Kennedy 0 #26 April 29, 2011 Quote If I asked you whether you lacked capacity to look at this issue rationally, would your answer to that question be the same as your answer to this question? The simple answer to most of these unanswerable questions is "I don't answer hypothetical questions in court." Now counselor, yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #27 April 29, 2011 QuoteNow here is an interesting fact; when laws are written it is necessary to also include a table of definitions in the statute because quite often the words in the statute aren't meanin' what you and I would commonly believe them to mean Necessary. . .Not required. It's absense of explaination does not nulllify the law. QuoteIt's the whole lawyer thing but do you realize that sometimes a corporation could be referred to as a" person"? So can partnerships, trusts and estates. QuoteWhen it comes to matters of law definitions are paramount1 Only to you. You are the only one here having issues with definitions. Quotecan anyone of you show us the definition of "income" within the tax code? It doesn't exist. Doesn't need to. Doesn't nullify the law._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #28 April 29, 2011 QuoteQuoteYes they define state in the income tax code but not "Income"? LOL!! What the he'll are you going on about? The definition on income, as listed under title 26, section 61, has been posted for you already, not once but twice. TITLE 26, Subtitle A, CHAPTER 1, Subchapter B, PART I, Sec. 61. 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:Quote Yeah Pal we've seen this already. If you don't understand why this isn't a definition of "income" you may have missed the first part of elementary school. I'll be glad to tutor you right here on DZ .com. In the mean time try to keep up as this redundancy is a waste of all of our precious time! Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jimbrown 0 #29 April 29, 2011 [reply[Quotecan anyone of you show us the definition of "income" within the tax code? It doesn't exist. Doesn't need to. Doesn't nullify the law. I'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #30 April 29, 2011 Why is it so difficult for you to understand that income is defined in the tax code? Just because you wish it not so does not make it not so. Since you think Clinton's "is" defense was a raving success it is easy to see why you are so confused about other matters.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Kennedy 0 #31 April 29, 2011 It seems everybody but you understands what income means. The Supreme Court said so. Quote... Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning, and wealth and property that is not income may not be taxed as income by the Federal Government. And as has been pointed out to you, tax code specifies what income they count. So are you the only one here who doesn't know what income means? Now get back under your bridge.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nanook 1 #32 April 29, 2011 QuoteI'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Now we are getting somewhere. "Income" itself, has been legally defined for the IRS. It doesn't need to be defined in the Tax Code: "instances of [1] undeniable accessions to wealth, [2] clearly realized, and [3] over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" (Commissioner v. Glanshaw Glass Co.) This court case standardized the meaning of "income" for taxable purposes. The Supreme Court defined "income" during a tax case. I say the IRS does not have the burden of proof. Especially since the Supreme Court found in favor of the IRS._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #33 April 29, 2011 QuoteThe Supreme Court defined "income" during a tax case. I say the IRS does not have the burden of proof. Especially since the Supreme Court found in favor of the IRS. Ah, but you forget: the Supreme Court are federal judges, and they all have to recuse themselves. Resulting in nobody left with jurisdiction to decide federal tax law. Except trolls under bridges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,991 #34 April 29, 2011 >Money? >It's just an illusion. There ya go. And if it's imaginary, then you have no claim to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Belgian_Draft 0 #35 April 29, 2011 Quote >Money? >It's just an illusion. There ya go. And if it's imaginary, then you have no claim to it. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites masterrig 1 #36 April 30, 2011 QuoteIt seems everybody but you understands what income means. The Supreme Court said so. Quote... Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning, and wealth and property that is not income may not be taxed as income by the Federal Government. And as has been pointed out to you, tax code specifies what income they count. So are you the only one here who doesn't know what income means? Now get back under your bridge. For some reason, this 'jmbrown' sounds real familiar but 'jmbrown' is a different monicker. Hmmmm... Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites popsjumper 2 #37 April 30, 2011 WoW! Another thread started for the sole purpose of starting an argument. Whowoodathinkit? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #38 May 3, 2011 Quote[reply[Quotecan anyone of you show us the definition of "income" within the tax code? It doesn't exist. Doesn't need to. Doesn't nullify the law. I'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Peace, Jim B Look at your W-2's and other funny little slips of paper sent to you shortly after New Year's. They will tell you if you had income. But go ahead and use your strategy to not pay taxes on it; let us know how it ends up. This supersillious arguement reminds me of Dennis Miller's comeback to the stoner who profoundly asks how he knows that the color red for him is the same color red for everybody else. Miller's reply" "Check the Crayola box momenschwanz."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbrown 0 #29 April 29, 2011 [reply[Quotecan anyone of you show us the definition of "income" within the tax code? It doesn't exist. Doesn't need to. Doesn't nullify the law. I'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Peace, Jim B Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #30 April 29, 2011 Why is it so difficult for you to understand that income is defined in the tax code? Just because you wish it not so does not make it not so. Since you think Clinton's "is" defense was a raving success it is easy to see why you are so confused about other matters.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #31 April 29, 2011 It seems everybody but you understands what income means. The Supreme Court said so. Quote... Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning, and wealth and property that is not income may not be taxed as income by the Federal Government. And as has been pointed out to you, tax code specifies what income they count. So are you the only one here who doesn't know what income means? Now get back under your bridge.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #32 April 29, 2011 QuoteI'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Now we are getting somewhere. "Income" itself, has been legally defined for the IRS. It doesn't need to be defined in the Tax Code: "instances of [1] undeniable accessions to wealth, [2] clearly realized, and [3] over which the taxpayers have complete dominion" (Commissioner v. Glanshaw Glass Co.) This court case standardized the meaning of "income" for taxable purposes. The Supreme Court defined "income" during a tax case. I say the IRS does not have the burden of proof. Especially since the Supreme Court found in favor of the IRS._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #33 April 29, 2011 QuoteThe Supreme Court defined "income" during a tax case. I say the IRS does not have the burden of proof. Especially since the Supreme Court found in favor of the IRS. Ah, but you forget: the Supreme Court are federal judges, and they all have to recuse themselves. Resulting in nobody left with jurisdiction to decide federal tax law. Except trolls under bridges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #34 April 29, 2011 >Money? >It's just an illusion. There ya go. And if it's imaginary, then you have no claim to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #35 April 29, 2011 Quote >Money? >It's just an illusion. There ya go. And if it's imaginary, then you have no claim to it. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #36 April 30, 2011 QuoteIt seems everybody but you understands what income means. The Supreme Court said so. Quote... Congress was at liberty under the amendment to tax as income, without apportionment, everything that became income, in the ordinary sense of the word, after the adoption of the amendment, An important principle taken from Eisner v. Macomber is that the word "income" in the Sixteenth Amendment is generally given its ordinary plain English meaning, and wealth and property that is not income may not be taxed as income by the Federal Government. And as has been pointed out to you, tax code specifies what income they count. So are you the only one here who doesn't know what income means? Now get back under your bridge. For some reason, this 'jmbrown' sounds real familiar but 'jmbrown' is a different monicker. Hmmmm... Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #37 April 30, 2011 WoW! Another thread started for the sole purpose of starting an argument. Whowoodathinkit? My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #38 May 3, 2011 Quote[reply[Quotecan anyone of you show us the definition of "income" within the tax code? It doesn't exist. Doesn't need to. Doesn't nullify the law. I'm not saying it "nullifies the law". I'm merely pointing out that if "income " hasn't been legaly defined there is no way you can proove ,nor can I determine whether or not I had "income" under that section of law. Peace, Jim B Look at your W-2's and other funny little slips of paper sent to you shortly after New Year's. They will tell you if you had income. But go ahead and use your strategy to not pay taxes on it; let us know how it ends up. This supersillious arguement reminds me of Dennis Miller's comeback to the stoner who profoundly asks how he knows that the color red for him is the same color red for everybody else. Miller's reply" "Check the Crayola box momenschwanz."" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #39 May 3, 2011 We could send him cigarettes at Leavenworth!?Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
