Definition of Income

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Lawdog:

Some things they have decided not to tax, like life insurance proceeds. But that is merely a matter of legislative grace.

It is conceptually and logically impossible to tax any insurance proceeds, since the "transaction" is REPLACEMENT of value- a prepaid credit.

By your logic there but for the grace of Congress, tax could charged on the change received from a purchase at for example a store. After all, I "received" some money "coming in", right?

Since of course taxes are on "income", and not the "source derived", as we are openly reminded in the 16th amendment.

What's really funny is if this logic is fully extended, then since we all are charged taxes in every random direction, that which is bought with money should ALSO be taxed- "fair market value", right?

I pay 100, and get some stuff, which is worth 100, so both sides got something "come-in", and are taxed accordingly...remember the next time you buy groceries and receive their fair-market value to declare that on your 1040...

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

You're not going to find a definition of stand-alone "income".

The IRC defines "gross income", then provides all sorts of exemptions and deductions by which gross income is adjusted downward, and then imposes the tax upon the "adjusted income".

Legal gibberish.

How, precisely, and with specific particularity, can the so-called "IRC" presume to "define" "gross income" without "defining" "income," and to add insult to injury use the undefined term "income" to define the term "gross income" itself?

Frivolous legal gibberish.



Of course one is "not going to find a definition of stand-alone 'income'."

Which shell is the pea under?




It is an extortion racket, and you know it.

It is a strong-arm "protection" racket, complete with "enforcers."

You seem to have a vested interest in it.

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

No, Congress cannot tax someone living in France or China or any other foreign country who is not an American citizen and has no income from doing business in the United States.

Gentlemen, we have a WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chinese Panda]

I some questions. Since it is a matter of public record that...

1. On August 15, 1996, Garrick R. Shear, IRS Reports Clearing Officer, did certify on behalf of the IRS, that IRS Form 1040 complies with 5 CFR 1320.9 as a "proposed form".

Since I don't know when exactly the IRS certified to the Office of Management and Budget that IRS Form 1040 complies with 5 CFR 1320.8, is there a case that tells me that? Is there an agency that is supposed to tell me if I ask, if so what agency is that?

Since I don't know what is the legal authority for this information collection "Form 1040" (Cite United States Code, Public Law, Executive Order), is there a case that tells me that? Is there an agency that is supposed to tell me if I ask, if so what agency is that?

Since I don't know what is the regulatory authority for this information collection "Form 1040" (Cite Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register or other authority), is there a case that tells me that? Is there an agency that is supposed to tell me if I ask, if so what agency is that?

So, what Form am I required by law to report my income on?

By the way "Mrg", I loved your post #50 in this thread.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

I should have been more precise...

[indago]

Lawdog wrote:

Again, you guys need to read Dan Evans' Tax Protester FAQ page. Every common tax protester argument is analyzed and refuted there with tons of citations to the actual law.

Talk about "tax protester"...

On the date 19 August 1982, a resolution, H. Res. 571, was brought before the House of Representatives for consideration which concerned the unconstitutionality of the methods used in the Senate concerning H.R. 4961, Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). The resolution declared that the Senate had taken the tax cut that President had proposed, and that the House of Representatives had acted upon, and added amendments, making it one of the largest tax increases up to that time. Representative Dan Rostenkowski then moved to lay the resolution on the table, a move to sidestep the issue and move on with the bill. The resolution was laid on the table. At issue was the Origination Clause of the Constitution, whereas all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. Senator Dole, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was asked why TEFRA did not originate in the House, and replied, "Well, I'll be very honest, because the House didn't want to originate it." Representative W. Henson Moore, and several other Congressmen, brought suit before the federal District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking a declaratory judgment that passage of TEFRA infringed upon the powers of the House under the origination clause of the Constitution, and, two days later, Representative Ron Paul filed an identical suit. U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green dismissed the plaintiffs' cases for lack of standing. Someone who was injured by this particular political move would have to bring the suit even though it was a violation of the Constitution of the United States. The judge stated that the Plaintiff's in this case were just frustrated because they were outvoted by their fellow legislators.

Now, those are REAL "tax protesters"...

Will the subterfuge and deceit never end...

[jetgraphics]

This may help to clarify the "taxing" situation.

Though "wages" are not defined as income, they can be a "source of income". For example, an agent may receive 10% of his client's wages as income.

According to the Congressional Research Service, a "person liable" has zero basis in his labor (thus all remuneration is income).

This occurs because "voluntary" enrollment into national so******m imposes the burden to pay the "income" tax on wages.

Title 26 USC section 3101(a):

" In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages..."

Any participant in national so******m (under FICA) is a human resource, whose person and property were pledged as collateral on the usurious national debt, thus making repudiated federal reserve notes into "his" personal obligation. Thus, he can not object to the tender of "his" notes in discharge of obligations owed to him.

(Usury is condemned by all religions. Ezekiel 18:13 KJV defines it as a capital offense.)

Since two or more parties have a claim upon him and his property, he ceases to possess the right to absolutely own private property. Without private property rights, the constitutional limitations do not apply.

Another unpleasant result is pauperization. The Congressional Research Service defines entitlements as synonymous with "gifts". "Gifts" from the public treasury are charity. Recipients of charity from the public treasury are paupers. Paupers are an excepted class (See Art IV of Confederation 1777). Paupers, by definition, have NO PROPERTY RIGHTS, and whatever government does to them, is deemed constitutional.

(In addition, one may construe entitlements as a foul bribe and evidence of moral decay.)

At this time, only "U.S. citizens" and "U.S. residents" can apply for an account with the So******t Insecurity Administration, via SS-5 form. American nationals and free inhabitants are ineligible.

No instrumentality of the Federal Reserve banking system will open an interest bearing personal account with
unnumbered Americans. (God bless their hearts...)

The "individual" income tax system is empowered upon YOUR agreement with the U.S. governor of the "Bank" and participation in national so******m.

The U.S. governor of the "Bank" is the Secretary of Treasury.

According to 22 USC Sec. 286a Appointments

(a) Governors and executive directors; term of office
The President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint a governor of the Fund who shall also serve as a governor of the (World) Bank, and an executive director of the (International Monetary) Fund and an executive director of the Bank. ...
(d) Compensation for services (1) No person shall be entitled to receive any salary or other compensation from the United States for services as a Governor, executive director, councilor, alternate, or associate.
(2) The United States executive director of the Fund shall not be compensated by the Fund at a rate in excess of the rate ...

According to page 494 of the U.S. Government Manual, 1993/1994 edition:

"In addition , the Secretary (of Treasury) has many responsibilities as chief financial officer of the Government. The Secretary serves as Chairman pro tempore of the Economic Policy council and as U.S.
Governor of the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the African Development Bank."

Though the President may pick the U.S. Governor of the Bank/Fund, the U.S. doesn't pay him. He can't "work" for the constitutional government and get paid by someone else. (You should also find that presidential executive orders transfer SWEEPING POWERS to the Secretary of Treasury during these times of "national emergency".)

In plain English, a "person liable" has established that
(a) he is a U.S. citizen / resident (via SS-5 form for an account with Social Security),
(b) he is obligated to obey Title 26 by private agreement with the fiduciary agent for the creditor.

Coincidentally, though Form 1040 may not have the proper OMB number, it matters little. As long as you agree, and exercise the benefit, you're obligated.

(JPG of one bank's VISA Application agreement wherein the applicant AGREES to provide an annual financial statement:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/f...ement 1040.jpg )

Finally, you should be aware that a resident with a "legal residence" is not the same status as a free inhabitant with a domicile. A domicile is a "legal home". A residence, legal or not, is "less than a domicile". It is entirely proper for servant government to administer those unruly transient vagrants who do not have a "legal home" in the U.S.A.

Exercises for students:
[1] Contact your local neighborhood instrumentality of usury and ask to see all the RULES you agreed to obey when you open an individual (personal) bank account. Examine them and see the fine print in which you absolve THE BANK from all liabilities while assuming the burden for any and all mistakes you make.
[2] Contact your local legislator and ask for a copy of "the law" that (a) imposes a tax on the wages of all Americans; (b) requires an American to join national so******m {Social Security} before working in the U.S.A.; (c) imposes U.S. citizenship on all Americans born within the boundaries of the U.S.A.{civic duties of imposed citizenship amount to involuntary servitude}; (d) denies free inhabitants of their rights, powers, privileges and immunities. {If you get a reply, count yourself fortunate. At most, I get "We'll respond later..."}
[3] Contact a friendly neighborhood judge or lawyer and ask him if it is true that (a) private property is absolutely owned by an individual, but (b) estate is held with qualified ownership. Then ask why attorneys file all private property transfers with a "real estate" deed wherein it states "for $1 in hand..." when the true purchase price was far greater. Then ask about the Seventh amendment promise of the "rules of the common law".
[4] Contact your respected religious teacher / preacher / leader and ask him if he has an open, interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve. Then ask him if Ezekiel 18:13 condemns usury as an abomination and that usurers shall surely die, their blood be upon them. Then ask if gentle Jesus whipped the usurers from the Temple in Jerusalem.

Is it a coincidence that usurers will not contract with the unnumbered? No one who is lacking a social security number is allowed to open an interest bearing account in any Federal Reserve bank, nor open a stock account. Coincidentally, if one has no number (SSN/TIN), one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful failure to file".

The So******t individual income tax on wages was always voluntary, but few know how they volunteered and with whom they entered into a compact.

For more information:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/487

[indago]

jetgraphics wrote:

Title 26 USC section 3101(a): "In addition to other taxes, there is hereby imposed on the income of every individual a tax equal to the following percentages of the wages..."

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

[Chinese Panda]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

Coincidentally, though Form 1040 may not have the proper OMB number, it matters little. As long as you agree, and exercise the benefit, you're obligated.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html
Title 26 USC 6011...

"When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary (or his alleged delegate) any person made liable for any tax imposed by this title, or with respect to the collection thereof, shall make a return or statement according to the forms and regulations prescribed by the Secretary (or his alleged delegate). Every person required to make a return or statement shall include therein the information required by such forms or regulations."

What public law, code section, or executive order made Form 1040 be prescribed by the Secretary or his alleged delegate?
What was the name of the human being that was the alleged delegate that prescribed the Form and on what date did he do it?

I agree, if the form is not actually prescribed by the Secretary then it certainly does not need a valid (or proper) OMB number.
Now, of course if you have no admissible evidence that the form was prescribed by the Secretary (or his alleged delegate) and you have not asked, on the record, why you can't file a statement, then that's a problem.

In any case, I think its best to ask the Secretary or his alleged delegate, on the record, about it. That way everybody can officially know!

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by indago

Government was never granted the power to lay a direct tax upon the inhabitants of the States.

JG: SIGH.
"State shall not impair the obligations of compacts"

But it goes deeper than that - - -

See pre 1933 cites on the government's blank check when dealing with paupers.

There is NO LAW compelling participation in national so******m (social security). It is 100% voluntary.
And as part of that consent is the voluntary acceptance of the burden to pay an 'income tax' on wages.
If one is NOT a participant, there is no 'income tax' on wages, pursuant to aforementioned section.

The consequences of participation in the FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ACT is a fact that many new patriots are reluctant to address.

(Devil's advocate flag on)
If one is NOT enrolled in national so******m, nor have an open interest bearing account with an instrumentality of the Federal Reserve, then one should find ZERO liability for the FICA "wage" tax. And since the IRS will not accept forms without SSN/TIN, one cannot be held criminally liable for "willful" failure to file.
However, since the majority of Americans do participate and engage in usury, they're toast.
(flag off)

For those who are not aware of the status at law of paupers, here's some useful information:

Exclusions

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states;...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

PAUPER - A person so poor that he must be supported at public expense.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed, p. 1128

How poor is that?

INDIGENT - In a general sense, one who is needy and poor, or one who has not sufficient property to furnish him a living nor anyone able to support him to whom he is entitled to look for support. Term commonly used to refer to one's financial ability, and ordinarily indicates one who is destitute of means of comfortable subsistence so as to be in want. Powers v. State, 194 Kan. 820, 402 P.2d 328, 332.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p. 773

An indigent has no money nor property to support himself. But an indigent is not a pauper until he is supported by public charity.

What's so bad about pauperization?

"State code 124 Sections 6, and 7, authorizing the overseer of the poor to commit to the workhouse able-bodied persons, not having the means to support themselves, and who live a dissolute and vagrant life, and do not work sufficiently to support themselves, are not repugnant to the constitution, giving every man an inalienable right to defend his life and liberty."
In re Nott, 11 Me. (2 Fairf.) 208. (Me. 1834)

In short, the State has the power to direct you to work in exchange for the charity you get. Sounds like legalized slavery, doesn't it? If you are a pauper, you are subject to the orders of the overseer..

"Act May 29, 1879, providing for the committal to the industrial school of dependent infant girls, who are beggars, wanderers, homeless, or without proper parental care, in no way violates the right of personal liberty, and is constitutional."
Ex parte Ferrier, 103 Ill. 367, 42 Am. Rep. 10 (Ill. 1882)

Remember the exclusions: pauper and vagabond?

"An act providing for the care and custody of the person and the estate of habitual drunkards is not unconstitutional, as depriving a citizen of the
right to enjoy, control, and dispose of his property, and to make contracts."
Devin v. Scott, 34 Ind. 67 (Ind. 1870)

STATUS CRIME - A class of crime which consists not in proscribed action or inaction, but in the accused's having a certain personal condition or being a person of a specified character. And example of a status crime is vagrancy. Status crimes are constitutionally suspect.
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th ed, p. 1410

SO******M - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the
belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary

So******m denies absolute ownership, private property, and therefore individual sovereignty. Social Security entitlements are synonymous with gifts (charity from the public treasury), and all participants are paupers at
law.

A man who has (or claims to have) no property, nor means of support, accepts or is eligible to accept charity from the public treasury is excepted from the privileges and immunities of the free citizens, and since he has no private property, has no inalienable rights and powers associated with sovereign status. As a voluntary pauper, he is object of and subject to the authority of government without the protections inherent in the compact by specific exception. And that authority predates the U.S. Constitution.

Restating, Americans who sign up with FICA are deemed paupers at law. Paupers are excepted.
FDR lied when he answered that Relief (Welfare) was not charity, after being questioned on that issue. Americans KNEW the legal consequences of pauperization, but were unprepared for the deceit and constructive fraud hidden in twisted legalese. To this day, most participants BELIEVE that there's a "Trust fund" that they've paid into, and (expletive deleted) expect to get "their money's worth" out of it. The fact is quite different.
There is no property right in charity from the public treasury. Any disbursements are entirely up to Congress' discretion. Worse, all participants have lowered themselves to Status criminals.