| LEGAL
DISCLAIMER I am not a Tax Lawyer, Nor do I play Dan Evans on the internet. I am not a Certified Public Accountant, Nor do I play Paul Thomas on the internet. I am not an Enrolled Agent, Nor do I play Richard Macdonald on the internet. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE. Go look it up for yourself. |
Richard Macdonald v. Dale E.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| 1. Dale seems to confuse LAW and mere
regulations that have no power to alter what the law says and that's
why his BS always fails. 2. Again the LAW, Section 26 USC 861 says: 26 USC 861(b) TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOURCES WITHIN UNITED STATES From the items of gross income specified in subsection (a) as being income from sources within the United States there shall be deducted the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any expenses, losses, or other deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. 3. The remainder, if any, shall be included in full as taxable income from sources within the United States. 4. So until Dale can clearly demonstrate where Regulations written by Treasury Department bureaucrats have the power to alter and overcome statutes enacted by Congress, 5. which under the Constitution are the Supreme law of the Land, the entire basis for his assertions are worthless. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 1.
Properly promulgated regulations have the full force and effect of
law. I am required to obey properly promulgated
regulations. Therefore, properly promulgated regulations are also
"the law". 2. The items of gross income specified in subsection (a) MUST be items of gross income "for federal income tax purposes." 3. G - D = N is the format of the equation being laid out by section 861(b). If a certain item of gross income is NOT an item of gross income "for federal income tax purposes" then "G" equals zero before the deduction even begins to be apportioned or allocated to the "gross income" "G". If "G" is zero to begin with, then there can be NO remainder. 4. The regulations interpret the statutes within the Constitutional limits of Congress. Those regulations do NOT alter anything. Simplified example follows: 4a. If the Constitution says that red gizmos can not be taxed by Congress, then Congress can not tax red gizmos. If Congress then enacts a statute that says, "There is hereby imposed upon gizmos, a tax of blah, blah. Congress STILL can not tax red gizmos. The regulations will NOT show any tax upon red gizmos, though the regulations will address gizmo taxes on every other type of (taxable) gizmos. Such a regulation does NOT alter or overcome the gizmo statute enacted by Congress. 4a1. It is elementary law that every statute is to be read in the light of the constitution. However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond those matters which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach. So, although general language was introduced into the statute it is not to be read as reaching to matters in respect to which the legislature had no constitutional power, but only as to those matters within its control. McCullough v. Commonwealth Of Virginia 172 U.S. 102 (1898) 4a2. Therefore, a statute levying a tax on gizmos is "to be read in the light of the constitution". "However broad and general its language, it cannot be interpreted as extending beyond the restriction which prohibits taxing red gizmos." "So, although general language was introduced into the statute it is not to be read as reaching to" taxing red gizmos "in respect to which the legislature had no constitutional power, but only as to those matters within its control." That would be Taxing NON-red gizmos. 4b. Congress gave the the power to the Secretary of Treasury: "...the Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title..." 26 USC 7805. 4b1. "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 operation so as to embrace matters not so 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) 4b2. The following list is a list of gizmos that are not exempt and thus may have deductions allocated and apportioned to them: White Gizmos, Blue Gizmos, Yellow Gizmos, Brown gizmos. Your logic insists that red gizmos are taxable. 5. To be addressed later. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Mr. Macdonald chose to ignore the above
and jumped into another discussion. Part of that follows: |
||||||||||||||||||||
| 6. Here is what happens to people who
follow the positions that Dale is advocating: 120 T.C. No. 10 7. UNITED STATES TAX COURT MICHAEL A. CABIRAC, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent 7. You are hereby called on your dishonesty: 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006) Importance of Court Decisions 1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. 2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. 3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html 7a. Mr. Macdonald is fully aware that "TAX COURT" rulings create no legal precedence just like the IRM citation quoted above shows. 7b. Mr. Macdonald is fully aware that "TAX COURT" has no jurisdiction over me since I can NEVER be legally ordered into tax court. 6a. Please state specifically, and with detail, exactly how somebody "follows" the position you think I "advocate". 6b. Please state specifically, and with detail, exactly how I "advocate" said position. 6c. Please state specifically, and with detail, exactly what the "position" is that you think I'm advocating. 6d. Please state specifically, and with detail, exactly what "action" you think I advocate in regard to this "position" 6e. Provide specific links to where I do this "advocating" of "action" in regard to the "INFORMATION" which you spin by calling said "INFORMATION" a "position". |
||||||||||||||||||||
| After Mr. Macdonald ignored the above
post I goaded him with this post: It seems Mr. Macdonald is afraid to directly address me and have that debate recorded. http://www.synapticsparks.info/them/richardmacdonald.html Instead, Mr. Macdonald wants to keep you from reading the WRITTEN WORDS of law itself, by citing cases from corrupt courts. When you read the WRITTEN WORDS OF LAW, the corruption in the courts is obvious. Mr. Macdonald, Your failure to address the points you yourself brought up, as shown on that [this] page, is quite telling about you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| "It
seems Mr. Macdonald is afraid to directly address me and have that
debate recorded." Is the statement that Mr. Macdonald left in his reply
post to the above when he posted the court case that follows in the
next table cell. With such action, Mr. Macdonald has still failed to directly address me. And Mr. Macdonald has still failed to address the previously numbered counterpoints. Since the court case Mr. Macdonald contains 1745 words, I am going to heavily trim the extranious from that case. My intent is to address all salient points, so if I trim too deep, Mr. Macdonald will have to re-introduce any points I snipped in error, in a subsequent post. Here then, is the trimmed version with all the points numbered. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| DENNIS H. CARMICHAEL, PRO SE,Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,Defendant. (No. 04-190T) (United States Court of Federal Claims) (Doc 2004-21087) [9.] In the United States Court of Federal Claims [9] Mr. Macdonald makes the same error in presenting this court case as he did in presenting the Kangaroo Tax Court's case above. [9] You are hereby called on your dishonesty: 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01-01-2006) Importance of Court Decisions 1. Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position. 2. Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code. 3. Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers. http://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/ch10s11.html [9a] Mr. Macdonald is fully aware that "CLAIMS COURT" rulings create no legal precedence just like the IRM citation quoted above shows. [10] Dear Lurker, as you read through this, understand there is a conflict between the IRM (Internal Revenue Manual a.k.a. IRS employee handbook) that says those lower court cases do NOT set precedent, and the judge's citations of those very same citations that attempt to make you believe some precedent has been set. They can't both be right, therefore one or both of them are wrong. Since at a minimum, one of them is wrong, that means a 'government' function is being executed improperly... WRONGLY. If the IRS can ignore the 'precedence' of these other cases, so can I. [10] Specific question toi Mr. Macdonald: Which one is wrong? The IRM or the judge? <snip> MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BRADEN, Judge <snip> C. Disposition Of The Government's April 9, 2004 Motion To Dismiss. [11] Plaintiff argues that taxes on gross income, defined as all income "from whatever source derived," 26 U.S.C. section 61(a), do not include taxes on his personal income. See Pl. Br. at 11. [11] The positioning the quotation marks is incorrect, thus the definition of gross income presented is incorrect. Sec. 61. Gross income defined (a) General definition Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: [12] Specific and direct question to you, Mr. Macdonald: Do you agree or disagree that the phrase "all income from whatever source derived" means "everything that comes in"? [13] Plaintiff further contends that the legal scope of the word "source" does not cover his personal income. Id. at 10-11 ("[26 U. S.C. section 861] and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax."). [14] The Internal Revenue Code imposes a tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States. See 26 U.S.C. section 1; see also 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1. [14] This judge just pulled a Richard Macdonald. Since this judge is not available to answer specific questions, that task falls to Mr. Macdonald. Failure to answer is an admissiion that.... Well, readers, the admission will be clear by reading the questions asked. Sec. 1. Tax imposed (a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of - (1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and (2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table: If taxable income is The tax is: -------------------------------------------------------------------- Not over $36,900 15% of taxable income. The rest of the table omitted as not neccessary to make point [14] -------------------------------------------------------------------- (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 (other than surviving spouses and heads of households) 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: Sec. 1.1-1 Income tax on individuals. (a) General rule. (1) Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States and, to the extent provided by section 871(b) or 877(b), on the income of a nonresident alien individual. For optional tax in the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross income of less than $10,000 (less than $5,000 for taxable years beginning before January 1, 1970) see section 3. The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1. [14a] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Is the tax determined (calculated) in accordance with each of the tables shown in each of the five subsections (a) through (e) of section 1? [14b] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Is the tax due calculated upon the gross income or the taxable income? [14c] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: Does 26 C.F.R. section 1.1-1 state: "The tax imposed is upon taxable income (determined by subtracting the allowable deductions from gross income). The tax is determined in accordance with the table contained in section 1." [14d] Specific question for Mr. Macdonald: If the taxable income is zero, what is the tax due? [11] "[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the [listed] items[.]" 26 U.S.C. section 61(a) (emphasis added). [11] This point is a continuation of the point so numbered above. Continuation of examination of this point awaits Mr. Macdonald's answer to the specific question asked as point 12. (See above.) The outstanding points that follow will not be addressed until Mr. Macdonald answers the specific questions above. [15] In addition, compensation is explicitly included in the definition of "[g]ross income." Id. [16] Plaintiff listed income as "[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc." on his 1997, 1998, and 1999 income tax return. See Def. Exs. 1, 4, and 7. [17] In addition, plaintiff rendered services to his employer and received a salary as remuneration. See Def. Exs. 2, 5, 8-9. [18] Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiff's salary is compensation and gross income. See 26 U.S.C. section 61. [19] Plaintiff mistakenly believes that 26 U.S.C. section 861 applies to the tax liability of a United States citizen with domestic income. [20] This section, however; which is part of Subchapter N, Part 1, titled "Source Rules and General Rules Relating to Foreign Income," sets forth the rules used to determine whether income is derived from a foreign or domestic source. [21] See Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982) ("The determination of where income is derived or 'sourced' is generally of no moment to . . . United States citizens . . . for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.C. section 1 . . . on their worldwide income."); [22] see also Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C.M. 2002-18, 2002 WL 71029 at *2, aff'd, 2002 WL 31936476 (9th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 U.S. 2105 (2003) ("The source rules do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States."). [23] In addition, IRS Notice 2001-40, 2001-1 C.B. 1355, advises taxpayers that "[t]he courts have categorically rejected contentions that U.S. citizens are not lawfully subject to Federal income tax on their income from all sources[.]" [24] Plaintiff may not be aware that other similarly situated taxpayers have challenged the definition of the "source" of income in the tax code and that other trial courts summarily have dismissed such claims. See, e.g., United States v. Darland, 2003 WL 21153269 at *3 (D.Md. 2003) [25] ("[c]ourts have routinely rejected the 'Section 861 argument.'"); United States v. Bell, 238 F. Supp.2d 696, 700-01 (M.D. Pa. 2003) [26] (the argument "rests purely on semantics and takes the regulations promulgated under Section 861 out of context."); Loofbourrow v. Commissioner, 208 F. Supp.2d 698, 710 (S.D. Tex. 2002) [27] (plaintiff's argument takes regulations out of context); Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136 (2000) [28] ("[p]etitioner's arguments are . . . tax-protestor rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts."). [29] In addition, the predecessor court to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has defined the "source" of income for taxation purposes. See Ritter v. United States, 393 F.2d 823, 829 (Ct. Cl. 1968) [30] ("The law is well settled that the statutory definition of gross income is broad enough to include as compensation any economic or financial benefit from any source, conferred in any form on an employee, unless specifically exempted by statute."). [31] Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has considered the definition of income on numerous occasions and consistently held that it is more than broad enough to include plaintiff's income in this case. See Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987) [32] (holding "legal sources also commonly define 'income' to mean 'any money that comes in[.]'"); C.I.R. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 430 (1955) [33] ("the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted."); C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945) [34] ("[the code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected."). [35] The court understands that plaintiff interprets the law differently, however, the fact that all income regardless of source is subject to federal income tax is well settled law. <snip> |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||