Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: April 14, 2024, 06:27:57 AM »

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 17, 2023, 10:38:16 AM »

Yeah... Keep the scam going.

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter A - Determination of Tax Liability
PART I - TAX ON INDIVIDUALS
Sec. 1. Tax imposed states:
[...]
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -
[...]

Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.

Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: August 16, 2023, 08:52:26 AM »

➽ My friend, as a tax strategist, you help your clients reduce their taxes with unique strategies that most preparers don’t know about.

Me too. I tell YOUR clients that no law taxes their domestic compensation for labor.

Ask the IRS this question:

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Reason for question:

SCOTUS has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

I've yet to get a current IRS agent involved in a discussion.

https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1569.0
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: July 27, 2023, 07:40:58 AM »

Original Comment: ➽ Now is the perfect time to request relief for IRS back taxes (including penalties and interest).

Dear IRS

Please answer this question:
What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

If you fail to specifically answer with 26 USC §x??x, where §x??x is the statute number, then you have admitted that there is no statute imposing liability for an American's domestic compensation for labor that is taxed in 26 USC §§ 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e).

Please note: the Supreme Court of the United States has said:
In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

The Supreme Court of the United States has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

The Supreme Court of the United States has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: April 13, 2023, 07:49:31 AM »

SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

Since I'm getting spammed by ignorant or dishonest tax preparers, I'm returning the favor by asking this question. Please note all the failures and refusals to answer this very specific question about tax law.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: February 11, 2023, 02:58:44 PM »

What statute makes me liable for taxes on my domestically earned compensation for labor?

If you claim 26 USC section 1 answers the first question, you didn't understand the question.

This question is not to be confused with a separate question as to what statute imposes a tax on my domestically earned compensation for labor?

No liability for said tax, no requirement to pay.




What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: January 19, 2023, 03:40:17 PM »

Please note that an income tax liability is not a wage tax liability.

    §3402. Income tax collected at source
    (n ) Employees incurring no income tax liability
    Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an employer shall not be required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter upon a payment of wages to an employee if there is in effect with respect to such payment a withholding allowance certificate (in such form and containing such other information as the Secretary may prescribe) furnished to the employer by the employee certifying that the employee—
    (1) incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his preceding taxable year, and
    (2) anticipates that he will incur no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A for his current taxable year.

While you read the next quote, ask yourself if it is possible that you have voluntarily agreed to pay taxes you don't owe.

    §3402. Income tax collected at source
    (p) Voluntary withholding agreements
    (3) Authority for other voluntary withholding
    The Secretary is authorized by regulations to provide for withholding—
    (A) from remuneration for services performed by an employee for the employee's employer which (without regard to this paragraph) does not constitute wages, and
    (B) from any other type of payment with respect to which the Secretary finds that withholding would be appropriate under the provisions of this chapter,
    if the employer and employee, or the person making and the person receiving such other type of payment, agree to such withholding. Such agreement shall be in such form and manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. For purposes of this chapter (and so much of subtitle F as relates to this chapter), remuneration or other payments with respect to which such agreement is made shall be treated as if they were wages paid by an employer to an employee to the extent that such remuneration is paid or other payments are made during the period for which the agreement is in effect.

Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily allow withholding on non-taxable revenue? Doesn't that subsection allow you to voluntarily donate money to the IRS that is not payment of a tax?

Dear IRS,

SCOTUS has said:
   In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the citizen." GOULD v. GOULD, 245 U.S. 151 (1917).

 SCOTUS has said:
... [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

SCOTUS has said:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: October 13, 2022, 10:15:59 AM »

"U.S. Person", an American citizen or domestic entity that is involved in or serving as the intermediary, flow-through entity, or a financial pipeline through which U.S. source income flows to its FOREIGN destination. T.D. 8734”
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 10, 2022, 09:16:12 AM »

If you are a U.S. American complaining about the taxes taken out of your payroll...
QUIT YOUR BITCHING!

I ask this question rhetorically because you don't know what you don't know.

What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

In much shorter form: Show me the law?

You can't. Neither can the IRS.
That is because things that do not exist can not be shown.

As a point of logic, the person making a claim has the burden of proof. That makes it my burden of proof to show evidence supporting my claim that no law exists imposing a tax on your compensation for labor. I will point out that the IRS made their claim first. So they really should provide the law that imposes a tax on a citizen's compensation for labor.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) presented this fact:
If it is law, it will be found in our books; if it is not to be found there, it is not law.
Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 627 (1886)

The Internal Revenue Code, (IRC) is Title 26 of the United States Code (USC).
The USC is where you will find the federal internal revenue laws.

The tax is imposed upon a taxable item.

Sec. 1. Tax imposed
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of -

Just as there are "conventions" (accepted standards) and formats for English writing, there are "conventions" and formats for legal writing. If you don't know this, you would assume that section 1 of the IRC is the statute that makes you liable for a tax on your compensation for labor. And you would be wrong.

So I am going to present another tax law to illustrate the format of IRC tax law.

Sec. 5001. Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax
There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

The making a person liable for the tax is done by a different section.

Sec. 5005. Persons liable for tax
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

The making a person liable for the section 5001 tax is done using "clear and unequivocal language" as required by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) presented this ruling: [T]he well-settled rule ... the citizen is exempt from taxation unless the same is imposed by clear and unequivocal language, and that where the construction of a tax law is doubtful, the doubt is to be resolved in favor of those upon whom the tax is sought to be laid... SPRECKELS SUGAR REFINING CO. v. MCCLAIN, 192 U.S. 397 (1904)

As can be seen in section 5005, there is no doubt as to who is required by law to pay the tax in section 5001.

This format is just as clear if one searches Subtitle A of the IRC, which I have done.

I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 "by clear and unequivocal language".

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.

Section 1 again: There is hereby imposed on the "taxable income"

SCOTUS wrote:
Decided cases have made the distinction between wages and income and have refused to equate the two in withholding or similar controversies.
Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)

SCOTUS wrote:
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., ante, 179, and Hays v.Gauley Mountain Coal Co., ante, 189) the broad contention submitted in behalf of the Government that all receipts--everything that comes in-are income, within the proper definition of the term "gross income,"...
Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918)
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:53:53 PM »

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes

Sec. 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
(b) Heads of households
(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
(e) Estates and trusts

Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
A partnership as such shall not be subject to the income tax imposed by this chapter. Persons carrying on business as partners shall be liable for income tax only in their separate or individual capacities.
(a) Application of tax
The tax imposed by section 1(e) shall apply to the taxable income of estates or of any kind of property held in trust, including -
[...]
(b) Computation and payment
The taxable income of an estate or trust shall be computed in the same manner as in the case of an individual, except as otherwise provided in this part. The tax shall be computed on such taxable income and shall be paid by the fiduciary. For purposes of this subsection, a foreign trust or foreign estate shall be treated as a nonresident alien individual who is not present in the United States at any time.

Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
A partnership as such shall not be subject to the income tax imposed by this chapter. Persons carrying on business as partners shall be liable for income tax only in their separate or individual capacities.

Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules
(d) Nonresident aliens
In the case of a nonresident alien individual, the taxes imposed by sections 1 and 55 shall apply only as provided by section 871 or 877.

Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
(b) Income connected with United States business - graduated rate of tax
(1) Imposition of tax
A nonresident alien individual engaged in trade or business within the United States during the taxable year shall be taxable as provided in section 1 or 55 on his taxable income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.

Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
(a) General rule
This subpart shall not apply to any alien individual who is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands during the entire taxable year and such alien shall be subject to the tax imposed by section 1.

Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
(a) Treatment of expatriates
(1) In general
Every nonresident alien individual to whom this section applies and who, within the 10-year period immediately preceding the close of the taxable year, lost United States citizenship shall be taxable for such taxable year in the manner provided in subsection (b) if [...]
(b) Alternative tax
A nonresident alien individual described in subsection (a) shall be taxable for the taxable year as provided in section 1 or 55, except that - [...]

Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

Sec. 1474. Special rules
(a) Liability for withheld tax
Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.