group (as defined in subsection (f));
(4) A grantor and a fiduciary of any trust; <---the living being
(5) A fiduciary of a trust and a fiduciary of another trust, if the same person is a grantor of both trusts;
(6) A fiduciary of a trust <---living being and a beneficiary <---strawman of such trust;
(7) A fiduciary of a trust and a beneficiary of another trust, if the same person is a grantor of both trusts;

etc....

Now you should know that the vast amjority of ppl have been doing your taxes and finances wrong for their entire lives.

Every bill you've ever paid is income and as such the living being deserves a refund if he/she created the credit by signature....

[mnchicago]

>It's common to hear in Patriot Circles that the IRC >doesn't define the word "income"..

>Now, glancing through Title 26, we see that terms >such as "gross income", "adjusted gross >income", "taxable income", etc are all defined:


>My question is: i[f] the idea that "income" isn't defined >in the IRS just a Patriot Myth, or does it stem from the >fact that all these definitions given above (gross >income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc) >are all defined circularly in terms of this abstract >concept of "income" - a concept which itself is *not* >defined in the IRC?


Thursday 24 April 2008

I do not read the tax code because it does not apply to
me. It is an example of a master deception in writing.

>gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income,

Those specific terms are likely defined in the tax code,
but not one of those terms is a definition of "income."
Of course, for anyone willing to make an assumption
that these specific terms are equal to the definition of
"income," which is certainly not defined, then the IRS
will do nothing to dissuade one of such an erroneous
assumption. In fact, the IRS counts on it.

To anyone who cares to heed this, arguing the tax code
is a fool's errand. If one will simply challenge the
jurisdiction of the IRS from the first contact from them,
going to court will never happen.

The above does not apply to anyone who has voluntarily
provided his/her signature, agreeing to be a 14th Amend
citizen. In that case, pay your taxes and never argue
with the IRS.

It really is that simple.

All of this pissing and moaning over what the code says
or means, or what it doesn't say or doesn't mean is a
huge joke, and all the quatlosers gloat over it.

Get the IRS to prove you are "subject to" any of the
tax code, [except the above caveat], get them to
reveal the law that requires anyone to file, acknowledge
that you are more than willing to pay ALL of the taxes
which you LAWFULLY owe. And KEEP that burden on
them.

Anything else is a waste of time and a flexing of one's
ignorant ego, but we all make choices.

One needs to know three things to tell the irs to kiss off,
and I have told several agents to their faces to do so:

1. Jurisdiction

2. Jurisdiction

3. Jurisdiction


Cheers!

mn

[mnchicago]

>It's common to hear in Patriot Circles that the IRC >doesn't define the word "income"..

>Now, glancing through Title 26, we see that terms >such as "gross income", "adjusted gross >income", "taxable income", etc are all defined:


>My question is: i[f] the idea that "income" isn't defined >in the IRS just a Patriot Myth, or does it stem from the >fact that all these definitions given above (gross >income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc) >are all defined circularly in terms of this abstract >concept of "income" - a concept which itself is *not* >defined in the IRC?


Thursday 24 April 2008

I do not read the tax code because it does not apply to
me. It is an example of a master deception in writing.

>gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income,

Those specific terms are likely defined in the tax code,
but not one of those terms is a definition of "income."
Of course, for anyone willing to make an assumption
that these specific terms are equal to the definition of
"income," which is certainly not defined, then the IRS
will do nothing to dissuade one of such an erroneous
assumption. In fact, the IRS counts on it.

To anyone who cares to heed this, arguing the tax code
is a fool's errand. If one will simply challenge the
jurisdiction of the IRS from the first contact from them,
going to court will never happen.

The above does not apply to anyone who has voluntarily
provided his/her signature, agreeing to be a 14th Amend
citizen. In that case, pay your taxes and never argue
with the IRS.

It really is that simple.

All of this pissing and moaning over what the code says
or means, or what it doesn't say or doesn't mean is a
huge joke, and all the quatlosers gloat over it.

Get the IRS to prove you are "subject to" any of the
tax code, [except the above caveat], get them to
reveal the law that requires anyone to file, acknowledge
that you are more than willing to pay ALL of the taxes
which you LAWFULLY owe. And KEEP that burden on
them.

Anything else is a waste of time and a flexing of one's
ignorant ego, but we all make choices.

One needs to know three things to tell the irs to kiss off,
and I have told several agents to their faces to do so:

1. Jurisdiction

2. Jurisdiction

3. Jurisdiction


Cheers!

mn

[mnchicago]

>It's common to hear in Patriot Circles that the IRC >doesn't define the word "income"..

>Now, glancing through Title 26, we see that terms >such as "gross income", "adjusted gross >income", "taxable income", etc are all defined:


>My question is: i[f] the idea that "income" isn't defined >in the IRS just a Patriot Myth, or does it stem from the >fact that all these definitions given above (gross >income, adjusted gross income, taxable income, etc) >are all defined circularly in terms of this abstract >concept of "income" - a concept which itself is *not* >defined in the IRC?


Thursday 24 April 2008

I do not read the tax code because it does not apply to
me. It is an example of a master deception in writing.

>gross income, adjusted gross income, taxable income,

Those specific terms are likely defined in the tax code,
but not one of those terms is a definition of "income."
Of course, for anyone willing to make an assumption
that these specific terms are equal to the definition of
"income," which is certainly not defined, then the IRS
will do nothing to dissuade one of such an erroneous
assumption. In fact, the IRS counts on it.

To anyone who cares to heed this, arguing the tax code
is a fool's errand. If one will simply challenge the
jurisdiction of the IRS from the first contact from them,
going to court will never happen.

The above does not apply to anyone who has voluntarily
provided his/her signature, agreeing to be a 14th Amend
citizen. In that case, pay your taxes and never argue
with the IRS.

It really is that simple.

All of this pissing and moaning over what the code says
or means, or what it doesn't say or doesn't mean is a
huge joke, and all the quatlosers gloat over it.

Get the IRS to prove you are "subject to" any of the
tax code, [except the above caveat], get them to
reveal the law that requires anyone to file, acknowledge
that you are more than willing to pay ALL of the taxes
which you LAWFULLY owe. And KEEP that burden on
them.

Anything else is a waste of time and a flexing of one's
ignorant ego, but we all make choices.

One needs to know three things to tell the irs to kiss off,
and I have told several agents to their faces to do so:

1. Jurisdiction

2. Jurisdiction

3. Jurisdiction


Cheers!

mn

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

my head hurts just from looking at that.

irs code ="revenge of the nerds"

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

To anyone who cares to heed this, arguing the tax code
is a fool's errand. If one will simply challenge the
jurisdiction of the IRS from the first contact from them,
going to court will never happen.

The above does not apply to anyone who has voluntarily
provided his/her signature, agreeing to be a 14th Amend
citizen. In that case, pay your taxes and never argue
with the IRS.

mn

Have you ever "voluntarily"
provided a signature, agreeing to be a 14th Amend
citizen?

If not, how did you avoid doing so?

How do you, yourself, define "voluntarily?"

"Voluntarily" "signed" or not, tribute demanded by a fascist foreign national occupation junta are not "MY" "taxes."

[mnchicago]

Thursday 24 April 2008

>Have you ever "voluntarily" provided a signature,
>agreeing to be a 14th Amend citizen?

Ah, yes. Many times. I had to "register" vote. I've
cancelled that. As an elector, there is no one to elect.
All "candidates" run in the Federal arena, which I shun
like a disease.

I used to have my signature on a "signature card" of a
few banks. I have no banking relationships anymore.

I have "registered" for a driver's license, for commercial
purposed, unavoidable unfortunately, but above my
signature is "Without Prejudice." Plus, I now have any
traffic tickets I may get dimissed, for a variety of
lawful reasons.

I would never "register" for a marriage "certificate" which
makes the STATE a third party to any "marriage," and
any children that may ISSUE from that "marriage" belong
to the STATE. Why else do you think DCFS can take
children away from "parents?"

I would never register for a hand gun. The Constitution
guarantees me that.

Just a few examples, to answer you question.


>If not, how did you avoid doing so?

Of course, I know when I am in equity jurisdiction and
when I am not. Too many are not even aware of this
distinction, let alone how to avoid it.

Here's a little example of why I choose to never waive
my rights. I had a question about my gas bill. I called
to discuss it, but the representative absolutely refused
to do so until I provided her with "my SSN."

"Hold on, Missy! It aint MY SSN, it belongs to the federal
government, AND, more importantly, it is against the
law to require that I reveal THEIR number."

Nothing she could do. She's on;ly doing her job, I
understand that and sympathize with her and her own
ignorance, for she had no clue was I was talking about.

When pressed for their legal department to pursue the
matter further, she directed me the an ILLINOIS STATE
agency.

Say what?!

Next day, I sent of a Constructive Notice And Demand
to the legal department of the gas company informing
them of their illegal requirements, ending with a warning
that I am not adverse to going to court, [making them
incur court costs of at least several hundred FRNs].
I know they cannot win.

Helps to know the law.

>How do you, yourself, define "voluntarily?"

Probably the way anyone else would, an act which is
done in compliance to a request, or initiated without a
request, but an act done nonetheless.

>"Voluntarily" "signed" or not, tribute demanded by a
>fascist foreign national occupation junta are not "MY"
>"taxes."

You lose me in your description. If you are referring to
the irs, there are ways to render them harmless. That
you call them what you do infers you are not in control
of your situation with regards to the irs, for you deliver
that sentence with personal heat.

I see them as idiots who cannot meet a challenge.

I haven't a clue what you mean by "MY" "taxes," for they
are not really yours, are they? If you do pay taxes,
you had to volunteer to do so, like sign a tax form,
which, by the way, is not required by law, even in the
tax code.

But then again, I don't believe in the tax code.

Cheers!

mn