Duplo Blocks out-Larkens Larken

[Quixote]

Duplox Blox on LH2 has revealed his clever plan to detax himself. He notes that a calculation under 26 CFR 1.1348(something) of something called "earned taxable income" requires a definition in 26 CFR 1.1343. But there is no 26 CFR 1.1343 anymore, so ipso facto, "earned taxable income" can't be calculated, so there is no such thing as taxable earned income.

It is a perfect argument but for two minor flaws. First, the context of 1.1348 makes it clear that "earned taxable income" is not necessarily the same as taxable earned income and second, IRC 1348 was repealed in 1980. I don't expect either of those flaws to faze Duplo.

[LPC]

IRC 1348 was repealed in 1980.

Hendrickson is still relying on section 93 of the Revenue Act of 1862. But that standard, it will be at least the year 2127 before a Crackhead notices that section 1348 is gone.

[Quixote]

I decided to check out 26 CFR 1.1348 to see if Duplo fiddled with it. He didn't, but someone did. The GPO's web copy has a typo in in. The reference to § 1.1343–(a) should be to §1.1348-3(a). I should have realiazed that before, because 1.1343-(a) is not in the proper format for a CFR section. So LegoHead is relying on a typo in a de facto repealed regulations section.

And he's ignoring the phrase "For purposes of section 1348 and this section", but that's par for the course.

[The Observer]

But we all know perfectly well that the typo will be seized on by Crackheads (as well as others) as some sort of evidence of the shenanigans the government has been playing in order to illegally collect the income tax.

[ASITStands]

I decided to check out 26 CFR 1.1348 to see if Duplo fiddled with it. He didn't, but someone did. The GPO's web copy has a typo in in. The reference to § 1.1343–(a) should be to §1.1348-3(a). I should have realiazed that before, because 1.1343-(a) is not in the proper format for a CFR section. So LegoHead is relying on a typo in a de facto repealed regulations section.

And he's ignoring the phrase "For purposes of section 1348 and this section", but that's par for the course.

That's rich and par for the course! Good find and a real head's up for what may come next.

Once tax deniers start making this argument, it can be shown how it's a typo, etc. I was just starting to look at it myself when your analysis showed up. Thanks.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Duplo keeps asking an interesting question:

Do you know who I am?

Aside from a freakin' idiot who knows nothing about tax law? No...and more to the point, why should we care?

[LPC]

I decided to check out 26 CFR 1.1348 to see if Duplo fiddled with it. He didn't, but someone did. The GPO's web copy has a typo in in.

My electronic copy of the regulations, from CCH, has the same typo.

And the typo appears in the oldest version of the CFR on-line, from 1997.

So it's possible that the typo dates back to the original publication of the regulation in the Federal Register, but I don't have access to that to check. (The on-line version of the Federal Register only goes back to the 1990s.)