Anti-Tax Group Makes 'Final Warning' to Federal Government

CNSNews.com ^ | November 15, 2002 | Michael L. Betsch

[Poohbah]

And when you wander into the courtroom with that argument, the judge points out that this has been litigated time and time again, that your argument has been found wanting time and time again, and that you are wasting everyone's time.

[Republic of Texas]

Although I agree with the goals of this group(s), the people and the execution of their plans seem rather childish. The best way to change the tax code, and spending is for about 100 million Americans to not pay taxes one year. All at once. That would be the 100 million that support the other 200 million.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

These guys invariably remind me of Brother Bluto, not only by their fervor, but also by their utter lack of gray matter.

[MoGalahad]

If these guys are going to raise a rebellion why just focus on the illegal income tax? Our government has been selling us down the river in hundreds of ways for more than 50 years.

[Poohbah]

You did not answer the question I asked.

I did answer it: you merely did not like the answer. You do not have a Constitutional right to engage in armed rebellion against tyranny. You have a moral right to do so; but you do not have any legal standing once you choose that course. Please do not confuse legal and moral rights; they are very different things.

[Republic of Texas]

There is no FEDERAL Drunk Driving Law, there is not a Federal law that says anything about slavery, other than that all men should be EQUAL. Those are all STATE matters. I think we would probably let the girls keep voting. Sarcasm is only effective if it contains SOME truth.

[chudogg]

Mike Bodine said the sole purpose of the anti-tax rally (called Freedom Drive 2002) is to restore the Constitution to what it was in 1776.

This comment is not in quotes, so it was not said directly by Bodine himself. It was probably the leftist journalist who wrote it who does not know when the constitution was written.

[mlo]

And 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) does not have any subparagraphs that apply to the average US citizen.

Then what do you call this?

"The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:"
...
"(3) Personal services"
"Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;..."

[mvpel]

What cases are you referring to, in particular? I'd be curious to read them.

[ancient_geezer]

 

26 USC 7805(a) Rules and regulations
(a) Authorization - … the Secretary [of the Treasury] shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title [Title 26]…" [26 USC § 7805]

Thus under amplifying Treasury regulations for 26 USC 1, 26 CFR 1.1-1(a),(b)

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.

(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States.

[CITE: 26CFR1.861-1] [Page 119-120]

TITLE 26--INTERNAL REVENUE (CONTINUED) Normal Taxes and Surtaxes (Continued)--

Table of Contents Sec. 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.

(a) Categories of income.

Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:

(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See Secs. 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and Sec. 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely [[Page 120]] be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See Secs. 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.

---

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE
Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter N - Tax Based on Income From Sources Within or Without the United States
PART I - SOURCE RULES AND OTHER GENERAL RULES RELATING TO FOREIGN INCOME
Sec. 861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income
from sources within the United States:

(3) Personal services
Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;

EXCEPT that compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if -

(A) the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual temporarily present in the United States for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 90 days during the taxable year,
(B) such compensation does not exceed $3,000 in the aggregate, and
(C) the compensation is for labor or services performed as an employee of or under a contract with -

(i) a nonresident alien, foreign partnership, or foreign corporation, not engaged in trade or business within the United States, or
(ii) an individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States, a domestic partnership, or
a domestic corporation, if such labor or services are performed for an office or
place of business maintained in a foreign country
or in a possession of the United States by such individual, partnership,
or corporation,
In addition, except for purposes of sections 79 and 105 and subchapter D, compensation for labor or services performed in the United States shall not be deemed to be income from sources within the United States if the labor or services are performed by a nonresident alien individual in connection with the individual's temporary presence in the United States as a regular member of the crew of a foreign vessel engaged in transportation between the United States and a foreign country or a possession of the United States.

In Summary, if you are a United States citizen, and receive compensation for labor or compensation for other activities(i.e. sources) in the United States you are subject to income taxes.

• compensation = item of income
• in exchange for = activity
• service = source.

A tax levied as an excise or duty on an activity of commerce.

A LAW DICTIONARY
by John Bouvier, Revised Sixth Edition, 1856:
WAGES, contract. A compensation given to a hired person for his or her services.

KNOWLTON v. MOORE, 178 U.S. 41 (1900)

• 'indirect taxes are levied upon the happening of an event or an exchange.'

Tyler v. U.S. 281 U.S. 497, 502 (1930)

• An indirect tax is a tax laid upon the happening of an event,as distinguished from its tangible fruits.

Charles C. Stewart Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 301 U.S. 548:

• The tax, which is described in the statute as an excise, is laid with uniformity throughout the United States as a duty, an impost, or an excise upon the relation of employment.

• "But natural rights, so called, are as much subject to taxation as rights of lesser importance. An excise is not limited to vocations or activities that may be prohibited altogether. It is not limited to those that are the outcome of a franchise. It extends to vocations or activities pursued as of common right."

• Employment is a business relation, if not itself a business. It is a relation without which business could seldom be carried on effectively. The power to tax the activities and relations that constitute a calling considered as a unit is the power to tax any of them. The whole includes the parts. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U.S. 249, 267 , 268 S., 53 S.Ct. 345, 349, 350, 87 A.L.R. 1191

House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, pg. 2580:

• "The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges (the type 3 and 4 taxes) which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax."

[ToryNotion]

...ah...a fellow Anti-Federalist. Regards, Tory

[Poohbah]

a_g's got the case cites down cold on the 861 issue.

[PatrickHenry]

...ah...a fellow Anti-Federalist.

I'm partial to Lost Causes.

[monday]

"I think the Constitution is a good thing, very much so, and would like the government to follow it. "

Sure, sure, you are just like the politicians you vote for. Lots of talk, but when it really comes down to it, you are happy they way things are. If the Democrats propose some silly socialist scheme that is unauthorized by the constitution, like, the "Prescription Drug Program", you complain loudly, but then you come out with your own version that isn't "as bad" as the wicked Democrats version. All the while spinning that it is "inevitable anyway" and "we don't want the Democrats to think we are mean", right?

In reality it is a back room deal done so that the Democrats will get what they want in exchange for not protesting the huge new layer of government waste and incompetence called the "Office of Homeland Security" whos broad new powers will be authorized by the "Patriot Act". Another encroachment on liberty that the constitution was designed to protect against.

Sigh.... yes, I guess, demanding that our politicians act within their constitutionally proscribed boundries would be considered extreme for you. After all, the lust for control is as strong in your heart as in any socialist Democrats heart.

The only difference is in what you wish to control. The Democrats wish to control our pocketbooks and our childrens minds. The Republicans wish to control everything else.

[mvpel]

Then what do you call this?

"The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:" ...
"(3) Personal services"
"Compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States;..."

Resorting to the application of the rules of English grammar, I would call "personal services" an "item" of income, not a "source" of income.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Actually, the income tax is imposed on taxable income.

It's a wage tax, plain and simple. You're taxed on your taxable wages, as no attempt is made to determine actual income.

[Poohbah]

Resorting to the application of the rules of English grammar, I would call "personal services" an "item" of income, not a "source" of income.

OK, come clean--you're really Bill Clinton!

[PhilipFreneau]

The only Extremist movement I know of is the F***ing Federal Government taking 30-40% of our income and for what?

Another Extremist is Mark Pitcavage, who was quoted in this article. Pitcavage founded the so-called "Militia Watchdog", now a part of the ADL. The "Watchdog" supposedly provides insight into the militia movement. But it is, in reality, a leftist front, as is the ADL, and the so-called Southern Poverty Law Center (created by Morris Dees). Recall that Clinton was at this low point in the polls prior to the OKC bombing. His clever use of the bombing to label all conservatives, the militia, Rush Limbaugh, etc., as extremists saved his presidency. Afterward, "anti-extremist" groups, such as the Militia Watchdog, became very popular. They were so successful in their propaganda campaign (with loyal assistance of the mainstream media) that the idea of a militia other than the National Guard has become anathema to many, even to some who claim to be conservative and strict constructionists.

[monday]

". I think we would probably let the girls keep voting. "

Except for camle. hehe..just kidding camle;)