Quatloos!

So if Defendant did not engage in a taxable activity i.e. selling alcohol, tobacco or firearms, then he/she is/are not liable per the "gibberish code" per the assessment statute at:

Assessment Statutes

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6201

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6203

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6204

Assessment has its authority at 27 Part 70 under the Parallel Table of Authorities.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/part-70

SquatloosianTroll wrote:So if Defendant did not engage in a taxable activity

What is a "taxable activity", and where do you find it in the law?

The "taxable activity" is getting paid.

grixit wrote:The "taxable activity" is getting paid.

Shhhhhh, no helping the guest poster. This is his/her $100,000 question that they need to answer on their own.

Really you need me to explain "taxable activity"?
Selling (an activity) alcohol tobacco and firearms.

SquatloosianTroll wrote:Really you need me to explain "taxable activity"?
Selling (an activity) alcohol tobacco and firearms.

Are you suggesting that only the sale of alcohol, tobacco and firearms is a taxable activity? Are there other activities that are taxable?

And why is the sale of, say tobacco, a taxable activity? I am asking this since you really didn't answer wserra's question. That may be because you didn't understand what he was actually asking.

SquatloosianTroll wrote:Really you need me to explain "taxable activity"?

Yes. Feel free to cite the section of the IRC that defines it. Or the case or reg, for that matter.

IANAL. Nor am I a CPA or an RA. But I always thought that there was taxable income and non-taxable income. Activities are not taxed. Income is taxed.

oeeewwwwwwww! Fresh troll meat!

SquatloosianTroll wrote:Really you need me to explain "taxable activity"?

Errand #1 for our troll du jour: Go find a provision in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code that limits the application of the U.S. Federal income tax to an activity. Hint: The Federal income tax applies to you, regardless of whether you're engaging in an activity or not.

Errand #2: Since you've fallen for the nonsensical "realization of income for Federal income tax purposes is limited to a taxable activity" wackadooster foolishness, I'll make errand #2 "easy" for you; this question actually does involve an activity: theft by embezzlement.

Please explain why a union official who embezzles over $700,000 from a union and an insurance company must, under the Internal Revenue Code, include the receipt of the money as his income for Federal income tax purposes, even though he does not really own the money, even if he has to return the money to its rightful owner, and even if he cannot take a deduction when he has to return the money.

I see that our latest troll cited the assessment statutes.

Dear Mr. Troll: I hate to have to break the news to you, but the assessment statutes have nothing to do with whether the Federal income tax is imposed only on "activities." And, no, the authority for assessments of Federal income tax is not based on 27 CFR part 70. You've been reading tax protester literature, and you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really late to the game!

The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid Federal taxation through inactivity, and nothing in the Internal Revenue Code limits the application of the Federal income tax to an activity -- taxable or otherwise.

Famspear wrote:I see that our latest troll cited the assessment statutes.

Dear Mr. Troll: I hate to have to break the news to you, but the assessment statutes have nothing to do with whether the Federal income tax is imposed only on "activities." And, no, the authority for assessments of Federal income tax is not based on 27 CFR part 70. You've been reading tax protester literature, and you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really late to the game!

I hope you weren't treading water while you posted that.

Burnaby49 wrote:

Famspear wrote:I see that our latest troll cited the assessment statutes.

Dear Mr. Troll: I hate to have to break the news to you, but the assessment statutes have nothing to do with whether the Federal income tax is imposed only on "activities." And, no, the authority for assessments of Federal income tax is not based on 27 CFR part 70. You've been reading tax protester literature, and you really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really late to the game!

I hope you weren't treading water while you posted that.

Gee, I do notice that we've had a lot of rain here in Houston lately.

Based on the rain gauge here at my house:
Friday: zero rain
Saturday: 10.4 inches
Sunday, August 27, up to 10:40 pm: 18.86 inches

Total: 29.26 inches of rain.

So far, we're OK here at the house. In looking at the Harris County, Texas watershed map, our home is actually near the "top" of one of the watersheds -- so the water is flowing away from us.

So far, anyway.

I think I'll start a thread on the Hurricane Harvey situation in "Gambling and Quatloosia Good Life".

Income tax applies to salaries, wages, and also revenue received from royalties, dividends, rents, interest, gambling, and other inert forms of receiving money - not necessarily an 'activity'. What is taxable is 'income' not activity.

IRC s. 61 had it covered with it's definition of gross income I could go on, but clearly there is more to it than the few listed by new troll.

(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;
(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.
(b) Cross references
For items specifically included in gross income, see part II (sec. 71 and following). For items specifically excluded from gross income, see part III (sec. 101 and following)

fortinbras wrote:Income tax applies to salaries, wages, and also revenue received from royalties, dividends, rents, interest, gambling, and other inert forms of receiving money - not necessarily an 'activity'. What is taxable is 'income' not activity.

I am hardly an expert, but I did take one college course in taxation, for which I had to buy a complete copy of the 1986 tax code. Its is two volumes, each as thick as a phone book, but only about 6 x 8 inches. The type is very small, maybe six point. I think I still have it somewhere.

As I recall, it more or less begins by saying that ALL income is taxable, except ... (there follows about 1,600 pages of exceptions, and special handling for certain transactions).

As I understand it, where the tax code (or regulations) call out a particular source of income as taxable, it is usually to clarify a situation that, at some point in history, was questioned. For example, somewhere, there's a line saying that federal income tax applies to federal employees. Some TP's have latched onto that to interpret it to mean that ONLY federal employees are subject to the tax. Same for elected officials and federal judges.

I don't know what the percentage is, but most people can use the 1040EZ form to file. This form is little more than your name and address, gross income, tax (obtained from a simple table lookup) and how much you are owe or are to be refunded. Plus your signature. I don't see how it could get much simpler.

I file a 1040, plus schedule A, because I own a home and have property tax and mortgage interest to deduct. Even that is not difficult.

The bottom line is that the TP's are deliberately misreading the tax code to come up with outlandish claims, or to "prove" that the code is gibberish.

Note to TP's. The test for whether or not a statute is void for vagueness is not whether YOU understand it or not, but whether a reasonable and educated person can understand it enough to file a legitimate claim.

The tax code is complex, to be sure, and it should be simplified. But, some peoples' financial dealings are complex and need complex code to address them. This is especially true for businesses. Most people, however, I suspect, are like me: they have only earned income, maybe a little interest income, some charitable deductions, property tax and mortgage interest deductions.

G-man - this "taxable activity" (or "revenue taxable activity" or "excise taxable activity") is an old TP chestnut that you may not recognize. The argument, such as it is, goes that (a) even if you receive the things in 26 USC 61, you (b) do not owe income tax on them unless you are engaged in a "taxable activity" (usually some sort of govt employment). Much bullshit goes between (a) and (b).

Needless to say, rejected by every court that has looked at it.

wserra wrote:G-man - this "taxable activity" (or "revenue taxable activity" or "excise taxable activity") is an old TP chestnut that you may not recognize.

Yes, and too many people pounced on our new poster before he had a chance to really get himself wound up and tangled in his response. Fresh meat, indeed; you need to let the tiger actually fall into the trap before jumping out of the bushes and saying, "Gotcha!"

Completely agree. However, everyone - unfortunately, including me - believes that they can say it just a little bit better than anyone else.