Quixote wrote:
Famspear went to the trouble to answer your questions. You couldn't be bothered to check out the answers he provided or, apparently, to even understand your own question. IRC §63 does not define "income using the word income". It doesn't define "income" at all. It defines "taxable income", which was what the question you posted asked about.
Here's a tip. Don't copy and paste questions. Formulate your own questions. Once you have studied a subject long enough to ask an intelligent question, you might find find that you have answered it as well.
Famspear gave the same old garbage non-answers that all IRS loving Marxists give which are no answers at all.
63 defines taxable income using the word income. That is like defining a taxable dollar without defining what a dollar is or a taxable domewent without defining what a domewent is.
I don't need to cut and paste questions. I have not filed in over 31 years and never had a problem with the IRS that was not solved with a phone call and a couple of letters demanding they show me their delegation of authority orders. Senator Harry Reid wrote to me and told me to NEVER give ANYONE personal information without DEMANDING they prove they have the authority to even ask the questions. So I just followed his sound advice and the IRS went away. If you know anything about the IRS you know that their delegation of authority orders are WEAK! They are liars and ask questions they have no authority to ask while scaring people into violating their right to remain silent. They are all crooks and liars. Everyone of them.
My questions are so well formulated that the IRS, the Treasury, the US Mint, US Senators and many other elected officials cannot answer them or they give me answers that confirm I am right and that I am not a taxpayer or a person liable or that the IRS is nothing but a scam. Heck the IRS former District Director, there are none any more which of course means that one on is liable because there are no federal districts) informed me that I was not required to file and did it in writing. The questions I asked were very well formulated.
From Senator Ensign: "Thank you for contacting Senator John Ensign's office with your request for the legal definition of a dollar. After contacting the Congressional Research Service with your request, they have directed me to a report that explains the definition of a dollar from the 1856 edition of the Bouvier's Law Dictionary, to the 1986 edition of Black's Law, Second Pocket Edition, and explained that
the definition of a dollar is actually quite fluid. I have enclosed that report, and I hope it will be of help to you."
It was very helpful. It told me FRNs are not dollars and that the word dollars is not currently defined.
Dean Heller the Representative from Nevada even had to apologize for giving me the wrong answer concerning what statute defined what a dollar is and then could only CONFIRM that I was correct about 31 U.S.C. 5112(e) having the "most accurate definition."
From good ole Dean,
"Thank you for responding to my recent letter regarding the value of the U .S . dollar. I
appreciate your continued interest in this issue.
"To begin with, I apologize for the confusion my previous letter caused. To clarify, 31 U.S .C. 5116(b)(2) does in fact address the sale of silver and not the dollar. As you pointed out, 31 U.S.C. 5112(e) contains
the most accurate definition of a dollar coin, which by statute must contain .999 ounce fine silver."
No one here on Quatloos can give me the definition, as defined by Congress, of what a dollar is and they are REQUIRED by the Constitution to do so.
As Justice Kennedy wrote in Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417
"It is no answer, of course, to say that Congress surrendered its authority by its own hand; nor does it suffice to point out that a new statute, signed by the President or enacted over his veto, could restore to Congress the power it now seeks to relinquish. That a congressional cession of power is voluntary does not make it innocuous. The Constitution is a compact enduring for more than our time, and one Congress cannot yield up its own powers, much less those of other Congresses to follow. See Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 880, 111 S.Ct. 2631, 2639-2640, 115 L.Ed.2d 764 (1991); cf. Chadha, supra, at 942, n. 13, 103 S.Ct., at 2779, n. 13.
Abdication of responsibility is not part of the constitutional design."
Well here are two constitutional responsibilities that have been abdicated:
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
And
Section. 10. No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
Congress has failed to To coin Money and regulate the Value thereof.
If they have then where is the law that "regulates the Value" of the "dollar"?
Is that a cut and paste question? Yes it is. It is cut and paste from dozens of letters I have sent to Congress critters and other people that should know and NONE can answer it.
Without the legal definition of the artificially created monetary measurement unit known as the United States "dollar" all taxing statutes are void for vagueness. And Justice Kennedy was VERY clear that the Supreme Court CANNOT define what a dollar is because:
"Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight:
Concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty. The Federalist states the axiom in these explicit terms: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 47, p. 301 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). So convinced were the Framers that liberty of the person inheres in structure that at first they did not consider a Bill of Rights necessary. The Federalist No. 84, pp. 513, 515; G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, pp. 536-543 (1969). It was at Madison's insistence that the First Congress enacted the Bill of Rights. R. Goldwin, From Parchment to Power 75-153 (1997). It would be a grave mistake, however, to think a Bill of Rights in Madison's scheme then or in sound constitutional theory now renders separation of powers of lesser importance. See Amar, The Bill of Rights as a Constitution, 100 Yale L.J. 1131, 1132 (1991)...
"Quoting Montesquieu, the Federalist Papers made the point in the following manner: “‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body,’ says he, ‘there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws to execute them in a tyrannical manner.’ Again: ‘Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control,
for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power,
the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.’ ” The Federalist No. 47, supra, at 303.
"It follows that if a citizen who is taxed has the measure of the tax or the decision to spend determined by the Executive alone, without adequate control by the citizen's Representatives in Congress, liberty is threatened. Money is the instrument of policy and policy affects the lives of citizens. The individual loses liberty in a real sense if that instrument is not subject to traditional constitutional constraints."
Congress has ABDICATED its duty to define what a dollar is and the Court have NO jurisdiction or delegated authority from the Constitution to define the monetary measurement or "the judge would then be the legislator" and a tyrant.
Confucius circa 500 B. C. is reported to have said: “When words lose their meaning, people will lose their liberty."
So define the words clearly and unequivocally or the statute is void for vagueness.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama promised Americans his administration would reform the
"monstrous" U.S. tax system as millions faced the dreaded annual deadline on Wednesday for filing income tax returns.
But it will not happen because the IRS MUST have fear as its weapon because there is no law that requires non-Congressionally Crated Rights accepting Americas to file or pay.
Can you say vague? Nina Olson of the TAXPAYER ADVOCATE SERVICE can.
Small businesses are burdened with a particularly bewildering array of laws. They face a patchwork set of rules that govern the depreciation of equipment, onerous filing requirements for employment taxes, and a
vague set of factors that govern the classification of workers as either employees or independent contractors that keep businesses and the IRS battling each other for years with
no obvious "correct" answer.
Nina Olsen also told Congress:
- Since the beginning of 2001, there have been more than 3,250 changes to the tax code --
an average of more than one a day -- including more than 500 changes last year alone.
- The tax code has grown so long that it's challenging even to figure out its length. A search of the code conducted in the course of preparing my last report turned up 3.7 million words. A 2005 study by the Tax Foundation, a tax research organization, found that the number of words in the code has more than tripled since 1975.
Madison warned against such so-called laws and questioned whether or not they were law at all.
“It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action;
but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? PUBLIUS. (Madison)
Then on top of that the dollar is still undefined.
How can anyone in their right mind sign a 1040 under penalties of perjury knowing full well they doing nothing more than guessing? Guessing while under penalties of perjury IS perjury.
Every American that files a 1040 commits perjury because they CANNOT know it is correct.
