| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"If I told U Id have 2 kill U" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2004 01:10:15 PM |
| Object: |
Tax Law 101 (part 3) |
Dear Subscriber,
( Past messages in this series can be found at:
http://www.3rdear.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=16 )
Now that we've touched on what statutes and regulations are, we need to
dig back to the root of it all, the "authority" on which ALL federal law
is based: the U.S. Constitution.
But why should we care about the Constitution when determining what taxes
we owe? Aren't the statutes and regulations enough? Well, yes and no.
Again, Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (a.k.a. 26 USC 1) impose a
tax on the "taxable income" of every individual. Section 63 of the Code
then generally defines "taxable income" to mean "gross income" minus
deductions. And Section 61 generally defines "gross income" to mean "all
income from whatever source derived," including compensation, interest,
rents, dividends, etc.
Feel free to look up Sections 1, 63 and 61 (in that order) on the
government's own web site, found at http://uscode.house.gov/usc.htm , by
putting in "26" where it says "Title," and the section number (1, 63, or
61) where it says "section."
After reading those sections (and ONLY those sections), you will most
likely get an impression something like this:
* A tax is imposed on "taxable income" (26 USC 1)
* taxable income = all the income you receive minus deductions (26 USC 63,
61)
Okay, case closed, right? That's us. We owe it. Pay up. No need to
look further, right? I mean, how much more all-encompassing could that
definition of "gross income" (in Section 61) possibly be? It means ALL
income, right?
"It is elementary law that EVERY statute is to be read in the light of the
constitution. HOWEVER BROAD AND GENERAL ITS LANGUAGE [hmmm, sounds like
section 61], it CANNOT be interpreted as extending beyond those matters
which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
Huh? What nutcase tax protestor would say something like that? Oh, it's
the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the full case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=172&invol=102
(Do a word search for "elementary" to find the part I quoted.)
(By the way, it's a pain finding the link for every dang thing I quote
here, but I'll do it anyway, so I hope some of you bother to look at them,
to make sure I'm not making anything up.)
Notice that the case goes on to say that if a law by itself would seem to
cover things which the legislature cannot constitutionally legislate, "the
statute is to be read as though it in terms excluded them from its
operation."
Well, that's sort of helpful, but mostly confusing. How the heck are we
supposed to KNOW what the Constitutional limits are? Do all 280,000,000
of us now have to be Constitutional scholars, or what? Do we get to just
GUESS at what the Constitutional limits are? How would we even know if
there ARE Constitutional limits on what income Congress can tax?
This is how:
http://www.taxableincome.net/exhibits/1956regs.html (last scan)
So there are some kinds of income that Congress chose to exempt from the
tax, as explained in the tax code. But there are also some OTHER kinds of
income which are EXCLUDED (not taxable) because they are, "under the
Constitution, NOT TAXABLE by the Federal Government." So say the
regulations shown at the link above. (Read that a few times, to make sure
it sinks in: because of the Constitution itself, some kinds of income are
NOT SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX.)
Suddenly that nice little impression that Sections 1, 63 and 61 gave (that
we all owe the tax) doesn't hold water any more. Despite the very broad
wording of Section 61, there ARE Constitutional limits on what is taxable.
But we're still no closer to a conclusion; we only reached another
question: WHICH income is excluded because of the Constitution? Is it
mine, or someone else's?
I'm not telling. Well, at least not in this message... (to be continued)
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
larken@taxableincome.net
http://www.861.info
http://www.theft-by-deception.com
http://www.taxableincome.net
( P.S. This is the last "Tax Law 101" message, because now we step into
the legalese labyrinth of the income tax statutes and regulations.)
( P.P.S. If you want a sneak peek at what happens next, take a look at the
SECOND page shown at http://www.taxableincome.net/exhibits/1956regs.html )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe, send a blank message to
.
|
|
| User: "Richard Macdonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Tax Law 101 (part 3) |
21 Aug 2004 01:43:48 PM |
|
|
"If I told U I'd have 2 kill U" <knews4u2chew@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36caa37d.0408211010.6cca2a9b@posting.google.com...
"It is elementary law that EVERY statute is to be read in the light of the
constitution. HOWEVER BROAD AND GENERAL ITS LANGUAGE [hmmm, sounds like
section 61], it CANNOT be interpreted as extending beyond those matters
which it was within the constitutional power of the legislature to reach."
Huh? What nutcase tax protestor would say something like that? Oh, it's
the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the full case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=172&invol=102
(Do a word search for "elementary" to find the part I quoted.)
So enlighten us to the specific Constructional restrictions to tax that
apply to the
Current IRC. Please cite the specific part of the Constitution that
applies.
But of course "If I told U I'd have 2 kill U" is just a Rosie Sock Puppet
and
incapable of independent thought or research and will not answer with any
cite.
--
Richard A Macdonald, CPA/EA
Dedicated student of Fr Luca Paccioli, Master Juggler.
Gib mir schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
