Former IRS Revenue agent

[Dale Eastman]

“This is essentially a unique time, a generational time where we have the resources to invest in transformational tax reform in the state of Wisconsin.” — 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 We’re 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 "𝑅𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓊𝑒 𝒜𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒶𝓉 𝐼𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝑅𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓊𝑒 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒".

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 individual—

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.

➽ 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:
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟔 𝐔𝐒𝐂 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫?

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:
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟔 𝐔𝐒𝐂 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫?

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 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫 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.

➽ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent

If you are actually 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉, then you should have no problem answering the question: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟔 𝐔𝐒𝐂 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫?

If you were actually still 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉 acting in that capacity, you would NOT be following the IRS Mission Statement, to wit:

𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝑀𝒾𝓈𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃
𝒫𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒 𝒜𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒾𝒸𝒶’𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝓉𝑜𝓅 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝒷𝓎 𝒽𝑒𝓁𝓅𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 𝓊𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓇𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓂𝑒𝑒𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝒷𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒷𝓎 𝒶𝓅𝓅𝓁𝓎𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓁𝒶𝓌 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒾𝓃𝓉𝑒𝑔𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒻𝒶𝒾𝓇𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝓁𝓁.

If you were actually still 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉 acting in that capacity, you would NOT be obeying the Taxpayer Correspondence Policy Statement, To wit:

𝟣.𝟤.𝟤𝟣.𝟣.𝟥  (𝒜𝓅𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝑒𝒹 𝟢𝟥-𝟣𝟦-𝟣𝟫𝟫𝟣)
𝒫𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒸𝓎 𝒮𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝟤𝟣-𝟥 (𝐹𝑜𝓇𝓂𝑒𝓇𝓁𝓎 𝒫-𝟨-𝟣𝟤)

𝟣.𝒯𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓁𝒾𝓃𝑒𝓈𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒬𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝑜𝒻 𝒯𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝒞𝑜𝓇𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒
𝟤.𝒯𝒽𝑒 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝓊𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒.
𝟥.𝒯𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓇𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝒹𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒶𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝓌𝓇𝒾𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓃 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓂𝓊𝓃𝒾𝒸𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝑜𝓇 𝒽𝒾𝓈/𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓉𝒶𝓉𝒾𝓋𝑒, 𝑒𝓍𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓃𝓈, 𝓌𝒽𝑒𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓇 𝓊𝓃𝓈𝑜𝓁𝒾𝒸𝒾𝓉𝑒𝒹. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝓇𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓈 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒶𝓈 𝓌𝑒𝓁𝓁 𝒶𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝓌𝒽𝒾𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝒶𝓎 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓃; 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝓇𝑒𝓆𝓊𝑒𝓈𝓉𝓈 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃; 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝒶𝓃𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝓃𝑜𝓉𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒𝓈.
𝟦.𝒜 𝓆𝓊𝒶𝓁𝒾𝓉𝓎 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝓉𝒾𝓂𝑒𝓁𝓎, 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝓊𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒, 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝒻𝑒𝓈𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝑜𝓃𝑒, 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓃𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓉𝑜 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝓅𝒶𝓎𝑒𝓇 𝓃𝑒𝑒𝒹𝓈 (𝒾.𝑒., 𝓇𝑒𝓈𝑜𝓁𝓋𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝒾𝓈𝓈𝓊𝑒𝓈 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽𝑜𝓊𝓉 𝒻𝓊𝓇𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓉𝒶𝒸𝓉).

➽ 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

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!

[Dale Eastman]

➽ 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.

➽ 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: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟔 𝐔𝐒𝐂 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫?

➽ 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 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉. You are purporting to speak for the IRS.

➽ You might get your jollies fighting an experienced IRS agent

I'm not fighting 𝒶𝓃 𝑒𝓍𝓅𝑒𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓃𝒸𝑒𝒹 𝐼𝑅𝒮 𝒶𝑔𝑒𝓃𝓉. 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.

𝓠: What statute in 26 USC imposes a tax on distilled spirits?
𝓐: 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.

𝓠: What statute in 26 USC imposes a liability on a tax imposed on distilled spirits?
𝓐: 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:
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟐𝟔 𝐔𝐒𝐂 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐭𝐚𝐱 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐧'𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫?

Hey... Why don't you ask Joe Banister to help you answer my question?

5 0733

Dale Eastman Show me a court case that says 26 US 1 does not impose a tax on a private citizen’s domestically earned compensation for labor.

I put a like on your post because it's actually an answer of a sort.

➽ Dale Eastman Show me a court case that says 26 US 1 does not impose a tax on a private citizen’s domestically earned compensation for labor.

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

(𝒶) 𝑀𝒶𝓇𝓇𝒾𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓈 𝒻𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒿𝑜𝒾𝓃𝓉 𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓃𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓈𝓊𝓇𝓋𝒾𝓋𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓈𝓅𝑜𝓊𝓈𝑒𝓈
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒷𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝑜𝒻 - [...] 𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒:

[Tables omitted]

(𝒷) 𝐻𝑒𝒶𝒹𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝒽𝑜𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒽𝑜𝓁𝒹𝓈
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒷𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝑜𝒻 [...]
𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒:
(𝒸) 𝒰𝓃𝓂𝒶𝓇𝓇𝒾𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓈
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒷𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝑜𝒻 [...]
𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒:
(𝒹) 𝑀𝒶𝓇𝓇𝒾𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒹𝒾𝓋𝒾𝒹𝓊𝒶𝓁𝓈 𝒻𝒾𝓁𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓈𝑒𝓅𝒶𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝓉𝓊𝓇𝓃𝓈
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒷𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝑜𝒻 [...]
𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒:
(𝑒) 𝐸𝓈𝓉𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝓇𝓊𝓈𝓉𝓈
𝒯𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒 𝒾𝓈 𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒𝒷𝓎 𝒾𝓂𝓅𝑜𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓉𝒶𝓍𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝑜𝒻 [...]
𝒶 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝒹𝑒𝓉𝑒𝓇𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝒸𝒸𝑜𝓇𝒹𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒:

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)
𝐸𝓍𝒸𝑒𝓅𝓉 𝒶𝓈 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓌𝒾𝓈𝑒 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝓈𝓊𝒷𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓁𝑒, 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝓈𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝒶𝓃𝓈 𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝓌𝒽𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝓊𝓇𝒸𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝒹, 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 (𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓁𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝓉𝑜) 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓈:
(𝟣) 𝒞𝑜𝓂𝓅𝑒𝓃𝓈𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒻𝑜𝓇 𝓈𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒𝓈, 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒻𝑒𝑒𝓈, 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓂𝒾𝓈𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃𝓈, 𝒻𝓇𝒾𝓃𝑔𝑒 𝒷𝑒𝓃𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓉𝓈, 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓈𝒾𝓂𝒾𝓁𝒶𝓇 𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓈;
[...]

These are the words of the United States Senate Committee dated June 18, 1954 and the House of Representatives Committee dated March 9, 1954:

𝐻. 𝑅. 𝟪𝟥𝟢𝟢
𝒮𝑒𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝟨𝟣(𝒶) 𝓅𝓇𝑜𝓋𝒾𝒹𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝓈𝓈 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝓁𝓊𝒹𝑒𝓈 "𝒶𝓁𝓁 𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝓌𝒽𝒶𝓉𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇 𝓈𝑜𝓊𝓇𝒸𝑒 𝒹𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝒹. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒹𝑒𝒻𝒾𝓃𝒾𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝒾𝓈 𝒷𝒶𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝓊𝓅𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝟣𝟨𝓉𝒽 𝒜𝓂𝑒𝓃𝒹𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒶𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓇𝒹 "𝒾𝓃𝒸𝑜𝓂𝑒" 𝒾𝓈 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝒾𝓉𝓈 𝒸𝑜𝓃𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓉𝓊𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 𝓈𝑒𝓃𝓈𝑒.

These reports give rise to the term "Constitutional Income".

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)

Should I believe your words, or the Supreme Court of the United State's words?

5 1007

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 §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 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.

[Dale Eastman]

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?

[Dale Eastman]

I know I am a PITA to you. You deserve kudos and thanks for engaging. Thank you.

Quoting myself:
𝐼 𝒶𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓊𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓃 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓅𝓊𝓉𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝓌𝑒𝒷𝓈𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒫𝓊𝒷𝓁𝒾𝒸 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝒜𝓃𝓃𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒽𝒶𝓇𝓂 𝓉𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂𝓈𝑒𝓁𝓋𝑒𝓈 𝒷𝓎 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓉. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓈 𝒶 𝓁𝒶𝓊𝒹𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓈𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume this is your intent in dealing with my annoying ass?

➽ 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.

➽ 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.

➽ "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 §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 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).

§3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 shall furnish the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞, 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 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 and 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 actually being within the codified definitions provided in §3401?

§3401. Definitions
(d) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮 of such person, except that—[...]

§3401. Definitions
(c) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮" 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 §3401(c) only lists people employed by the government, its agencies, or its instrumentalities.

§3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫r, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—[...]

Clearly, being paid 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝔀𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓼 is subordinate to actually being paid by the 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻.

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

[Dale Eastman]

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

[Dale Eastman]

I know I am a PITA to you. You deserve kudos and thanks for engaging. Thank you.

Quoting myself:
𝐼 𝒶𝓂 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓈𝓊𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒸𝑒𝓇𝓉𝒶𝒾𝓃 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝓅𝓊𝓉𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒶𝓍 𝓇𝑒𝓁𝒶𝓉𝑒𝒹 𝒾𝓃𝒻𝑜𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝓌𝑒𝒷𝓈𝒾𝓉𝑒𝓈 𝒶𝓈 𝒶 𝒫𝓊𝒷𝓁𝒾𝒸 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝓋𝒾𝒸𝑒 𝒜𝓃𝓃𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒸𝑒𝓂𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝒾𝓃 𝒶𝓃 𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑒𝓂𝓅𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓃𝓉 𝑜𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝓈 𝒻𝓇𝑜𝓂 𝒸𝒶𝓊𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒽𝒶𝓇𝓂 𝓉𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂𝓈𝑒𝓁𝓋𝑒𝓈 𝒷𝓎 𝒻𝑜𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝑜𝓇𝒾𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒹𝑜 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝒽𝒶𝓋𝑒 𝓂𝑒𝓇𝒾𝓉. 𝒯𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓈 𝒶 𝓁𝒶𝓊𝒹𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃 𝑜𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓅𝒶𝓇𝓉 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓈𝑒 𝓁𝒶𝓌𝓎𝑒𝓇𝓈.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I assume this is your intent in dealing with my annoying ass?

➽ 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.

➽ 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.

➽ "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 §§ 3401-3403 of the Code, 26 U.S.C. §§ 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).

§3402(f)(2) Allowance certificates
(A) On commencement of employment
On or before the date of the commencement of employment with an employer, the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 shall furnish the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 with a signed withholding allowance certificate relating to the withholding allowance claimed by the 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞, 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 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 and 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫 actually being within the codified definitions provided in §3401?

§3401. Definitions
(d) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻" means the person for whom an individual performs or performed any service, of whatever nature, as the 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮 of such person, except that—[...]

§3401. Definitions
(c) 𝓔𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓮" 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 §3401(c) only lists people employed by the government, its agencies, or its instrumentalities.

§3401. Definitions
(a) Wages
For purposes of this chapter, the term "𝐰𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐬" means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐫r, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term shall not include remuneration paid—[...]

Clearly, being paid 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝔀𝓪𝓰𝓮𝓼 is subordinate to actually being paid by the 𝓼𝓽𝓪𝓽𝓾𝓽𝓸𝓻𝔂 𝓮𝓶𝓹𝓵𝓸𝔂𝓮𝓻.

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

Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe. I will leave it at that. No more questions. No more challenges. I wish you well.

[Dale Eastman]

Feb 4 16:40 you wrote:
➽ 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 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒽𝒶𝓃𝒹 (to use your vernacular). Whether 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓊𝓅𝓅𝑒𝓇 𝒽𝒶𝓃𝒹 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, 𝒴𝑜𝓊'𝓇𝑒 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉, 𝐼 𝒹𝒾𝒹𝓃'𝓉 𝓀𝓃𝑜𝓌 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉, or 𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓂𝒶𝒹𝑒 𝓂𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝓀.

Feb 4 17:58 you wrote:
➽ 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 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝓁𝒾𝓀𝑒 𝓂𝑒. 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 𝟣𝟢 𝒜𝓃𝒶𝓁𝓎𝓈𝑒𝓈 𝑜𝒻 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒸𝒶𝓈𝑒 𝒷𝓎 𝒶𝓉𝓉𝑜𝓇𝓃𝑒𝓎𝓈 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:
➽ Dale Eastman We both believe what we believe.

If this discussion has been about what I believe: I believe 𝐼𝒻 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓁𝒶𝓌, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝒾𝓃 𝑜𝓊𝓇 𝒷𝑜𝑜𝓀𝓈; 𝒾𝒻 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓉𝑜 𝒷𝑒 𝒻𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓇𝑒, 𝒾𝓉 𝒾𝓈 𝓃𝑜𝓉 𝓁𝒶𝓌.

Feb 6 19:39 you wrote:
➽ I take all comers.

Your braggadocio amuses me.
Especially when you follow it with:
➽ No more questions. No more challenges.

Feb 6 20:22 you wrote:
➽ Dale Eastman And is this also "on the record" on your pitiful personal FB page?

Nope. It's on my 𝓅𝒾𝓉𝒾𝒻𝓊𝓁 𝓅𝑒𝓇𝓈𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓁 website:
https://www.synapticsparks.info/dialog/index.php?topic=1569.0

I'm sure this attached snapshot will entertain you.

[Dale Eastman]

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 (⇇ to back page) deal with the actual written words of the IRC and supporting regs thereunder.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html

[Dale Eastman]

https://rumble.com/v29g6ay-prove-government-is-telling-the-truth-and-win-50000.html