To File or not to File??? Depends on the tax advice.

To file or not to file? Each day this is becoming a common question for many Americans and for good reason. Bogus tax advice from the IRS, frivolous arguments from tax protestors and a citizenry that still must asses it's liability using a tax code that an IRS commissioner calls incomprehensable.


With bedlum like this I have to ask tax advocates and protesters alike,
where do you get your tax advice? You'd figure with a federal mandate that you'd have uniform tax advice right?....wrong! In a reply to a letter from Larken Rose,the IRS advised that he use section 61 of the IRC and only section 61 to determine his tax liability. This is quite different from the Supreme ruling of Gould vs Gould which advises two things in matters dealing with taxes.
1)Do not implicate yourself in anything specifically not pointed out. 2) In case of doudt it is strongly ruled in the citizens favor and not the governments.

There is clearly contrast between the only two advices on matters dealing with taxes ...... so which one do you choose? If you choose the IRS advice then you are liable since the IRS concures with the congress assertion that all income is gross income and therefore taxable income. This is why the IRS always ask if you've earned any income although the're actually basing your liability on wheather you earn gross income. They automatically assume the income you earn is gross income as perscribed by the congress.

If you choose the advice of the supreme court in Gould vs Gould, section 61 is factored out of the liability equation. How is that you might ask.
In advice #2 the supreme court advises that in case of any doudt it is strongly ruled in favor of the citizen and not the government.

Anyone who understands our government knows that the checks and balances of power is one of it's cornerstones. This means no one branch of government trumps the other.

I have some good news and bad news for tax protestors and tax advocates.
All branches of our government agree that the income tax is constitutoinal. However, they all don't agree that it applies to everyone. In defining gross income, which is the only!!! factor the IRS uses in determining taxable
income:
Congress asserts:IRC sec 61, All income is gross income (Legislative Branch)

Secretary of the treasury asserts: CFR sec 61, All income is gross income...unless excluded by law (Executive Branch)

The Supreme Court asserts: Not all income are gross reciepts (Judicial Branch)

It is apparent that the secratary and the supreme court do not concure with the congress assertion that all income is gross income. This clearly raises doudt as to the congress assertion that all income is gross income.
Since the secretary and the supreme court did raise doudt as to the congress assertion that all income is gross income, section 61 cannot be used to determine taxable income. We must 1)Determine if we are specifically pointed out as earning gross income as perscribed by the supreme court or 2)determine if we are excluded by law as perscribed by the secretary of the treasury.

During an examination interview, the examining officer stated the IRC is all they use in determining taxable income. Whats interesting is a component of the executive branch ignores the secretary of the treasury,... who happens to be their boss, and adheres to the congress, whose definition of gross income differs from that of the secretary...who happens to be their boss. Instead of factoring out section 61 of the IRC based on the doudt raised by both the secretary and the supreme court,
the IRS factor out the secretary...who happens to be their boss and the supreme court elimenating the doudt.

For tax advocates and tax protestors there's good news and bad news.
Citizens are specifically pointed out as to earning gross income,...... but only three types of citizens fall into this catagory.
1) Citizens living in the US earning foreign income.
2) Citizens living in the US earning Possessions income.
3) Citizens living outside the US earning either foreign or domestic income.

There are no other citizens specifically pointed out to earning gross income as perscribed by the supreme court whose rulings are not only the supreme law of the land but according to court decisions....Supreme court rulings hold the same weight as the code.

At this point, if you've followed the tax advice of the supreme court in Gould vs Gould, section 61 of the IRC is inapplicable since both the supreme court and secretary of the treasury raised doudt as to the congress assertion that all income is gross income ruling in favor of the citizen and not the government. You must then find out if you fit the profile of any of the U.S citizens specificaly pointed out as to earning gross income.

If you do fit any of these profiles.....guess what... you earn gross income.... you then must determine the amount. If the amount of gross income exceeds the minimum requirements for your status of either a married or single individual guess what...... you meet the filing requirements and must file.

If you do not fit any of the profiles, you then must determine if your excluded by law as perscribed by the secretary of the treasury.
(will continue)

[weishaupt1776]

I Love Not Filing

[KaosTheory]

Stoneman should be more specific about what it is that should or should not be filed.

Weis, you are self imployed so you do not have someone filing fraudulent testimony on you to the IRS i.e. a w-2 "information form".

Some are not so lucky and have their payroll guy file erroneous w-2's causing the IRS to stand on that "information" as the truth until rebutted via 4852 form and accompanying 1040.

The reason your "Zero Return" did not work is no doubt because you included a w-2 with contradicting testimony on the 1040 saying that you HAD received "taxable income" and HAD NOT received "taxable income" at the same time.

For those who have these erroneous w-2 and 1099 "information forms" sent in on them, it is in their best interest to file "correcting w-2 and 1099's" along with a 1040.

This is my current understanding on this issue.

[weishaupt1776]

The pete Hendrickson deal seems to make the most sense if you are on the W-2 thing.

The problem is, is that the IRS continually develops boilerplate counter methods to form driven procedures such as the 4852 thing.

They can always come back and ask for the refund back.

All of this stuff may work, but all it is is temporary band-aid stuff.

A mass number of People need simultaneously to start filing actions against these *******s and tie them up in court to the point to where they will respect your position

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Stoneman

To File or not to File??? Depends on the tax advice.

After the tax advice is given, who must decide to take the advice? Doesn't the individual getting the advice decide to take or reject the advice? It so, isn't this issue really about "Voluntary Compliance"?

Originally Posted by Stoneman

To file or not to file? Each day this is becoming a common question for many Americans and for good reason. Bogus tax advice from the IRS, frivolous arguments from tax protestors and a citizenry that still must asses it's liability using a tax code that an IRS commissioner calls incomprehensable.

If the IRS Commissioner calls the code incomprehensable, shouldn't the code be "void for vagueness"? If the Commissioner wants to operate in good faith, shouldn't him/her stop all attempts to collect any disputed taxes, and issue refunds, until the code is made comprehensable?

Originally Posted by Stoneman

With bedlum like this I have to ask tax advocates and protesters alike,
where do you get your tax advice?

You'd figure with a federal mandate that you'd have uniform tax advice right?....wrong! In a reply to a letter from Larken Rose,the IRS advised that he use section 61 of the IRC and only section 61 to determine his tax liability.

Isn't this what tyranny and capricious govenment all about, they generate dissension and conflict.

Originally Posted by Stoneman

This is quite different from the Supreme ruling of Gould vs Gould which advises two things in matters dealing with taxes.
1)Do not implicate yourself in anything specifically not pointed out. 2) In case of doudt it is strongly ruled in the citizens favor and not the governments.

There is clearly contrast between the only two advices on matters dealing with taxes ...... so which one do you choose? If you choose the IRS advice then you are liable since the IRS concures with the congress assertion that all income is gross income and therefore taxable income. This is why the IRS always ask if you've earned any income although the're actually basing you liability on wheather you earn gross income. They automatically assume the income you earn is gross income as perscribed by the congress.

If you choose the advice of the supreme court in Gould vs Gould, section 61 is factored out of the liability equation. How is that you might ask.
In advice #2 the supreme court advises that in case of any doudt it is strongly ruled in favor of the citizen and not the government.

Anyone who understands our government knows that the checks and balances of power is one of it's cornerstones. This means no one branch of government trumps the other.

I have some good news and bad news for tax protestors and tax advocates.
All branches of our government agree that the income tax is constitutoinal. However, they all don't agree that it applies to everyone. In defining gross income, which is the only!!! factor the IRS uses in determining taxable
income:
Congress asserts:IRC sec 61, All income is gross income (Legislative Branch)

Secretary of the treasury asserts: CFR sec 61, All income is gross income...unless excluded by law (Executive Branch)

The Supreme Court asserts: Not all income are gross reciepts (Judicial Branch)

It is apparent that the secratary and the supreme court do not concure with the congress assertion that all income is gross income. This clearly raises doudt as to the congress assertion that all income is gross income.
Since the secretary and the supreme court did raise doudt as to the congress assertion that all income is gross income, section 61 cannot be used to determine taxable income. We must 1)Determine if we are specifically pointed out as earning gross income as perscribed by the supreme court or 2)determine if we are excluded by law as perscribed by the secretary of the treasury.

During an examination interview, the examining officer stated the IRC is all they use in determining taxable income. Whats interesting is a component of the executive branch ignores the secretary of the treasury, who happens to be their boss, and adheres to the congress, whose definition of gross income differs from that of the secretary. Instead of factoring out section 61 of the IRC based on the doudt raised by both the secretary and the supreme court,
the IRS factor out the secretary and the supreme court elimenating the doudt.
(will continue)

emphasis added.

Who is the IRS, where in the Constitution is it provided that they can overrule the Supreme Court?