« on: August 07, 2023, 06:41:07 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.
Dale Eastman The tax law that requires payment doesn't use the term "private citizen." However, using other terminology that would reasonably include people who are "private citizens," the tax code does call for tax to be paid on all income that isn't specifically excluded. As such, wages (compensation for labor) are taxable. You post quite often, demanding that the term "private citizen" be used in the statute in order to prove you wrong. Of course, you are just playing a game of semantics. The money you earn as a fry cook at McDonald's is taxable.
I appreciate that you have engaged with me. I do not appreciate your failure to answer the question. This is tempered by my knowledge that most folks do not know what the words of tax law are. They have all been socially engineered to be afraid of the IRS.
➽ The tax law that requires payment doesn't use the term "private citizen."
In view of your complaint about my question's wording I'll simplify it:
"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"
My question is specifically asking for the liability statute(s).
They exist, but you seem to be totally unaware of them.
They ALL follow the same format as this liability statute for another tax:
Sec. 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).
Imposing a tax is meaningless unless somebody is required to pay it.
So I ask again: "What law makes me liable for the income tax?"
Concurrent with this specific lack of knowledge, I'd bet you have no idea who is required by law to fill out a W4 form. As a private person working solely within CONUS, it was NOT me.
➽ The money you earn as a fry cook at McDonald's is taxable.
Minor point, not germane to this discussion. Income does not mean everything that comes in.
Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe , 247 U.S. 330 (1918)
We must reject in this case, as we have rejected in cases arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., and Hays v. Gauley Mountain Coal Co., the broad content on submitted in behalf of the government that all receipts-everything that comes in-are income within the proper definition of the term 'gross income,' and that the entire proceeds of a conversion of capital assets, in whatever form and under whatever circumstances accomplished, should be treated as gross income.
Dale Eastman So what's your point? You initially said that fry-cook wages were not taxable, and now you admit with the fry-cook wages are taxable. Try to find some consistency.
➽ You initially said that fry-cook wages were not taxable
Please copy-paste my exact words where you claim I stated such.
➽ Dale Eastman So what's your point?
My point, taking your reading comprehension issues in consideration, is you have again FAILED to answer my question. A question I simplified for you. Here it is again:
"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"
You are liable to pay US income tax if you are a resident of the US, and have income that isn't excluded from taxation. You might also be subject to US income tax if you don't reside in the US, but have US-sourced income or are a US citizen/green card holder.
➽ You are liable to pay US income tax if you are a resident of the US,
You have again FAILED to answer my question. A question I simplified for you. Here it is again:
"What law makes me liable for the income tax?"
Statute number please?
Dale Eastman You already know the answer.
➽ Dale Eastman You already know the answer.
Yes. I actually do.
You on the other hand DO NOT.
If you did know, you would post the statute number.
➽ Dale Eastman You already know the answer.
Yes. I actually do.
You on the other hand DO NOT.
If you did know, you would post the statute number.
Statute number please?
Else you are an ignorant or dishonest tax preparer.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2023, 12:42:14 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters
