subfever
Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
|
Part 2 just came in today:
Dear Subscriber,
Just to remind you, the subject of this series of messages is how to properly COMPLY with the federal tax laws.
For example, if your Uncle Fred gave you a gift of $200 last year,
you should NOT have reported it on your tax return, because the tax code specifically says that gifts are NOT subject to the federal
income tax (26 USC 102).
It's not patriotic or noble to have reported such income on your return; it's an ERROR. It's income you're NOT SUPPOSED TO pay taxes on (because it's non-taxable).
As we saw in the last message, the older federal income tax
regulations used to clearly state that, in addition to the types of
income specifically exempted by the tax code, some OTHER income is also NOT SUPPOSED TO BE included in your taxable income, because such income is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government." Near the bottom of the following link are scans of many different years of regulations saying so (look for links called "First," "Second," etc.):
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/TaxActs.html
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Ebecraft/TaxActs.html</A
As also stated in the last message, current tax professionals (with very rare exceptions) DO NOT KNOW that this is the case. They are completely unaware that ANY income is tax-free because of the Constitution itself. As a result, they NEVER tell their clients about it, and they NEVER take it into account when determining their clients' tax liabilities.
We haven't yet considered WHAT income might be Constitutionally non-taxable (we will very soon), but whether it's some obscure kind of investment income that only a few people have, or something more significant, you HAVE TO KNOW what it is if you are to properly COMPLY WITH the law.
Why? Because if you happen to have some of that Constitutionally non-taxable income, and you report it on your return as if it were taxable, you are MISAPPLYING the law, just as if you had reported that $200 gift from Uncle Fred.
The link above shows older tax regulations (many years' worth). An obvious question at this point would be, What about NOW? Are those Constitutional limits still applicable? Do the current regulations still mention them?
Yes, and yes, though they make it a lot let obvious now. There have been no Constitutional amendments relative to Congress' taxing power since those older regulations were written.
So anything that was, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government" in 1956 (or 1925), is still not taxable today.
The current regulations defining "gross income" (26 CFR 1.61-1) just say "gross income" includes all income from whatever source derived, "unless excluded by law." Unlike the older regs, however, they do not specifically explain that income can be exempted by statutory law OR by "fundamental law" (the Constitution
itself).
However, the current 26 CFR 1.265-1 does still show that something OTHER than the tax code can exempt income, and a fairly obscure regulation at 26 CFR 1.312-6(b) does still plainly speak of THREE types of income:
1) "all income exempted by statute"
2) "income not taxable by the Federal Government under the
Constitution"
3) income which is "includible in gross income under section 61."
In case you think I'm making this up, you can see that regulation on the government's own web site at:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/26cfr1d_05.html
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/26cfr1d_05.html</A
It should be noted that occasionally a tax professional will at least
guess at something that might be Constitutionally non-taxable, such
as the income of state governments, or interest on municipal bonds.
However, those things have been exempted by STATUTE from the
beginning (e.g., 26 USC 103, 115), so that is NOT what the regs
(past and present) were talking about.
Remember, they mention income exempted by statute, and then say that no OTHER income is exempt, except for what is, "under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government."
So while the older regulations were a lot more obvious about it (you can wonder why if you'd like), the principle still applies.
Now, here is what may seem like a silly question: Do those in government WANT us to know how to OBEY the law?
Presumably they would be eager to have us all understand the
law so we can comply with it. In fact, the IRS' "mission statement"
says that their reason for existing is to help people "UNDERSTAND" and comply with their tax responsibilities.
So, in light of what we've seen above, wouldn't it make sense to ASK the government what the regs mean when they talk about some income being excluded because of the Constitution?
1) When I brought up that point at my first meeting with the IRS, they had no comment at all. (I'm not sure they even comprehended what the question was.) When we met again, same thing: I quoted the regulations saying that, and they had no response.
2) When I was a witness at someone else's meeting with the IRS, the person explained to the IRS that it was his position that "some of the income not specifically exempted by statute is nonetheless exempted from taxation by the Constitution itself," and cited the regs saying just that.
The veteran IRS agent responded, "Without further research, I don’t really have a response for that one. I can’t really tell you without researching an answer to that question." (As of today, many YEARS later, he never answered that question.)
3) At another meeting with the IRS (at which they were looking for an excuse to shut down my web site), the following exchange occurred:
Me: "These are photocopies of two of the sections of the 1956 regulations. Again, we’re talking about 1956 at the moment. I’m about to tie it to the current. As you’ll see on the last page of that, exemptions from... exclusions from gross income. It’s on the right-hand side. It talks about the items exempted by statute, and then it says no other items may be excluded from gross income except "a," those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government. And then it mentions some other Acts of Congress and things that exempt other income. That’s one of the
questions I have yet to hear anybody at the IRS or any tax professional give me an explanation as to what that could be talking about. If you’d like to offer any opinions, I’m open for it."
IRS Agent Chris Roginksy: "It’s at outdated regulation. Not going to comment on it."
Wow, that was a short discussion (or lack of one).
4) Since then, hundreds of people have sent letters to two IRS commissioners, two Secretaries of the Treasury, two Assistant Secretaries of the Treasury, IRS Chief Counsel, the Attorney General, the head of the Tax Division of the DOJ, and many lower DOJ and IRS offices, asking several basic questions about how we are to COMPLY with the federal tax laws.
The last question was: "What types of income (if any) are not exempted from taxation by any statute, but are nonetheless 'excluded by law' (not subject to the federal income tax) because they are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government?" (All six questions can be een here:
http://www.petermacshow.com/content/view/55/45/"
http://www.petermacshow.com/content/view/55/45/</A
Guess how many answers to the question we got? If you guessed ZERO, you win.
5) When I went to trial, I filed a motion asking the judge to inform the jury that "gross income" means all income, except for what is exempted by statute OR exempted by the Constitution itself (aka "fundamental law"). He refused to tell them that. When the government called an IRS agent up to testify about the taxes they thought I owed, based on my financial numbers, the following
exchange occurred:
Me: "When you go to total up these figures and get to the bottom, do you keep your eyes open for any sorts of income which may be specifically exempted by a section of the tax code?"
IRS witness: "I normally did, but I did not see that in this case."
Me: "Okay, but it's normal to keep your eyes open in case there's some item, and that would enter into the equation. Is that correct?"
IRS witness: "Sure, sure."
So far so good. This 24-year veteran IRS agent obviously knew about statutory exemptions. Then this happened:
Me: "My last question is, in coming to your total, did you subtract any amounts of income which are exempt from federal taxation because of the Constitution itself?"
DOJ attorney: "Objection."
Judge: "I'm not sure I understand the question."
IRS witness: "Yeah, I don't either."
Judge (to the witness): "Do you understand the question?"
IRS witness: "No, I do not."
Judge (to me): "Do you want to rephrase it?"
Me: "Did you subtract, to arrive at your bottom number, any amounts of income which are excluded from federal taxation due to the Constitution itself?"
DOJ attorney: "Objection."
Me: "Well, she either did or didn't. It's a fact."
Judge (to witness): "Well, you can answer that 'yes' or 'no,' if you understand it."
IRS witness: "I'm not sure I understand the question. I mean, if you're asking if I subtracted anything from these numbers, I did not."
Why is it that neither the IRS witness nor the JUDGE had any idea what I was even asking?
Why did they not know that anything might be excluded because of
the Constitution itself?
The IRS' own regulations say it. Why don't their employees know about it?
And why does it seem that NO ONE in government is able (or willing) to say what income that might be, even when HUNDREDS of Americans politely ask them in writing?
Why, when I cite their OWN regulations to them, are those in government so reluctant to discuss the matter?
Back to our seemingly silly question:
Given what you've seen above, would you still assume that those in government WANT us to know how to properly COMPLY with the law?
Shouldn't they WANT us to know what is and what isn't taxable?
There must BE an answer to the question. Shouldn't they be not only able, but EAGER to explain such things to common folk like you and me?
After all, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to correctly determine your taxes without first knowing what is and what isn't taxable. So why are they unable (or unwilling) to tell us what is meant by some income being exempt because it is, "under the Constitution, not
taxable by the Federal Government"?
Is this all starting to seem a wee tad curious to you yet?
Once again, let me conclude this message with the following:
In what I've said above, do you see me encouraging anyone to break the law?
Do you see me objecting to the law?
Do you see me arguing anything "frivolous"?
(No, no, and no.)
Lastly, would you consider it okay for the government to try to
forcibly stop me from telling you what I've told you so far, or to
punish me for publicly talking about such things?
(Me neither.)
Sincerely,
Larken Rose
|
RE: Interesting Tax Information - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread