Private Social Media Platform
U.S. Tax Law => Discussions with the indoctrinated. => Topic started by: Dale Eastman on February 04, 2023, 11:11:07 AM
-
โThis is essentially a unique time, a generational time where we have the resources to invest in transformational tax reform in the state of Wisconsin.โ โ Devin LeMahieu
Do you agree that the time for tax reform in Wisconsin is now?
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?
Dale Eastman Weโre not talking about a Federal income tax. (Not that your case law has anything to do with the current Federal income tax.)
State income tax relies on a figure on the 1040. If the figure on that line is zero, there is no tax due the state.
Please note, I was very specific in my question: Changed just for you: What statute makes a private Citizen liable for income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?
Dale, that question has been answered time and time and time and time again in Federal court. And the legal system is annoyed and bored with it.
You don't read so good.
I did NOT ask my question of the legal system, nor the IRS. You are NOT the legal system, nor the IRS. I asked YOU.
I just did a mouse over on your name. You were a "๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ผ๐๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐".
Excellent!
What statute in 26 USC aka the IRC imposes a tax on a private citizen's domestically earned compensation for labor?
It's not 26 USC 6001 which states in part:
Every person liable for any tax imposed by this title, or for the collection thereof, shall keep such records, render such statements, make such returns, and comply with such rules and regulations as the Secretary may from time to time prescribe.
No liability, no requirement to file a Form 1040.
It's not 26 USC 6011 which states in part:
When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary 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.
Again, No liability, no requirement to file a Form 1040.
It's not 26 USC 6012(a) which states in part:
Returns with respect to income taxes under subtitle A shall be made by the following:
(1)(A) Every individual having for the taxable year gross income which equals or exceeds the exemption amount, except that a return shall not be required of an individualโ
Without "taxable year gross income", No liability, no requirement to file a Form 1040.
The question still stands unanswered by a former IRS agent.
What statute in 26 USC aka the IRC imposes a tax on a private citizen's domestically earned compensation for labor?
Dale Eastman Try that in court. You'll not only lose, you'll get hit with penalties. Guaranteed. Every one of your arguments has been answered in court and has gone down in flames every time. I don't need to restate their analysis, which, did I say, wins every time. Yours is a losing argument. You can say it shouldn't be. But it is. You don't have to like my answer. But not liking it is like not liking that the sun doesn't rise in the west.
โฝ You don't have to like my answer.
I can neither like nor dislike an answer that has not been given.
It's a really, really simple question. You must have missed it. Here it is again and I took the time to make it more readable for you:
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ?
Dale Eastman That question has been asked of several and countless judges. And the person who asked the question lost. Every. Single. Time. And judges have imposed harsh penalties because the tax law allows them to say, in effect' "There IS such a thing as a dumb question. And yours is not only dumb, it is tedious, annoying, and no longer worth our time."
As are you. I wish Facebook had such a penalty.
But, if you want to scrape up and present your argument against the IRS, go get 'em, tiger! You're going to lose. Miserably. Like everyone else.
The sun doesn't rise in the west for you.
Let the record show...
Oh wait! The record does show...
Former IRS Revenue agent won't answer a simple question:
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ?
Now I get to speculate, on the record, why the former IRS Revenue agent won't answer a simple question.
The former IRS Revenue agent doesn't know the answer, the answer doesn't exist in a specific statute or statutes, or the former agent doesn't know there is no answer to be found in the statutes of Title 26 of the United States Code.
If a statute exists that ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ produce the statute number and you prove me wrong.
BTW, if a judge decrees that 2 + 2 = 7 are you going to change your financial ledgers to comply?
Dale Eastman You just want to believe what you want to believe. I can't help you. You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent and supposing you somehow got the upper hand. Yeah, big prize based on your delusion.
And what is this "record" you speak of? Just stop that. I slapped down someone on Election Night 2016 for saying I was on record for supporting Donald Trump. I don't cower to totalitarian communist threats.
Like I said, "Go Get 'em, tiger!" I'll watch the court decisions for your name. And you'd lose.
โฝ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent
If you are actually ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ธ๐๐น ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐, then you should have no problem answering the question: ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ?
If you were actually still ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ธ๐๐น ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ acting in that capacity, you would NOT be following the IRS Mission Statement, to wit:
๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐๐พ๐๐๐พ๐๐
๐ซ๐๐๐๐พ๐น๐ ๐๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ถโ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐
๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐ ๐๐๐น๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐น ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐พ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐ท๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ท๐ ๐ถ๐
๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐พ๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ป๐ถ๐พ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐.
If you were actually still ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ธ๐๐น ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ acting in that capacity, you would NOT be obeying the Taxpayer Correspondence Policy Statement, To wit:
๐ฃ.๐ค.๐ค๐ฃ.๐ฃ.๐ฅ (๐๐
๐
๐๐๐๐๐น ๐ข๐ฅ-๐ฃ๐ฆ-๐ฃ๐ซ๐ซ๐ฃ)
๐ซ๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ฃ-๐ฅ (๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ซ-๐จ-๐ฃ๐ค)
๐ฃ.๐ฏ๐พ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ฌ๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐น๐๐๐ธ๐
๐ค.๐ฏ๐ฝ๐ ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐น๐๐๐ธ๐.
๐ฅ.๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐น๐๐๐ธ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐น๐๐ป๐พ๐๐๐น ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐๐พ๐๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ ๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐พ๐/๐ฝ๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐, ๐๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ฝ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐พ๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐พ๐๐๐น. ๐ฏ๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ป๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐, ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ฝ๐พ๐ธ๐ฝ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐
๐ถ๐๐ ๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐; ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ป๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐; ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐น ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐.
๐ฆ.๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐๐๐, ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐ถ๐๐, ๐
๐๐๐ป๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ถ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐น๐ (๐พ.๐., ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐ฝ๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ถ๐ธ๐).
โฝ And what is this "record" you speak of?
28 0924
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695
2 1530
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=6126009797438180
2 1906
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=1875260489495602
4 0744
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=1512836365868803
4 1227
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=735280791287353
4 1433
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=875827503635404
4 1535
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=912458823124633
4 1601
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=5832614870157337
4 1628
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=683654840217447
4 1640
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=743783390301093
And where I publicly archive discussions I attempt to have with... Uh... Folks like you.
4 1737 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=494060929590828)
For your amusement Dave Champion
Dale Eastman I'm a retired experienced IRS agent. And I've dealt with people like you.
I am not bound by the IRS Mission Statement anymore. Did I say I'm retired.
You cited ancient court cases that have been overturned or found to be no longer relevant. And courts have answered your question over and over and over again.
You need help. You need a lot of help. And I can't help you.
But, go get 'em, tiger!
-
โฝ I'm a retired experienced IRS agent.
Yes. I understand that. That is why I am so thrilled that you are taking the time to publicly, and on the record, show how ignorant you are.
If I said you are showing how nescient you are, I would not be insulting you. If you admitted to the nescience you are showing, I would not insult you.
โฝ And courts have answered your question over and over and over again.
Then how 'bout you cite the original case wherein the court has answered the question: ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ?
โฝ I am not bound by the IRS Mission Statement anymore. Did I say I'm retired.
True... But in replying to me, you have chosen to present your comments and your alleged knowledge as if you are still employed as ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ธ๐๐น ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐. You are purporting to speak for the IRS.
โฝ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent
I'm not fighting ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐
๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ธ๐๐น ๐ผ๐
๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐. I'm asking him a very specific question.
If I asked you almost the same question in regard to another imposed tax the answer would be very simple and easy to supply.
๐ : What statute in 26 USC imposes a tax on distilled spirits?
๐: 26 USC 5001(a).
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.
๐ : What statute in 26 USC imposes a liability on a tax imposed on distilled spirits?
๐: 26 USC 5005(a).
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).
Now back to the question you refuse to answer:
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฌ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐จ๐ง ๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ข๐ฏ๐๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ข๐ณ๐๐ง'๐ฌ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐ข๐๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐๐ซ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ฌ๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฅ๐๐๐จ๐ซ?
Hey... Why don't you ask Joe Banister to help you answer my question?
5 0733 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=920909869264724)
Dale Eastman Show me a court case that says 26 US 1 does not impose a tax on a private citizenโs domestically earned compensation for labor.
I put a like on your post because it's actually an answer of a sort.
โฝ Dale Eastman Show me a court case that says 26 US 1 does not impose a tax on a private citizenโs domestically earned compensation for labor.
๐ฏ๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฟ๐ธ ๐ค๐จ - ๐ผ๐ฉ๐ฏ๐ธ๐
๐ฉ๐๐ฟ ๐
๐ธ๐ฑ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐๐ช๐๐ธ
๐ฎ๐๐ท๐๐พ๐๐๐ ๐ - ๐ผ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ถ๐๐๐
๐๐ป๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ธ๐
๐ฃ - ๐ฉ๐ช๐
๐๐๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐๐ณ๐ธ๐ฎ ๐๐ฉ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐
๐ฏ๐๐ณ๐ธ๐ฎ
๐ฎ๐๐ท๐ธ๐ฝ๐ถ๐
๐๐๐ ๐ - ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ ๐ฟ๐พ๐ถ๐ท๐พ๐๐พ๐๐
๐ซ๐๐
๐ฏ ๐ผ - ๐ฏ๐๐ณ ๐ช๐ฉ ๐ผ๐ฉ๐๐ผ๐ฑ๐ผ๐๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ฎ
๐ฎ๐๐ธ. ๐ฃ. ๐ฏ๐ถ๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น
(๐ถ) ๐๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐๐น ๐พ๐๐น๐พ๐๐พ๐น๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ป๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ฟ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐
๐๐๐๐๐
๐ฏ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ท๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐ป - [...] ๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐น๐ถ๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐:
[Tables omitted]
(๐ท) ๐ป๐๐ถ๐น๐ ๐๐ป ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐ฝ๐๐๐น๐
๐ฏ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ท๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐ป [...]
๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐น๐ถ๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐:
(๐ธ) ๐ฐ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐๐น ๐พ๐๐น๐พ๐๐พ๐น๐๐ถ๐๐
๐ฏ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ท๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐ป [...]
๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐น๐ถ๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐:
(๐น) ๐๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐๐น ๐พ๐๐น๐พ๐๐พ๐น๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ป๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐๐
๐ถ๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ฏ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ท๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐ป [...]
๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐น๐ถ๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐:
(๐) ๐ธ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐ฏ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ฝ๐๐๐๐ท๐ ๐พ๐๐
๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐ป [...]
๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐น๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐ธ๐๐๐น๐ถ๐๐ธ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ท๐๐:
Five classes of taxable items; five tables; five different tax rates imposed using clear and unequivocal language.
Zero impositions of liability using clear and unequivocal language.
The liability for the distilled spirits tax is imposed upon a class of persons in section 5005. Section 5005 clearly linked itself to the distilled spirits tax imposed in section 5001 by citing section 5001.
The liability for the income tax is imposed upon several classes of person in several different statutes. These statutes clearly link themselves to the income tax imposed in section 1 by citing section 1. This is the same structure as the distilled spirits tax.
To find these linking statutes I did multiple searches of the Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle A - Income Tax using the following parameters;
shall be liable;
is liable;
made liable;
shall pay;
must pay;
shall be paid;
shall be subject to tax;
shall be subject to taxation;
shall be taxable.
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. Nonresident aliens
Sec. 641. Imposition of tax [Estate or trust fiduciary]
Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, [etc.]
Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
Sec. 1461. Chapter 3 withholding agent
Sec. 1474. Chapter 4 withholding agent
I am none of the above. Most people are none of the above as well.
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.
You have (understandably) conflated "Compensation for Labor" with "Income".
To speed this discussion up, and save you some time writing, copying, and pasting, plus a preemptive gimme (give you) here's statute 26 USC 61(a)
๐ธ๐๐ธ๐๐
๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐ฝ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐น๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ท๐๐พ๐๐๐, ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ถ๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐ ๐น๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น, ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐พ๐๐ (๐ท๐๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐๐น ๐๐) ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐๐๐:
(๐ฃ) ๐๐๐๐
๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐๐, ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐พ๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐, ๐ธ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐พ๐๐๐, ๐ป๐๐พ๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐ป๐พ๐๐, ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ถ๐ ๐พ๐๐๐๐;
[...]
These are the words of the United States Senate Committee dated June 18, 1954 and the House of Representatives Committee dated March 9, 1954:
๐ป. ๐
. ๐ช๐ฅ๐ข๐ข
๐ฎ๐๐ธ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐จ๐ฃ(๐ถ) ๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐น๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐น๐๐ "๐ถ๐๐ ๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐ ๐น๐๐๐พ๐๐๐น. ๐ฏ๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐น๐๐ป๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ท๐ถ๐๐๐น ๐๐
๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐ฃ๐จ๐๐ฝ ๐๐๐๐๐น๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐๐๐น "๐พ๐๐ธ๐๐๐" ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐.
These reports give rise to the term "Constitutional Income".
๐๐๐ธ๐พ๐น๐๐น ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ถ๐ช๐ญ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ญ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ท๐ฌ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ธ๐ท ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ท ๐๐ช๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ผ ๐ช๐ท๐ญ ๐ฒ๐ท๐ฌ๐ธ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ถ๐๐น ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐พ๐ผ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ฝ๐ธ ๐ฎ๐บ๐พ๐ช๐ฝ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ฑ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐๐ธ ๐พ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐๐๐น๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐ถ๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐.
[...]
Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978)
Should I believe your words, or the Supreme Court of the United State's words?
5 1007 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02himDpsGExCnxBBbrxjKVyeBRJfk3kPPhpfutb7c7gYhYtV9GDwr4vYuEo7v8GqHFl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=1195561821072669)
Dale Eastman If you actually took the time to read Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21 (1978), you'd learn that it is about the definition of "wages" in the context of income tax withholding. And the Court explicitly said:
"The income tax issue is not before us in this case. We are confronted here, instead, with the question whether the lunch reimbursements, even though now they may be held to constitute taxable income to the employees who are reimbursed, are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of ยงยง 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. ยงยง 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V). These withholding statutes are in Subtitle C of the Code. The income tax provisions constitute Subtitle A."
Quite simply put, Central Illinois. Public Serv. Co. does not support your position. It is not about taxable gross income.
Out of curiosity, I looked into what the "similar controversies" referred to in Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. may be. (I'm a thorough researcher.) The cases cited in that context were all about tax withholding, with the exception of the Royster case, which decided whether certain reimbursements were subject to FICA, FUTA.
I'm happy to clear this matter up for you - as a retired IRS agent who did not (by the way) represent to you that he was on the clock.
-
Hey Dale. Would you like to give me more court cases to read and explain to you?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-court-bars-nevada-man-promoting-tax-fraud-scheme
Yeah, let Dave chime in.
I take all comers.
Dale Eastman What say you, Dave?
Dale Eastman And is this also "on the record" on your pitiful personal FB page?
-
I know I am a PITA to you. You deserve kudos and thanks for engaging. Thank you.
Quoting myself:
๐ผ ๐ถ๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ถ๐พ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐๐ป๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ท๐๐พ๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ ๐ซ๐๐ท๐๐พ๐ธ ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐น๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐พ๐. ๐ฏ๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐๐น๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐
๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume this is your intent in dealing with my annoying ass?
โฝ Hey Dale. Would you like to give me more court cases to read and explain to you?
Save yourself some time dealing with my ignorant dumb ass. In view of your selective reading of what I have posted, I'll likely do the same with parts of some of your posts.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean don't post things that support your points, such as you did quoting from 435 U.S. 21.
Please understand that I have the character traits of being a pedantic asshole. I have often posted this in an attempt to get honest discussions from many I have interacted with: What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of X? X has often times been a word or phrase where I have attempted to get the meaning the other person intends. Great for attempting to remove equivocation from the discussion.
โฝ 435 U.S. 21 (1978), you'd learn that it is about the definition of "wages" in the context of income tax withholding.
<Evil chuckle> Okay.
โฝ "The income tax issue is not before us in this case. [...] the question whether the lunch reimbursements, [...], are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of ยงยง 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. ยงยง 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V).
I am again assuming... You know that legal definitions in law mean toss the regular dictionary aside, it's definitions no longer matter.
[ I]t is well-settled law that when a statutory definition contradicts the everyday meaning of a word, the statutory language generally controls: judges should "construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman."
Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2004).
ยง3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ shall furnish the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซ with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐, which shall in no event exceed the amount to which the employee is entitled.
Is this command to furnish a signed withholding allowance certificate subordinate to an ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ and ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซ actually being within the codified definitions provided in ยง3401?
ยง3401. Definitions
(d) ๐๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ of such person, except thatโ[...]
ยง3401. Definitions
(c) ๐๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee " also includes an officer of a corporation.
Please note that the statutory definition in ยง3401(c) only lists people employed by the government, its agencies, or its instrumentalities.
ยง3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซr, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paidโ[...]
Clearly, being paid ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ช๐ฝ๐พ๐ฝ๐ธ๐ป๐ ๐๐ช๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ผ is subordinate to actually being paid by the ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ช๐ฝ๐พ๐ฝ๐ธ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป.
The above line of inquiry was based upon digging into one statute listed on the form W-4 Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.
I still have the other statute to present.
7 1108 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02hYcDXizW8YH7hWJ8GmUMnp6Gm6Y2pD2ysLJaDJmCkTQqJcXtKiZkYg8S9RrZhdEQl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=542948347899535)
-
My apologies on missing your Feb 6 19:34 to Feb 6 20:22 posts.
And just as I missed your reply, I think you missed my reply:
https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid0dzy2cZN9HVNuQQBbWRDkMhxLpNcZuFX1BGmVGMH4SRYQqYJqbuwVNKyxqFUM7sbgl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=542948347899535
I decline to follow you on your court claims red herring. It is not germane to the discussion I am attempting to have with you in regard to the actual written words of Subtitle A and Subtitle C.
8 1430 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid0dzy2cZN9HVNuQQBbWRDkMhxLpNcZuFX1BGmVGMH4SRYQqYJqbuwVNKyxqFUM7sbgl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=735571908181312)
-
I know I am a PITA to you. You deserve kudos and thanks for engaging. Thank you.
Quoting myself:
๐ผ ๐ถ๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐ธ๐๐๐๐ถ๐พ๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐ ๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐น ๐พ๐๐ป๐๐๐๐ถ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ท๐๐พ๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ ๐ซ๐๐ท๐๐พ๐ธ ๐ฎ๐๐๐๐พ๐ธ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ธ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ถ๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐
๐ ๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐ป๐๐๐ ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐ ๐น๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐พ๐. ๐ฏ๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐ถ ๐๐ถ๐๐น๐ถ๐ท๐๐ ๐ถ๐ธ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐
๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume this is your intent in dealing with my annoying ass?
โฝ Hey Dale. Would you like to give me more court cases to read and explain to you?
Save yourself some time dealing with my ignorant dumb ass. In view of your selective reading of what I have posted, I'll likely do the same with parts of some of your posts.
On the other hand, that doesn't mean don't post things that support your points, such as you did quoting from 435 U.S. 21.
Please understand that I have the character traits of being a pedantic asshole. I have often posted this in an attempt to get honest discussions from many I have interacted with: What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of X? X has often times been a word or phrase where I have attempted to get the meaning the other person intends. Great for attempting to remove equivocation from the discussion.
โฝ 435 U.S. 21 (1978), you'd learn that it is about the definition of "wages" in the context of income tax withholding.
<Evil chuckle> Okay.
โฝ "The income tax issue is not before us in this case. [...] the question whether the lunch reimbursements, [...], are or are not "wages" subject to withholding, within the meaning and requirements of ยงยง 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. ยงยง 3401-3403 (1970 ed. and Supp. V).
I am again assuming... You know that legal definitions in law mean toss the regular dictionary aside, it's definitions no longer matter.
[ I]t is well-settled law that when a statutory definition contradicts the everyday meaning of a word, the statutory language generally controls: judges should "construe legislation as it is written, not as it might be read by a layman."
Tenn. Prot. & Advocacy Inc. v. Wells, 371 F.3d 342 (6th Cir. 2004).
ยง3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ shall furnish the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซ with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐, which shall in no event exceed the amount to which the employee is entitled.
Is this command to furnish a signed withholding allowance certificate subordinate to an ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ and ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซ actually being within the codified definitions provided in ยง3401?
ยง3401. Definitions
(d) ๐๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ of such person, except thatโ[...]
ยง3401. Definitions
(c) ๐๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ" includes an officer, employee, or elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing. The term "employee " also includes an officer of a corporation.
Please note that the statutory definition in ยง3401(c) only lists people employed by the government, its agencies, or its instrumentalities.
ยง3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "๐ฐ๐๐ ๐๐ฌ" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ ๐ฉ๐๐ซ๐๐จ๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ซ ๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐จ๐ฒ๐๐ซr, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paidโ[...]
Clearly, being paid ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ช๐ฝ๐พ๐ฝ๐ธ๐ป๐ ๐๐ช๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ผ is subordinate to actually being paid by the ๐ผ๐ฝ๐ช๐ฝ๐พ๐ฝ๐ธ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐ต๐ธ๐๐ฎ๐ป.
The above line of inquiry was based upon digging into one statute listed on the form W-4 Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice.
I still have the other statute to present.
10 1005 (https://www.facebook.com/badgerinstitute/posts/pfbid02hgFjW62EKG19XrLtQ5hyNVqzdHayaVS2QJdtrsUz927Zx4UcaJa5NzVZvvjMGn2Bl?comment_id=1273720810223695&reply_comment_id=5750777088384031)
Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe. I will leave it at that. No more questions. No more challenges. I wish you well.
-
Feb 4 16:40 you wrote:
โฝ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent and supposing you somehow got the upper hand.
Getting my jollies somehow never comes to fruition when I do get ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐
๐
๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐น (to use your vernacular). Whether ๐๐ฝ๐ ๐๐
๐
๐๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐๐น is over professionals like yourself or laypeople like myself.
The only way I get feedback that I've stated truths is when I get ghosted by the cowards not able to say, ๐ด๐๐'๐๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ฝ๐, ๐ผ ๐น๐พ๐น๐'๐ ๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐ถ๐, or ๐ด๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐น๐ ๐๐ ๐๐ฝ๐พ๐๐.
Feb 4 17:58 you wrote:
โฝ Dale Eastman I'm a retired experienced IRS agent. And I've dealt with people like you.
As I have dealt with people like you. People who can't or won't answer specific questions about their claims.
I highly doubt you've dealt with ๐
๐๐๐
๐๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐๐. People who ask specific questions about the revenue laws people like you were (and are) paid to enforce.
Like; What statute makes me liable for taxes on my domestically earned compensation for labor?
To give credit where credit is due, I acknowledge that you did attempt to answer that question. However, you have failed to answer with specificity. My error in not asking the question with more specificity. I correct that now, learn from my error, reword, and move on.
What statute imposes liability for actually paying such a tax? No liability for said tax, no requirement to pay.
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'm not a lawyer, so I don't have access to Shepardizing tools. What I have found without those tools is ๐ฃ๐ข ๐๐๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ป ๐๐ฝ๐พ๐ ๐ธ๐ถ๐๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ถ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐ dated 2006 to 2018.
Not that the statement isn't a self-evident truth.
Your failure to state the law is your admission that the law that imposes liability for actually paying a tax on one's compensation for labor does not exist.
Feb 10 21:31 you wrote:
โฝ Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe.
If this discussion has been about what I believe: I believe ๐ผ๐ป ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐๐ถ๐, ๐พ๐ ๐๐พ๐๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐น ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ท๐๐๐๐; ๐พ๐ป ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ ๐ท๐ ๐ป๐๐๐๐น ๐๐ฝ๐๐๐, ๐พ๐ ๐พ๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ถ๐.
Feb 6 19:39 you wrote:
โฝ I take all comers.
Your braggadocio amuses me.
Especially when you follow it with:
โฝ No more questions. No more challenges.
Feb 6 20:22 you wrote:
โฝ Dale Eastman And is this also "on the record" on your pitiful personal FB page?
Nope. It's on my ๐
๐พ๐๐พ๐ป๐๐ ๐
๐๐๐๐๐๐ถ๐ website:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1569.0
I'm sure this attached snapshot will entertain you.
-
I wish you well.
I thank you for the time you spent in dialog with me.
I am saddened by my failure to open your eyes...
But then, My actual target audience is all those who will read this discussion. Folks who I will never know put their eyes on this discussion.
An FYI tip for you and the other users of Fecalbook... I did not get a notification of your reply. To tag folks you are not FB friends with, use the @ sign, followed by no space, then the person you want to notify. And argh... This doesn't work all the time. Sometimes one must dig the ID out of the link to the person's avatar image. Mouse over on a non-phone web browser.
Given how this discussion went, I don't expect you to read from my website...
Nevertheless, This page and the page preceding (โ to back page) deal with the actual written words of the IRC and supporting regs thereunder.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html
-
https://rumble.com/v29g6ay-prove-government-is-telling-the-truth-and-win-50000.html