Definition of Income

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Libertarian

<i>Snipes got what he paid for, a conflict of interest.
</i>

Snipes got acquitted of all of the felony charges, so he is only getting 3 years. His co-defendant, who defended himself without a lawyer, got convicted of the felonies and got sentenced to 10 years.

I'd say Snipes got some value for what he paid his lawyer.

That is an example of making a statement after taking the issue at face value.
Doing so is absolutely worthless.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I hear several of you...

"defendant is required to file" is the accusatory pleading. But that is a conclusion, I object.

you know I never got hassled by the IRS either but I disappeared many years ago now. However my "last known address" still gets dunning letters once in a while (just random computer generated) demanding payment on bills that would have expired years ago anyway, just by the legal time limits.

At the end of the day its all gas. Demur to everything and see where they they take it. It doesn't matter any of this conceptual stuff, what counts is process.

Speculation is the Devil's playground.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by jeagas68

Well excuse me, you must live on another planet where typos never happen, milk don't get spilled and other such accidents never happen. Sorry, I live on a imperfect planet most call Earth.

Then don't believe me, I am not holding a gun to your head.

Negative people like you with eyes wide shut is why other people usually will not post proof of claim. How many frns are you willing to put on the table that I will not? If not any then your word is not even worth the dirt under my feet to give you that pleasure.

A typographical error is a keystroke error. It means you know how to spell the word, you just typed it incorrectly. For example, typing "teh" when "the" was obviously meant.

Not knowing how to spell the word in the first place is not a typo. It just means you're ignorant.

[rottweiler]

I disagree. In a court of record the sovereign declares the law. If the US declares you are required to file you need to immediately counter their claim that the government is sovereign over you, one of the people. The only question the jury will decide is did you or did you not file or did you honestly believe that you were not required to file. In the latter case, like Cryer, you will be required to pay.

You are looking for statutes and code when law trumps them both. "defendant is required to file" is law.

If demurring is your defense that will get you convicted fast.

Originally Posted by farmer_giles_of_ham

I hear several of you...

"defendant is required to file" is the accusatory pleading. But that is a conclusion, I object.

you know I never got hassled by the IRS either but I disappeared many years ago now. However my "last known address" still gets dunning letters once in a while (just random computer generated) demanding payment on bills that would have expired years ago anyway, just by the legal time limits.

At the end of the day its all gas. Demur to everything and see where they they take it. It doesn't matter any of this conceptual stuff, what counts is process.

Speculation is the Devil's playground.

[rottweiler]

If you demur that means you are agreeing to all the facts. That includes "defendant is required to file" and "defendant did not file".

I think you are confusing courts of record with nisi prius court which proceed by statute.

Originally Posted by rottweiler

I disagree. In a court of record the sovereign declares the law. If the US declares you are required to file you need to immediately counter their claim that the government is sovereign over you, one of the people. The only question the jury will decide is did you or did you not file or did you honestly believe that you were not required to file. In the latter case, like Cryer, you will be required to pay.

You are looking for statutes and code when law trumps them both. "defendant is required to file" is law.

If demurring is your defense that will get you convicted fast.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Not knowing how to spell the word in the first place is not a typo.

It just means you're ignorant.

No, "it just means" he either misspelled the word, or did not know how to spell it.

What you have just posted rather definitively illustrates that, perhaps, it is YOU who are ignorant.


As well as, perhaps, arrogantly puffed up.

[psholtz]

I haven't followed this thread in all its myriad detail (I've been meaning too, though), but it looks like we do have a definition of income (in perhaps a restricted form) at Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter 3, Part I, Subpart A (b) in Title 26:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...3----000-.html

[mrg]

(b) Income
For purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D, the term “income”,

when not preceded by the words “taxable”, “distributable net”, “undistributed net”, or “gross”,

means the amount of income of the estate or trust for the taxable year determined under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law.

Items of gross income constituting extraordinary dividends or taxable stock dividends which the fiduciary, acting in good faith, determines to be allocable to corpus under the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law

shall not be considered income.

With the foliage stripped away what I do see is:

(b) Income
the term “income...”means...income

At any rate this definition of this "income" as: "income...means...income," seems only to apply for "purposes of this subpart and subparts B, C, and D..." of:

TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE > Subtitle A Income Taxes > CHAPTER 1 NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES> Subchapter J Estates, Trusts, Beneficiaries, and Decedents> PART I ESTATES, TRUSTS, AND BENEFICIARIES> Subpart A General Rules for Taxation of Estates and Trusts> § 643: Definitions applicable to subparts A, B, C, and D...

What are "the terms of the governing instrument and applicable local law?"

This has to do with "estate or trust?"

What is that?

[ezrhythm]

[This line EDITED 5/4/08]: The definition of income is whatever you voluntarily enter on a line labeled, "income".

BUT, the idea is to not allow jurisdiction over one's self i the first place.

Gary posted; [edited from original]

Hi:
On Tuesday, April 18th while in provincial court in Regina, I immediately
read this to the judge :
"Good morning, I am known by the name Gary-Thomas:Clement. Spelled; Capital
G, lower case, a, r, y, dash. Capital T, lower case, h, o, m, a, s. Belonging to
the family name; Capital C, lower case, l, e, m, e, n, t. I am the
Creditor, Author, Agent of the CAPITALIZED ARTIFICIAL PERSON COPYRIGHT
TRADEMARK NAME CLAIM autograph of GARY THOMAS CLEMENT and I claim Common Law Jurisdiction and seek justice with Equity law remedy.

Look at the Judge as say, "Do you have any claims against me?"

Then turn to the lawyer and say, "Do you have any claims against me?"

For the record of this court, I present my Non Acceptance of Warrants for
arrest and I promise to pay your papers of commerce with Government Backed
Bonds within the next three months for I will honor your papers of commerce
as I stand in truth with Common Law jurisdiction.

Thank you"

Of course the judge, "HENNING" and senior crown prosecutor, "STOESSER" both
tried to talk over me several times. I just upped my volume for my four witnesses and stated, "I claim Common Law jurisdiction.". I was now on
equal footing with the judge and he knew it and had to recognize it and in
other words, he had to do everything I asked of HIM! I got everything I
asked for:-) It was a historic day in the courtroom not only for me but
for everyone. Now it is on record that my fines can be paid lawfully by
me writing up a government backed bond issued by my signature. Many of
us now can use my case as precedent when you are seeking to pay off your
credit card debts, mortgages, lines of credit etc. Needless to say, I have
been smiling an awful lot since Tuesday. Many Thanks go to Irene
Gravenhorst of Vancouver and her very informative workshop. I encourage you
all to attend as you will never regret it.

[psholtz]

I started this thread on Jan 21 of this year.

I love how it takes a whole cadre of some of the best legal minds on the Internet, from both the pro se camp as well as professional, "schooled" and "licensed" attorners, OVER THREE MONTHS OF EFFORT to dig out where in Title 26 there is something even remotely approximating a definition of "income"..

And I'm not sure it's even the right definition yet..

And even if it is, it's a pretty circular definition as mrg pointed out.

This is in the age of computerized document search, indexing and retrieval.

I just love it.. LOL..