Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-23 20:08:32 PST
Soon enough Max will find out that Thomas is a KNOWN liar.
Thomas, THE TAX IS IMPOSED UPON T A X A B L E I N C O M E,
NOT INCOME.
Google archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-24 15:35:00 PST
26 CFR § 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 ...."
Taxable income is gross income less deductions.
Gross income IS "income."
Therefore, taxable income IS income ... it is the income left after
subtracting deductions.
Unless you think that taxable income doesn't include income ... maybe
its grated cheese perhaps?
Google Archive
From: OnryAnRkst (onryanrkst@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-24 16:21:25 PST
"The tax imposed is upon TAXABLE INCOME..."
[26 CFR § 1.1-1(a)(1)]
--OnryAnRkst
Google Archive
From: Dale Eastman (dalereastman@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-24 19:19:22 PST
Hey rooktard, what is the tax calculated on?
Google Archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-25 13:29:56 PST
26 CFR § 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 ...."
Taxable income is gross income less deductions.
Gross income IS "income."
Therefore, taxable income IS income ... it is the income left after
subtracting deductions.
Unless you think that taxable income doesn't include income ... maybe
its grated cheese perhaps?
Google Archive
From: OnryAnRkst (onryanrkst@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-25 14:10:02 PST
Nice attempt at spin after you got caught censoring the part
of the regulation that proves you wrong.
--OnryAnRkst
Google Archive
From: Dale Eastman (dalereastman@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-25 17:37:40 PST
And don't forget that to calculate the tax, only "taxable income" is
of interest.
Where's macDonald with his "I always look at the statutes first" when
you need him.
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
-HEAD-
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
-STATUTE-
(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.
Google Archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-26 05:16:57 PST
> Nice attempt at spin after you got caught censoring the part
> of the regulation that proves you wrong.
>
> --OnryAnRkst
>
> http://NoGov4me.net
Quoting the regulation is now "spin."
Why did you ignore the first sentence which says that the code imposes
an income tax "on the income" of individuals?
The tax is imposed on taxable income.
The tax is imposed on income.
They both say the the same thing because "taxable income" IS "income."
Are you asserting that "taxable income" is grated cheese?
Google Archive
From: Dale Eastman (dalereastman@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-26 09:08:32 PST
Seems that liar, er lawyer training is a little light on set theory.
See if you can decipher this Venn diagram.
A tax imposed upon "INCOME" would be a tax imposed upon "GROSS INCOME".
That's NOT what section 1 says.
That's NOT what the tax is calculated on.
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
-HEAD-
Sec. 1. Tax imposed
-STATUTE-
(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.
Google Archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-26 15:43:13 PST
26 CFR § 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 ...."
Taxable income IS income ... it is income less deductions. That
doesn't make it any less "income."
Google Archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-27 07:02:39 PST
Onry opines: "....not all income is taxable income."
The statutes do exempt some income Onry ... nobody with any sense denies that.
That doesn't mean that what's left in taxable income isn't "income."
Perhaps you think that "taxable income" is grated cheese too.
Google Archive
From: OnryAnRkst (onryanrkst@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-27 07:08:30 PST
It makes not all income "taxable" income.
--OnryAnRkst
Google Archive
From: Dale Eastman (dalereastman@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-27 17:35:31 PST
Google Archive
From: Brian Rookard (brianrookard@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-28 05:21:05 PST
Showing how little Dale knows about reading Venn diagrams.
Dale, what is taxable income composed of? Your diagram shows that it
is made of income.
Thanks for proving my point.
Not all income will be included in "taxable income" (the standard
deduction is an obvious example of income not included in the
equation) ... but that doesn't mean that taxable income isn't composed
of income.
You're such a dope Dale.
Google Archive
From: Dale Eastman (dalereastman@)
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Date: 2004-11-28 06:36:08 PST
You are Myopic. Thanks for proving MY point. It's about the tax you
claim is imposed on those red dollar ($) signs.
> Not all income will be included in "taxable income" (the standard
> deduction is an obvious example of income not included in the
> equation) ... but that doesn't mean that taxable income isn't composed
> of income.
>
> You're such a dope Dale.
And you're such a LIAR Brian.
Google Archive
From: brianrookard@ (Brian Rookard)
Newsgroups: misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Evidence vs Assetions (sic)
Date: 28 Nov 2004 13:48:48 -0800
I did not claim that. You are lying. If you think otherwise then
provide a citation and link to where I said any such thing.
The tax is on taxable income.
Taxable income is composed of subset of income.
Cleary not ALL income is taxable income (the standard exemption is an
obvious case.)
But that doesn't mean that what's left in "taxable income" isn't
"income." It's that income which is left
How dumb are you Dale?
Google Archive
A little summary of what you just read is in order, so that you may see the subtle spin this accomplished liar uses to hide his lies.
Mr. Rookard first states: "the code imposes an income tax "on the income" of individuals"
Shown proof that the tax is not calculated upon "the income" but upon the "taxable income" the issue being argued is subtlely changed to something entirely different. The issue is changed to an argument about whether "taxable income" is "income" and the incorrect assertion about a tax on "income" is spun away into oblivion.
Showing how little Dale knows about reading Venn diagrams.
Dale, what is taxable income composed of? Your diagram shows that it
is made of income.
Thanks for proving my point.
You are Myopic. Thanks for proving MY point. It's about the tax you
claim is imposed on those red dollar ($) signs.
> I did not claim that. You are lying. If you think otherwise then
> provide a citation and link to where I said any such thing.
As you wish:
"Why did you ignore the first sentence which says that the code imposes
an income tax "on the income" of individuals?"
Substantiating cite
Note: I have since found out that the (taxable) "income" is but the measure of a tax on the doing of privileged activities.
| The sixteenth amendment
authorizes the taxation of income "from
whatever source derived" -- thus
taking in investment income --"without apportionment among the
several States." The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power
of the United States to new or
excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might
otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income
whether it be derived
from one source or another. So the amendment made it possible to
bring investment income within the scope of a general income-tax law,
but did
not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect
to the privilege of carrying on any activity or owning any property
which produces income. The income tax is, therefor, not a tax on income as such, It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax. |