the rest plugs a conceptual flaw I though I'd found in the NITE and TaxGate strategy as detailed by Rose
Ohhh! Just to help you out :O)
The following is the judicial analysis of the 861 "sources" argument your defense must overcome. The first it is a state tax case, the reasoning reflects that which is to be expected in the federal courts and the IRS view in the second echos similar reasoning and federal case law based on the governments position shown in the second excerpt.
It will be fun to see how your your "plugs a conceptual flaw" flies in the courtroom. File your suit and go for it. It will be that much sooner to see the end of the Income and Payroll Taxes. At least till Congress plugs any hole you might uncover.
PDF file > 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.
PDF file >> The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments, pages 9 & 10:
http://www.treas.gov/irs/ci/tax_fraud/frivolous.pdf
B. Contention: Only foreign-source income is taxable.
Some maintain that there is no federal statute imposing a tax on income derived from sources within the United States by citizens or residents of the United States. They argue instead that federal income taxes are excise taxes imposed only on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations for the privilege of receiving income from sources within the United States. The premise for this argument is a misreading of sections 861, et seq., and 911, et seq., as well as the regulations under those sections.
The Law:
As stated above, for federal income tax purposes, “gross income” means all income from whatever source derived and includes compensation for services. I.R.C. § 61. Further, Treasury Regulation § 1.1- 1(b) provides, “[i]n 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.” I.R.C. sections 861 and 911 define the sources of income (U.S. versus non-U.S. source income) for such purposes as the prevention of double taxation of income that is subject to tax by more than one country. These sections neither specify whether income is taxable, nor do they determine or define gross income. Further, these frivolous assertions are clearly contrary to well-established legal precedent.
Relevant Case Law:
Great-West Life Assur. Co. v. United States, 678 F.2d 180, 183 (Ct. Cl. 1982)
– the court stated that “[t]he determination of where income is derived or ‘sourced’ is generally of no moment to either United States citizens or United States corporations, for such persons are subject to tax under I.R.and I.R.C. § 11, respectively, on their worldwide income.”
Williams v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 136, 138 (2000) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was not from any of the sources listed in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(a), characterizing it as “reminiscent of tax-protester rhetoric that has been universally rejected by this and other courts.”
Corcoran v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-18, 83 T.C.M. (CCH) 1108, 1110 (2002) – the court rejected the taxpayers’ argument that his income was not from any of the sources in Treas. Reg. § 1.861-8(f), stating that the “source rules [of sections 861 through 865] do not exclude from U.S. taxation income earned by U.S. citizens from sources within the United States.” The court further required the taxpayers to pay a $2,000 penalty under section 6673(a)(1) because “they . . . wasted limited judicial and administrative resources.”
Aiello v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-40, 69 T.C.M. (CCH) 1765 (1995) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that the only sources of income for purposes of section 61 are listed in section 861.
Madge v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-370, 80 T.C.M. (CCH) 804 (2000) – the court labeled as “frivolous” the position that only foreign income is taxable.
Solomon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-509, 66 T.C.M. (CCH) 1201, 1202 (1993) – the court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that his income was exempt from tax by operation of sections 861 and 911, noting that he had no foreign income and that section 861 provides that “compensation for labor or personal services performed in the United States . . . are items of gross income.”
I wish you would really read the treatise I posted written by Larkin Rose. Meyers mixed a small portion of the "sources" argument with a plethora of other failed arguments, including the old "state citizen" argument, after the 14th amendment made people citizens of the national government. and he made the argument wrong.
I'm sure the state court made a lot of hay out of it, and were delighted to get on record some sort of contrary ruling that people unfamiliar with the argument could heave a sigh of relief over. This is not he one, though. Sorry.
To further the confusion the court lists again the types of income, not the sources. It just pronounced the the 861 argument wrong. No analysis of why it was wrong.
“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.”
But, you see the cite of this paragraph is disingenuious. There are citizens of the United States, according to the tax code, that are not liable for the income tax by exception, having nothing to do with the sources argument. For a small instance, if a person makes less than a certain amount of "types" of income, he is not liable for taxes. His exemption is within the tax code. The paragraph above does not distinguish.
As for the rest of your post, these are tax court pronouncements, legislative tribunals having no power to establish precedent, and an arm of the IRS in all cases. Even the IRS does not recognize applications of rulings lower than the Supreme Court.
And the courts rulings, they just say the argumetn is false. Their rulings do not include opinions examining any aspect of the argument in Rose's treatise. And still, in the face of all these rulings you post snippets of, both Taxgate and NITE are abating the personal tax liability of people and business as we speak, using the source argument, properly applied.
How many time do I have to say this. The cases you bring up are when the argument is improperly applied and mixed with other failed arguments, like the Meyers state case. The cases where it has been properly applied are not available for you to cut and paste. Do you understand? They don't make it to the web or to court. Where there is victory there is no record, other than people celebrating abatements.
We have been through this seveal times. If you are going to go to all this trouble, please read the treatise with a mind to understanding what it is saying and trace it arguments. Sure, it'll take you time to do it, but you might come up with something.
Read my lips, I am not invested in the Rose treatise. I look for flaws myself. I thought I could post the thing out here and you bulging brains would examine it and offer reasoned discussion, but all I get is emotional reaction. Same thing with the "lost tribes" issue, in which I am likewise not invested. What is it with you people?
