Did you miss the fact that those dividends were from stock in federally owned corporation, therefore, all gains & profits from those stocks are subject to taxation because those profits were acquired from the federal purse? United States v. County of Allegheny, 322 US 174 (1944)
Internal Revenue Manual
Table of Contents
Part 4 Examining Process
Chapter 10. Examination of Returns
Exhibit 4.10.4-9
The Bank Deposits and Cash Expenditures Method: Example of Computation of Gross Receipts.
Bank Deposits and Cash Expenditures Method
Example
1. Total reconciled bank deposits $151,500
Less:
2. Nontaxable receipts deposited ($35,000)
3. Net deposits resulting from taxable receipts $116,500
There are taxable receipts and there are nontaxable receipts and it is not the responsibility of the IRS to tell us which are taxable and which are not. The people write the laws, the people pass the laws, therefore, it is the responsibility of we the people to know the laws we write and pass via our representatives in DC. My guess is you have never been through an audit. Well, I have, more than once.
Never let it be said that ever miss an opportunity to put your ignorance on display.
US v Allegheny was a PROPERTY tax case. That’s even more irrelevant than a fake cite to a corporate tax case.
You clearly don’t yet understand that whether or not something is or is not somehow related to the feds has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether something is income.
And then you trot out yet more nonsense from Hendrickson — his “includes and including” rubbish. What’s next? His I’m not a “person” baloney?
It’s comical. TPs whine and complain about laws being unclear. Then, when Congress adds some words to reduce possible confusion such as “includes the performance of the functions of a public office” (you know, like a judge) TPs try to twist it to mean the exact opposite of what the words mean.
See, way back when, some thought that the income of federal judges couldn’t be taxed. The courts said it could be. That’s why those specific words “public office” are there. To remove all doubt from the minds of the uninformed.
Perhaps anticipating Hendrickson’s nonsense, they added the sentence “... ‘includes’ and ‘including’ (...) shall NOT be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined” [emphasis added].
Get it? Using the word “public” excludes no other thing from the meaning. Private, for instance.
You’re about as good as Hendrickson at “legal interp” — that is, not good at all. Horrible, in fact.
If you doubt that, there are many, many federal court decisions referring to him and his utterly stupid book, including many against people who bought his book and were dumb enough to believe it.
Every bogus idea he has ever concocted has been slapped down by one or more federal judges as frivolous. You should read some of those decisions instead of junk that means nothing.
The poor guy even has something almost nobody else has — a permanent federal injunction against filing his own tax returns using his crack-pot ideas.
Keep it up. Your name could wind up on a federal civil tax lawsuit or federal criminal tax indictment, too.