TG

[Dale Eastman]

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.

Dale Eastman Sounds like this post is going to be evidence in a future legal case but ok

Dale Eastman it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter.

➽ "it’s ok for you to believe this and act on it if you like the idea of going to jail. If not. Be smarter."

Followed by a link to a page with these words:

➽ "This page is for this world's least stealthy criminals, who post about their unlegal activities on s"

Mr. G, I find posts like yours to be interesting. You make assumptions without knowledge, spew a claim without evidence. In a word, what you posted is bullshit... "But ok"

I then do what I always do when some... uh... person spews "ignorance" or if I'm being nice, nescience". I ask questions about such BS claims.

What criminal charge do you believe I would be jailed for?

Dale Eastman tax evasion. Have a nice day, buddy.

What is the law? Can you cite the statute where this law is?

Dale Eastman just trying to help you. If you don’t want to heed my advice you don’t have to. Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction. Take care and good luck with your intelligence level struggles

Dale Eastman you know what man… I’ll answer your question a bit more fully. The us tax code does not define income. It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived” we have a courts system in this country. Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say. The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime. If you read those decisions you cited you will see that they are dealing with very specific scenarios. Find me a case from a competent court that says wages aren’t income and I’ll bother talking to you further. Kind of seems like you like being a criminal tho

➽ Idc. Just don’t want you leading innocent fools in the wrong direction.

That Sir, is a most laudable sentiment. I applaud that you think that.

So this brings us directly to the reason for this discussion and the concepts that will follow. I think a very similar thing. I do care. I don't want innocent fools robbed of their compensation for labor. The are being robbed because the IRS LIES. The IRS lies of omission are the most notable. (If you've the balls to learn from an ignarnt layperson, I will be presenting my FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of this point.)

➽ Dale Eastman you know what man…

No Sir, I do not. You've just made two errors of assumption. You assumed and presented as fact that I know some"thing". This error is based on your other assumption. You assumed I could read your mind.
I am a pedantic asshole. I own it. I do not, and will not, assume a person I am conversing with even knows the definitions of the words they use. In fact, by asking folks for the definition of a term or word THEY use so that I can be sure I understand their point, I get ghosted.

➽ The us tax code does not define income.

Correct.

➽ It does define gross income as “all income from whatever source derived”

Correct and misleading.

➽ Courts decide who goes to jail and what the laws say.

You appear to have missed this the first time I presented it...
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)

➽ The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime.

You have NOT proven a misunderstanding on my part. And I am well aware of the Cheek decision.

Cheek v. United States - 498 U.S. 192, 111 S. Ct. 604 (1991) Rule:
Willfulness, as construed in criminal tax cases, requires the government to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that he knew of this duty, and that he voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty. If the government proves actual knowledge of the legal duty, the prosecution, without more, has satisfied the knowledge component of the willfulness but misunderstanding may remain.

Can I correctly assume and opine that you are characterizing my "position" as willfully misunderstanding the tax law?

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle F - Procedure and Administration
CHAPTER 75 - CRIMES, OTHER OFFENSES, AND FORFEITURES
Subchapter A - Crimes
PART I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 7203. Willful failure to file return, supply information, or pay tax
Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Who is the person required? Show me the law.

Dale Eastman that one’s easy, buddy. IRC 6012. it’s kind of a matter of common sense. Believe in your flavor of pedantry… sure. But if you choose to act as if you believe and others follow you, you will end up in jail. If you value your freedom. Pay your taxes. The end.

[Dale Eastman]

➽ Dale Eastman that one’s easy, buddy. IRC 6012.

Okay...

Sec. 6012. Persons required to make returns of income
(a) General rule
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 -

Please note that 6012 does NOT create a liability on a private Citizen for subtitle A - income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor.

As a matter of deliberate habit, I review my discussions to check that certain points do not get ignored deliberately or inadvertently.

This quote of your words is your presentment of your assumption that I have a "misunderstanding"
➽ The courts would think that not paying your taxes based on your “misunderstanding” of what they say is the law is a crime.

I specifically asked you: Can I correctly assume and opine that you are characterizing my "position" as willfully misunderstanding the tax law? I have now asked it a second time.

I'm repeating this statement of mine because you have ignored or missed the challenge to your assumption:
You have NOT proven a misunderstanding on my part.

I will give credit where it is due. You appear to intend to educate me on my (assumed by you) lack of factual and actual knowledge of what the tax statutes and regulations thereunder actually demand. Your concern that I not lead others down an incorrect path is laudable.

Getting back to sec 6012. This section does create a duty to file. A duty to file does NOT create a liability. So my "willful failure to file" would trigger one of two penalty statutes. Sect 7203 is the misdemeanor statute. 7201 is the felony statute. 7201 is closer to your statement:
➽ Dale Eastman tax evasion. Have a nice day, buddy.

26 U.S. Code § 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax
Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

You do understand that this penalty statute applies to each and every tax imposed in Title 26?

I was VERY SPECIFIC in my wording of my original question:
What law makes me LIABLE?

I present for the edification of everyone reading this exchange, for comparison, a statute that creates a liability for a specific tax in Title 26:

 26 U.S. Code § 5005 - Persons liable for tax
(a) General
The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

And my original 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?

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman it’s not even willful non filing. That’s a misdemeanor. You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour. I hope you don’t convince anyone else to be foolish and temp fate. If you want to get yourself locked up, idc

➽ You’d be a tax evasion felon. If you want a more detailed explanation, my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Why would I want to pay you $500 an hour to lie to me?

I have FRE#602 personal first hand knowledge of what the pertinent tax laws say.

ℂ𝕒𝕟 𝕀 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕞𝕚𝕥 𝕥𝕙𝕖 𝕔𝕣𝕚𝕞𝕖 𝕠𝕗 𝕖𝕧𝕒𝕕𝕚𝕟𝕘 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕥𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕀 𝕙𝕒𝕧𝕖 ℕ𝕆𝕋 𝕓𝕖𝕖𝕟 𝕞𝕒𝕕𝕖 𝕝𝕚𝕒𝕓𝕝𝕖 𝕗𝕠𝕣?

I took the time to do special FB text so you can not miss the question.

I'll post this a third time...
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)

And I will ask the same question, shortened, that you can not or will not answer:

𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕝𝕒𝕨 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝕞𝕖 𝕃𝕀𝔸𝔹𝕃𝔼 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕣?

My last post I did show you what a liability statute looks like.

➽ my hourly rate is $500 an hour.

Translation: He knows he will spend a boatload of time making naked assertions that are not in accordance with what the law says, and that pedantic asshole Eastman will not let such bullshit claims stand unchallenged.

As a layperson, I have no reason to pay for the Shepardizing Tools you lawyers use. You are aware, or you should be aware, that I fella that knows what Shepardizing and FRE#602 is, is not your usual ignarnt (sic) fella.

[Dale Eastman]

Dale Eastman I don’t care. You aren’t making any sense. I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade. Unhinged. I hope that’s not your real name. Good luck crossing the street as I assume that’s a tough one for you as well.

➽ You aren’t making any sense.

As Upton Sinclair has been quoted: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

➽ I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade.

Translation: He refuses to answer the question about the law:
𝕎𝕙𝕒𝕥 𝕝𝕒𝕨 𝕞𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝕞𝕖 𝕃𝕀𝔸𝔹𝕃𝔼 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕒 𝕥𝕒𝕩 𝕠𝕟 𝕞𝕪 𝕔𝕠𝕞𝕡𝕖𝕟𝕤𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝕝𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕣?

➽ I’m not reading your failed attempts to persuade.

Well of course my attempt to persuade has failed. You refuse to read the words of tax laws I am willing to present to educate you.

➽ I don’t care.

You cared enough to make comments on my first post. Now you don't care.

I'm speculating your lawyer ego won't let you accept that a non-lawyer layperson just might know more about tax law than you do.

Your insults do not require me to address them. They only show YOU in the light of YOUR personality.
Which <sotto voce> was my reason for baiting the hook in the first place.

➽ I hope that’s not your real name.

That implies to me that you care about something about my name. Ya just contradicted your claim that you don't care.

FYI, the IRS knows who I am ever since I told the flunkie on the phone that I would be discussing my reason for not filing that year's 1040 "at my willful failure to file trial."

Since it appears to me that you are going to ghost me...

Synaptic Sparks
An Open Questionnaire
To Find The Truth

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.

However, these people are still lawyers. So there's the grains of truth in all those lawyer jokes.

Continues here:
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html