Fuzzrabbit's thread (continued)

[Dr. Caligari]

Gross income includes "service of what ever nature" which taken directly from Social Security for Social Security "employment" purposes.

You've been called on this repeatedly, and haven't answered it yet. The phrase you put in quotation marks ("service of what ever nature" ) does not appear in section 61 (or any other definition of gross income). It is entirely a figment of your imagination. Section 61 includes in gross income "all income, from whatever source derived." This language appeared in the income tax statutes long before Social Security ever existed. Common workers paid income taxes on their pay long before social security ever existed.

You have been asked repeatedly to show why the definitions of wages under the social security and withholding statutes should have any impact on the interpretation of section 61. Why no answer?

[Imalawman]

All week and that's where we get? That wages equal a service?

*trying to stave off the aneurysm*

I was trying to explain to another attorney one time what dealing with TP arguments was like....the best I could come up with was this:

It's not as if they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is orange." It's more like they look out the window onto a lovely spring day and say "The sky is a water buffalo." And there's just not much you can do with that.

Ah yes, the wonderful world of litigating TP cases - welcome aboard.

[Randall]

You have to read everything between the commas (commas are the little hook like thingies that sit on the line, the hook like thingies above the line are quotation marks):

including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash

So if you are paid in something OTHER THAN CASH, you include the cash value of that something. If you receive 3 pounds of chicken poop, you include the cash value of 3 pounds of chicken poop, whatever that is.

[.]

Between:

“wages” means all remuneration

and

paid in any medium other than cash

you forgot to take account of that little word "INCLUDING." As in:

“wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, INCLUDING the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than
cash

Never mind that you haven't answered the question of how you manage to ignore section 61.

Are you really as impenetrably stupid and ignorant as you appear to be?

[The Observer]

...you forgot to take account of that little word "INCLUDING."

I'm sorry, but it is a well-known fact that no word exists in TPs' language for "including."

[Dr. Caligari]

You have been asked repeatedly to show why the definitions of wages under the social security and withholding statutes should have any impact on the interpretation of section 61. Why no answer?

....(crickets)....

[Brian Rookard]

I guess at some point you have to realize that a tax protestor's argument usually devolves to the same tired refrain ... direct tax blah, blah, blah ... no wages blah, blah, blah ... not an employee, blah, blah, blah ... [ad nauseum, ad infinitum]

[Tax Man]

Poor Rachel. Getting tripped up on the word "including" is an embarrassing mistake. now she's got egg all over her face and probably won't come back.

[rachel]

Between:

“wages” means all remuneration

and

paid in any medium other than cash

you forgot to take account of that little word "INCLUDING." As in:

“wages” means all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, INCLUDING the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than
cash

Never mind that you haven't answered the question of how you manage to ignore section 61.

Are you really as impenetrably stupid and ignorant as you appear to be?

I never seen such a bunch of complete morons who cannot read nor comprehend what it is they are reading if they could read to begin with!
Your precious "including" word your basing your incompetence on is only referring to the cash value of any other type of medium used to pay for renumeration for "Service" which is 3121(b) "employment" for Social Security purposes.
For example, if I painted houses for a living and in exchange of money for "services" or stautory "employment" as defined in subtitle C. I decided instead of the money I wanted an equal amount of groceries as the medium for payment for this particular job.
This means I would still be obligated to pay the Social Security tax and be deducted the 3402 for gross income liability based on the cash value of the groceries. I'm still working under the Social Security defined "employment" thats labeled as a "service". Meaning that I'm not working for cash... but statutory "wages".
Whats so freaken hard about this?
None of you morons have yet to demonstrate effectively that anything outside of "employment" is not cash.
And to answer your question about section 61.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61 Prev | Next

§ 61. Gross income defined



(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, 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;

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed

Do see any difference between "any service, of whatever nature, performed" and "all income from whatever source derived"?
I dont do you?

[LPC]

None of you morons have yet to demonstrate effectively that anything outside of "employment" is not cash.

There must be one or more nouns, and perhaps also verbs, missing from that sentence, because "anything outside of employment is not cash" is gibberish.

And to answer your question about section 61.

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 61 Prev | Next

§ 61. Gross income defined

(a) General definition
Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, 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;

(b) Employment
For purposes of this chapter, the term “employment” means any service, of whatever nature, performed

Do see any difference between "any service, of whatever nature, performed" and "all income from whatever source derived"?
I dont do you?

Ignoring for the moment that a question does not answer a question, you don't seem to have understood the question about section 61 at all. The question is how you can use a definition from section 3401 to affect the meaning of section 61 when section 3401 specifically states that its definitions are ONLY for the purposes of section 3401 and its related sections, of which section 61 is not part.

But still, what you have written does provide some insights into your mental processes. (I started to write "thought processes," but then changed it to "mental processes" because I'm not sure that anything you do can be called "thought.") You seem to believe that:

1. Section 61 uses the words "service" in defining "gross income" and

2. Section 3401 uses the words "service" in defining "wages" and "employer" so

3. Therefore, the *limitations* or *exclusions* from "wages" in section 3401 also apply to limit the definition of "income" in section 61, even though section 3401 does not define or limit the meaning of the word "service" in any way.

That makes NO sense whatsoever. It's like saying that barns are painted red and fire trucks are painted red, so therefore barns should be able to fight fires. Demonstrating that two definitions (or two objects) have similar characteristics does not mean that they must automatically be identical in every other way.

I am reminded of Woody Allen's example of logic: All men are mortal; Socrates is mortal; therefore, all men are Socrates. The difference between you and Woody Allen was that Woody Allen was being intentionally funny.

Your response to this will be that I'm a moron, and this thread is approaching the magic 100 number, so I'm locking it. Anyone wishing to continue to beat this dead rachel can start another thread.