i dont have to pay cause i dont feel like it

[Farmer Giles]

obviously. so theres evasion, or some more legal remedy.

im starting here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income

The International Accounting Standards Board uses this definition:

"Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants."

taxes are returns due to a 3rd party (the government). every tax i can think of out there is ad valorem, and indirect.

heres how I know where to identify income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... w_Glass_Co.


and I learned all this on SuiJuris!

[Farmer Giles]

so keep the State out of your business and eliminate taxation. It seems that taxes occur as a consequence of some own act. but it also seems that any transaction could equally be characterized by some other fiscal concept, rendering it "untaxable". for example, credit/debt, collateral forfeit, caution policy damages...

"whered ya get that money? I bought it!"

[Imalawman]

obviously. so theres evasion, or some more legal remedy.

im starting here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income

The International Accounting Standards Board uses this definition:

"Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants."

taxes are returns due to a 3rd party (the government). every tax i can think of out there is ad valorem, and indirect.

heres how I know where to identify income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... w_Glass_Co.


and I learned all this on SuiJuris!

That, and $3.50, will get you a grande caramel macchiato at Starbucks.

I know, I know, my 8 years of formal education (post high school) dealing with taxation, LL.M in tax, and years of actual practice mean nothing, right? I couldn't possible know more about taxes then someone who researched on wikipedia.

I get so tired of morons trying to talk about the tax law as if they somehow can discover a loophole that no professional in the history of the Earth has been able to uncover. How can someone really be that delusional.

[Number Six]

There are practically-speaking, a number of loopholes, in the buying and selling category, Captain. Some day as the state revenue people get the computers and software to target enough people as a deterence, and some as substantial revenue generators, you will see a quantum shift out of the buying and selling of assets, collectibles, and other items. The cash economy can only be regulated if the banks were able to track the big bills like they track checks. But since the IRS and state DRS have trouble tracking check transactions that do not come with reporting requirements, they are certainly a long way off from tracking cash. Those unlucky enough to be caught doing "cash structuring" in Connecticut don't think the government is soft on tax fraud, preparers nailed in CT don't believe the IRS has gone into hibernation. But there are many people who are laughing up their sleeves as they have gotten away with mainstream tax avoidance, recently, or twenty years in the past. mister giles and compiney is not werth thes scrutany of the revanue collacters.

[wserra]

heres how I know where to identify income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... w_Glass_Co.

and I learned all this on SuiJuris!

I can believe that.

Here's what your link says: "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name." So you learned all you know about income from a Wikipedia entry that doesn't exist. As, apparently, did everyone else on Sui Juris. Didn't any of you guys notice that your link doesn't say anything?

Actually, I take that back. There are posters on Sui Juris who would notice that. You just aren't one of them.

If Glenshaw Glass is important to you, though, we can take a look at the actual case here. The Court framed the issue as follows: "whether money received as exemplary damages for fraud or as the punitive two-thirds portion of a treble-damage antitrust recovery must be reported by a taxpayer as gross income under 22 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939". If you are thus wondering whether the 1939 IRC taxed antitrust punitive damages, this is your case. Is that your question?

Even if that isn't your exact issue, the opinion contains language showing just how sweeping the term "gross income" is: "The sweeping scope of the controverted statute [defining "gross income"] is readily apparent ... This Court has frequently stated that this language was used by Congress to exert in this field "the full measure of its taxing power." (Citation omitted.) ... And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted." The Court then concluded that, since nowhere in the IRC did Congress exempt punitive damages from the definition of "gross income", they were taxable.

Similarly, if whatever funds you are concerned about are not specifically exempted in the IRC, they are income to you, and taxable. That's the lesson of Glenshaw Glass.

Hope this helps.

[Nikki]

Farmer:

Be very, very careful quoting Wiki articles on taxation in this forum.

You are quoting to some of the authors -- recognized experts in the laws of taxation.

[Brandybuck]

I couldn't possible know more about taxes then someone who researched on wikipedia.

Years ago before Wikipedia, before the internet became a series of tubes, but shortly after Al Gore invented it, I worked for a newspaper publisher who discovered a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics. He had a bachelors in some field of engineering, yet he claimed to no more than highly regarded doctorates in physics. He wanted to build and patent a free energy engine, but as he explained, there was this conspiracy that prevented him from getting any bank loans to build the damned thing.

[LPC]

Someone please alert me if the farmer ever expresses a coherent idea.

[Lambkin]

I couldn't possible know more about taxes then someone who researched on wikipedia.

Years ago before Wikipedia, before the internet became a series of tubes, but shortly after Al Gore invented it, I worked for a newspaper publisher who discovered a loophole in the laws of thermodynamics. He had a bachelors in some field of engineering, yet he claimed to no more than highly regarded doctorates in physics. He wanted to build and patent a free energy engine, but as he explained, there was this conspiracy that prevented him from getting any bank loans to build the damned thing.

You worked for Bob Lazar?!

[Farmer Giles]

the query us mere villagers have is "what on earth is income"? and "how did I get any". There is a great naysayer on SuiJuris, one Mertensv16 (I think he's one of yours) who posted some cases explaining the difference between "derived" and "accrued". Someone here has a tagline that expresses this dichotomy; "from any source derived" is a term of limitation.

Glenshaw is interesting because it defines how one obtains income after all: by accession. which has got to be different than succession. There is no tax on success, in America, unless you get mugged.

income is part of a larger description, that of "benefits". Its telling how few realize that they are incurring these debts by their own acts. That apples grow on trees, isnt accession. Its successful fruiting.

so accrue successfully and get rich! but then, how does the mere accounting of a transaction by a book keeper up at "corporate" turn it into income? just cuz' she says so? I mean, I have successfully painted a few houses in my time, and accrued some value thereby. So what? Its my property and the government wasnt involved. But if someone randomly decides to "1099 it", now there's a controversy?

[Lambkin]

Have you been drinking this evening? If you can't make a coherent argument that will pass the smell test on Quatloos, God help you if you have the misfortune to repeat it in front of a judge.

Take a long hard look at what works and what doesn't. The hand-waving and semantic BS does not work. At best you get the "pity prize" which is acquittal of criminal charges because you are determined to be too dumb to intentionally break the law, while still having to pay in the end.

You don't get to analyze the law and decide what it means: the judge says what it means and then you are either found guilty of breaking it or not.

[Nikki]

A coherent argument

His last post struggled, unsuccessfully, to make a coherent SENTENCE.

Q5 to anyone who can translate that one into simple, comprehensible English for me, please

[gottago]

Okay, I just have to know...

Do ya'll PAY these doofusses (is that a word?) to come on here and post stuff like that?? These can't be just ordinary people who somehow wind up here...

Gottago

[Nikki]

Gottago

Perfecly ordinary people end up in very stragne places --- reflect, but absolutely no harm or insult intended.

Really strange people (many of the inhabitants of Sooey) end up in places something like nuclear fallout contaminating the entire planet.

But we actually do pay them. Both David and Farmer are on an allowance of five Liberty dollars per post.

[webhick]

Both David and Farmer are on an allowance of five Liberty dollars per post.

Wait...you're paying them in Libbies? The formulas in the pay grade manual make it pretty clear that they're supposed to be fed 6-12 Red Bulls per hour (depending on body weight). While we're at it, what exactly are you doing with that handler you requisitioned to force-feed them those Red Bulls? And don't say "indisposed," because it wasn't funny the last time I had get someone to sanitize your crime scene and get the cops off your ass and it certainly won't be funny when I take a back-hoe to your forehead for repeating your mistakes. Well, that last bit won't be funny for you.

Switch them to Red Bull now. Also, you won't be issued a new handler until you return all the pieces of the last one. And those pieces better fit together properly.

[Judge Roy Bean]

The mostly young, self-instructed "pilots" with lots of hours on their PC flight simulators are full of confidence in the right seat when they climb in for their first flight, but if you hand them the key to a real airplane they're not going to risk their lives.

Then there's people like Van Pelt and Farmer Giles; they'll make up stories about how they showed everyone how you're really supposed to handle the airplane.

It's easy when you're not risking you're own life and luring others into stealing a plane and taking off. When they crash and burn you simply blame them for not following your looney tunes instructions correctly.

[grixit]

Farmer Giles should go back to Ham.

[wserra]

A coherent argument

His last post struggled, unsuccessfully, to make a coherent SENTENCE.

Q5 to anyone who can translate that one into simple, comprehensible English for me, please

Why would these guys want to write anything comprehensible? That makes their nonsense almost trivial to refute, as we have seen repeatedly here over the last couple of days. The more specific they get, the more obvious it is that they are unable to cite anything in support of it other than themselves.

No, much better to write stuff like (from Giles' last post): "Glenshaw is interesting because it defines how one obtains income after all: by accession. which has got to be different than succession". Well, yeah, I guess it must also be different from recession, or precession, or secession, or rump session. Unanalyzeable gibberish is what the situation demands.

[LPC]

Okay, I just have to know...

Do ya'll PAY these doofusses (is that a word?) to come on here and post stuff like that??

Does the flame pay the moth?

[Nikki]

Both David and Farmer are on an allowance of five Liberty dollars per post.

Wait...you're paying them in Libbies? The formulas in the pay grade manual make it pretty clear that they're supposed to be fed 6-12 Red Bulls per hour (depending on body weight). While we're at it, what exactly are you doing with that handler you requisitioned to force-feed them those Red Bulls? And don't say "indisposed," because it wasn't funny the last time I had get someone to sanitize your crime scene and get the cops off your ass and it certainly won't be funny when I take a back-hoe to your forehead for repeating your mistakes. Well, that last bit won't be funny for you.

Switch them to Red Bull now. Also, you won't be issued a new handler until you return all the pieces of the last one. And those pieces better fit together properly.

First, I forgot to clearly state that they're getting the PAPER Libbie warehouse receipts -- you know, the ones which certify that you have a specific amount of metal in a certified, audited repository.

Now to the gist of the matter. It seems that your RFD box wasn't large enough to accept the parcel I sent you, the delivery service left it by the side of the road, and the contents were eaten by some of your free-range, pet, rabid raccoons. It contained the alleged handler you shipped to me -- or at least the parts -- with REFUSED FOR CAUSE tattooed diagonally across its torso. It was DEFECTIVE

Somehow it managed to turn on the TIVO and sit through two entire seasons of the Discovery Channel's Dinosaurs series. I found it sobbing on the floor, mumbling something about Nana and Poppop and asteroids. Before I could intervene, it began choking on its own phlegm and then started to perform an auto-tracheotomy. Actually that was going fairly well until it got confused trying to read the instructions in the mirror. Ugly and downhill rapidly from there.

Most importantly, did its behavior void its warranty?