I think it's reasonable to ask of one who comes out against a position to study the position so that he know what it is before he posts against it.
I know whats in it, that it has no basis in common sense, the Constitutional authority of Congress, or the intent of Congress. That is more than sufficient. You have yet to show otherwise. You make assertions with no basis and that is all your "sources" argument is.
Who pays federal judges and from what source?
The Treasury from general revenues, with debt paper if necessary; fees, tarriffs, specific excises, duties, .... Take your pick. The income tax is not necessary to the payment of judges. Payment of judges is guaranteed before all other expenses of government, by Article III of the Constitution.
It's not the "861 argument"; it's the sources argument. 861 is just a part of the whole. You don't know that because you haven't read it.
Whatever you want to call it. Subchapter 'N' argument is another name for it. It's been around for quite awhile, and nothing new in it.
Then why has not one judge examined the sources argument and pointed in judicial opinion where the argument fails?
None of your "losers" have chosen to take their case to the appellate level, to the law as opposed to the facts as applied to statute in the lower court. The low court goes by overturning precident or presumption of the law's validity lacking such precident from a higher court. Lowest level courts may only apply statute and law in existence they cannot hear cases concerning the law itself. If you want a win in a test at law, you appeal, otherwise lose for not carrying the case forward.
As far a "sources" legal argument Meyers v CBOE is the appellate answer to overcome.
(pdf document) 2001 SBE 001, pages 8-11:
"Income “Sources.” Appellant’s primary contention relies on his misapplication of IRC section 861 and its implementing regulations (most specifically, Treasury Regulation section (Regulation) 1.861-8(f)(1)). Appellant contends that “gross income” (apparently for both federal and state tax purposes) is limited to income from an obscure list of “operative sections” listed in Regulation 1.861-8(f)(1). This contention is groundless and frivolous. To better understand this contention we will briefly review a few IRC sections and regulations. California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) section 17071 defines “gross income” by reference to IRC section 61 “except as otherwise provided.” Section 61 defines “gross income” as follows:
“Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle [Subtitle A—Income Taxes], gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.”(Emphasis added.)
For federal purposes, IRC section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of every individual who is a citizen or resident alien of the United States. One of its implementing regulations provides, in part, as follows:
“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. . . . As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.”
(Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(b); emphasis added.) Thus, for a citizen or a resident alien it will normally not matter whether a source of income is from within the United States or without—since both are subject to the federal income tax unless specifically provided elsewhere in the code (such as the “foreign earned income” discussed above).
Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations have special provisions for federal income tax purposes. For example, IRC section 871 imposes “a tax of 30 percent of the amount received from sources within the United States by a nonresident alien individual . . . [on income other than capital gains].” (Emphasis added.) One of the implementing regulations for IRC section 871 provides, in part, as follows:
“For purposes of the income tax, alien individuals are divided generally into two classes, namely, resident aliens and nonresident aliens. Resident alien individuals are, in general, taxable the same as citizens of the United States; that is, a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States.”
(Treas. Reg. § 1.871-1(a); emphasis added.) Once again, it is clear that citizens and resident aliens are taxable on income from all sources, both within and without the United States.
For some purposes (such as taxing the income of nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations), it is necessary to know whether a source of income is from within or without the United States. (See Int.Rev. Code, § 871, supra.) IRC sections 861 through 865, together with their implementing regulations, provide the bases for making this determination— for federal income tax purposes. IRC section 861 provides the criteria for determining which portions of various income items are from “sources” within the United States, and IRC section 862 does the same for “sources” of income without the United States. (IRC sections 863–865 provide additional rules—including for the apportionment and allocation of income to sources within or without the United States.)
The regulations under IRC section 861 assist in determining whether income is from a source within or without the United States—including situations where income comes partly from within and partly from without the United States—and where it is necessary to allocate and apportion deductions. It is here that appellant makes his primary error. Appellant completely misapplies Regulation 1.861-8, subsections (a)(1) and (f)(1). He concludes that these relatively obscure portions of the regulations suddenly change the whole definition of taxable income for citizens and resident aliens to include only income from the list of “operative sections” in subsection (f)(1) of this regulation. This defies logic and the clear purpose of IRC section 861. Subsection (a)(1) of the regulation states that it applies to the determination of taxable income “from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections.” The list of “operative sections” in subdivision (f)(1) does not include IRC sections 61 and 63. Therefore, rather than limiting either “gross income” under section 61 or “taxable income” under section 63, this regulation has only the very limited application defined therein. Indeed, Regulation 1.861-8(g) provides a number of examples of how section 861 should be applied. (See Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(g), examples 17-22 and 25-33.) These examples show how to determine whether an item of income (sometimes in very complex factual situations) is from a source within or without the United States. Sometimes the examples use terms such as “domestic” or “U.S.” source, or “foreign” source, instead of “within” or “without.” But they all clearly apply only to the determination of whether an item of income is from “within” or “without” the United States.
As well as the wording of Section 861 itself in context of the whole statute:
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.
And in Regard to 26 USC 861
861. Income from sources within the United States
(a) Gross income from sources(activities) 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 ..."
Yet, when any other of the old arguments are presented, even for the umpteenth time, they take great pains to detail the flaws in those.
The lower courts do not take any time on those either. What is to be said is said at the Appellate and Supreme Court level where the test is of the law. If you don't make an appeal of a low court's ruling, guess what, you don't get answers.
To win at law, you have to lose the factual case in the low court first then test the law on appeal. That is the lesson most folks never understand and fail to carry forward.
In the end analysis only the Supreme Court has the final say, or appellate if the SC lets the ruling stand by denying cert.