Definition of Income

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by 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

No. The term "discharge of indebtedness" refers to the forgiveness of a debt. For example, if you borrow $50,000 from a bank and later on the bank settles with you by your paying only $40,000 in satisfaction of your loan, you have $10,000 in gross income, subject to the exceptions in Section 108.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by psholtz

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

Believe me, I won't be holding my breath.

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?

I don't know what you mean by "an enfranchised person".

The SSN doesn't provide any kind of "nexus of liability wrt the income tax." That's why we had valid, constitutional, and enforceable income taxes way before we had Social Security (that fact really bugs you, doesn't it?). As far as the income tax is concerned, it's just a tool for tracking those who file or who are required to file a return, and tracking the payment of certain types of gross income. It's also useful in keeping tabs on the payment of payroll taxes.

[mnchicago]

Thursday 24 April 2008

Oh, my!

>I don't know what you mean by "an enfranchised >person".

Might be worth finding out.

>The SSN doesn't provide any kind of "nexus of liability
>wrt the income tax." That's why we had valid,
constitutional, and enforceable income taxes way before we had Social Security.

Ouch! What do you think the social security tax is?
If it ain't a nexus, what is?!

Who is "we?" I know I am not a part of your "we."

You use the past tense "had." To what are you
referring? If it is the so-called 16th Amend, no response
required. You have my sympathy.



>As far as the income tax is concerned, it's just a tool
>for tracking those who file or who are required to file a >return, and tracking the payment of certain types of >gross income.

Really! Just a "tool for tracking?" You do have my
sympathy!


>It's also useful in keeping tabs on the payment of
>payroll taxes.

You're just a fountain of [mis]information. What are
your sources for these conclusions?

Nothing personal, mertensv16, although you will take it
that way, but this is nonsense. I know I am being a bit
flip, but nothing you say holds any water.

My purpose in responding, and I dislike responding to
posts like this, is to have you, or anyone else who may
think this way, to recognize beliefs are ABOUT reality,
and not the reality itself.

Change the way you see things, and the things you
see change.

Well, that is true for some.

Cheers!

mn

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

>I don't know what you mean by "an enfranchised >person".

Might be worth finding out.

Thanks, but I don't see the need to try and decipher tax denier gibberish.

>The SSN doesn't provide any kind of "nexus of
> liability wrt the income tax." That's why we had valid,
>constitutional, and enforceable income taxes way
>before we had Social Security.

Ouch! What do you think the social security tax is?
If it ain't a nexus, what is?!

The SS tax is an excise tax on employment, measured by "wages", as statutorily defined. One can be liable for income tax without being either an employer or employee.

And what is your legal authority for the proposition that some sort of "nexus" is required in order for Congress to legally tax income? Please provide citations.

You use the past tense "had." To what are you
referring? If it is the so-called 16th Amend, no response
required. You have my sympathy.

You might want to read Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution and the Springer case, 102 U.S.586
(1880). You have my sympathy for being so uninformed.

Nothing personal, mertensv16, although you will take it that way, but this is nonsense. I know I am being a bit flip, but nothing you say holds any water.

Then you should have no difficulty in citing legal authorities that show that anything I posted is incorrect.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by mnchicago

Thursday 24 April 2008

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


---snip for brevity---

Cheers!

mn

Thanks mn, its most appreciated.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

That's why we had valid, constitutional, and enforceable income taxes way before we had Social Security (that fact really bugs you, doesn't it?).

You were paying your income taxes before the Victory Act of 1942?

Remember that SS was passed in 1935.

1935 < 1942

[mnchicago]

Thursday 24 April 2008

mertensv16:

>Then you should have no difficulty in citing legal
>authorities that show that anything I posted is
>incorrect.

I am my own authority for me and require no case law
cites, unless I have to deal with equity in court.

You mix equity and the constitution without making any
distinction. If you feel more comfortable having some
case cite to back you up, have at it. That need does
not exist for me.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a social security tax is
still a TAX, is it not. Your qualification of it does not
mean anything to me.

A tax is a tax, and for the record, I am not a taxpayer,
so the absence of case law is for a reason. Prove to
me that I need it, and merely to satisfy your own needs
is not sufficient.

But thanks for the sympathy.

Cheers!

mn

[mertensv16]

The first federal income tax was enacted in 1861, and its constitutionality was upheld in 1880.

The constitutionality of the 1913 income tax was upheld in 1916.

Both of these acts predated Social Security. Neither required any kind of "federal privilege". Both taxed all income above a certain threshold amount.

The Victory Act (technically the revenue Act of 1942)wasn't the genesis of the income tax, nor was it the first act to require withholding.

[yebliker]

Hi mn- This is very interesting to me. Is this akin to those letters in "The Federal Zone" where the writer tells the IRS that they are essentially a nonresident alien with respect to the Federal Zone ? If you have done this your self, can you post the letter? I appreciate it-
yebliker

Originally Posted by mnchicago

>
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

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The Victory Act (technically the revenue Act of 1942)wasn't the genesis of the income tax, nor was it the first act to require withholding.

You failed to answer my question.

Were you paying your income tax before the Victory Act of 1942?